Talk:Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Anti-Zionism
editBDS is anti-Zionist, is it not? It is opposed to Zionism, right? This seems like a rather easy thing to prove, as I have here and here. If those two edits are not acceptable, could somebody tell me where the goalpost is and may I ask that it stay there? Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia cannot state as a fact that BDS is anti-Zionist (a claim our Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions article doesn't make, by the way) unless you can find objective reliable sources that say it is. Good luck with that. If you want to attribute the opinion that BDS is anti-Zionist, go ahead. See WP:INTEXT. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'll do that if you want, but instead of reverting, couldn't you have rewrote my edit in a way that satisfies both of us? That would have been more in line with the spirit of collaboration, no? --GHcool (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, must it be a matter of opinion" when something is definitional? For example, Do not buy Russian goods! is under "Category:Anti-Russian sentiment," Boycott Chinese products is under "Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment," and Chinese boycotts of Japanese products is under "Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in China." Shouldn't this logic extend to calls to boycott of Israel being under "Category:Anti-Zionism?" --GHcool (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Los Angeles Times and New Criterion
editWhy was this done? Neither sentence that was reverted was an "opinion masquerading as fact." Both were cited to reliable sources (the Los Angeles Times and New Criterion). I intend on restoring the edit within the next couple of days unless a reasonable explanation is given or a reasonable alternative use of these sources is given. --GHcool (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- A fact is something that is postulated to have occurred or to be correct. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
- An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive. It may deal with subjective matters in which there is no conclusive finding. What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are more likely to be verifiable, i.e. can be agreed to by the consensus of experts.
- "Furthermore, the highly public reputation-destroying results of the American Studies Association, who adopted BDS policies, have deterred other academic organizations from following suit." Fact or opinion? Think before you answer. If you restore it to the article without proper attribution, it will be removed again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is attribution all you ask for? If it is, I'll gladly provide proper attribution if you agree not to remove it again. --GHcool (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- This article is about reactions to BDS, which are generally opinions. It's a fact that xx of the 50 United States have adopted laws or resolutions criticizing or outlawing BDS. But saying that supporting BDS destroyed the reputation of an organization, which has deterred other groups from supporting it, is an opinion that—according to policy—needs to be attributed. It can't be stated as if it were a fact. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll restore and attribute as you requested. Thank you for your cooperation. --GHcool (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- This article is about reactions to BDS, which are generally opinions. It's a fact that xx of the 50 United States have adopted laws or resolutions criticizing or outlawing BDS. But saying that supporting BDS destroyed the reputation of an organization, which has deterred other groups from supporting it, is an opinion that—according to policy—needs to be attributed. It can't be stated as if it were a fact. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Merger proposal
editHello. GHcool has added tags proposing that the Anti-BDS laws article be merged into this article. I'm starting this talk page section so that interested editors can discuss the merger proposal here. I would also invite GHcool to explain why they proposed the merger. Having this discussion would follow the usual procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Merging. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Mudwater. I proposed the merger because these two articles largely cover the same/similar material. The anti-BDS laws are arguably some of the most important/newsworthy reactions to BDS. --GHcool (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose merge on the grounds of WP:TOOBIG; Anti-BDS laws, at 182k, it too big to merge elsewhere. Klbrain (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)