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: You must be logged-in and making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic 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. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process . Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority Palestine C‑class Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

BDS 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)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot state as a fact that BDS is anti-Zionist (a claim our

WP:INTEXT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Furthermore, must it be a matter of opinion" when something is definitional? For example,

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)[reply

]

Why 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)[reply]

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

proper attribution, it will be removed again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Fair enough. I'll restore and attribute as you requested. Thank you for your cooperation. --GHcool (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]