→Antisemitism Category: Consensus. |
→Antisemitism Category: counting... |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
@Malik Shabazz The consensus is 3:1 that this category belongs here. I noticed that you warned GHcool on his talkpage not to edit before consensus is establish, per WP:ARBPIA, but I think he did so and that consensus has now been established, in favor of adding the category. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 22:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
@Malik Shabazz The consensus is 3:1 that this category belongs here. I noticed that you warned GHcool on his talkpage not to edit before consensus is establish, per WP:ARBPIA, but I think he did so and that consensus has now been established, in favor of adding the category. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 22:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
:{{reply|Debresser}} [[WP:CON|Consensus]] is not a vote. <del>I would have posted sooner</del>, but when I saw you'd posted the relevant guideline link I honestly quit reading - it hadn't occurred to me that you'd promptly jump to this conclusion after reading the guideline and posting your 4/23 comment, and Igorberger and I had been sparring enough that I thought my [further] posting here could be distracting. [[Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles]] is very clear: |
|||
:''Categorization must also maintain a '''[[Wikipedia:NPOV|neutral point of view]]'''. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.'' |
|||
:''A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the '''[[WP:DEFINING|defining]]''' characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] ''commonly'' and ''consistently'' define in prose, <small>as opposed to a tabular or list form</small> the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.'' |
|||
:Prior to adding such a controversial category, the onus is on the editors supporting addition to demonstrate that both of these stringent requirements have been met, and the category is both neutral and defining. That demonstration most definitely has not happened, and your claim of "consensus" here is premature. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 01:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, I '''did''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABoycott%2C_Divestment_and_Sanctions&type=revision&diff=776779604&oldid=776779138 post] earlier, so your assessment of 3:1 was also inaccurate. The way it is threaded it is easy to miss though; I glossed over it just before now, too. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 02:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:01, 27 April 2017
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Overall proposal
I propose the following overhaul of the article:
Main article:
- Focus on the BDS movement as organisation; responses in Israel; responses in Palestine. May include independent secondary sources about the movement, as proposed by Malik Shabazz.
- Summary sections on specific issues, such as Academic boycotts (with subpages if appropriate).
- Summarized criticism section
Subpages:
- BDS in the United States, chronologically in principle
- BDS in the international community, chronologically in principle (with subpages if appropriate). May include personal responses by notable individuals or organizations, not specifically representing their home country, but only if notable.
- For balance there should be a proportionate section on the Anti-BDS Movement. A quick Google shows that this is a notable phenomenon, with numerous organisations and websites. Keith McClary (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, but no more than a section, because this article is about the BDS, not the anti-BDS. Debresser (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- I frankly do not see how the 2 are separable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, but no more than a section, because this article is about the BDS, not the anti-BDS. Debresser (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose pending explication. This proposed overhaul is so vague, that I fail to understand how anyone can endorse, oppose or tweak it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per E.M. Gregory. --GHcool (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Explanation My agreement is with the proposal to add a section about the anti-BSD movement to this article. I have no idea what the proposing editor meant by "subpages", but if he meant "sections", then he is simply proposing to add some structure to this article, and that is fine with me. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Spanish city council
A Spanish city council supported the BDS: [1] 92.59.212.16 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is that noteworthy? If we are going to list every city, state and country that supports or specifically rejects BDS, we should create a separate article for that. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2017 - Update for the United States
United States
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed into law his state's anti-BDS legislation on January 10, 2017, making Michigan the first state to pass anti-BDS legislation that year.[1]
As of January 10 2017, the number of states that have passed anti-BDS legislation rose to 17.[2] Sarvathi (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Michigan becomes latest state to pass anti-BDS legislation". JNS.org. 2017-01-10. Retrieved 2017-02-04.
- ^ "Anti-Semitism: State Anti-BDS Legislation (January 2017)". Jewish Virtual Library. January 2017. Retrieved 2017-02-04.
- Could all of the U.S. states in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions article which passed anti-BDS legislation be listed? They currently number 17 and are not many, so I think they can all be listed for now, until the number increases to 20 or 25 states sometime in the future, as there are anti-BDS drafts pending. Thank you. Sarvathi (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017
Please add the following two Supportive of BDS links, https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/boycott-divestment-and-sanctions/jvp-supports-the-bds-movement/ http://www.ijan.org/tag/bds/ because many Jews have supported BDS from the beginning. It is important to show that it is a Jewish issue as well. Larryzweig (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Antisemitism Category
Can someone tell me why there is no Antisemitism category tag on this article, being that Wikipedia is unbiased and Neutral? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Antisemitism VQuakr Igor Berger (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO - Categories are supposed to be uncontroversial. As discussed in the article text, allegations that this subject is antisemitic are the subject of mainstream discussion and debate, so such a category would not be appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please see WP:CAT#Articles. Adding this article to Category:Antisemitism would be neither verifiable nor in accordance with NPOV. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Since there is a Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Allegations_of_antisemitism, the Category:Antisemitism is relevant. Adding it would not mean an endorsement of BDS as antisemitism, rather that this article contains information that is antisemitism-related, which in view of that section is completely correct. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, you're mistaken. Please read the guideline I linked to above, which says (in part): "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." The article is in Category:Boycotts of Israel. Virtually every boycott in that category has been alleged to be an antisemitic boycott, but the category, and the boycotts, aren't in Category:Antisemitism. Neither should this article be. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- The sentence "if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate" refers to something else, nl. to preferring an article with a list of subjects over the creation of a category.
- What is perhaps more relevant in this case is "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". That may not be applicable in this case. Although the connection between BDS and antisemitism is indeed often made in sources, sources do not agree that it is a defining characteristic.
- By the way, I saw the more general discussion at WT:JUDAISM, but made only this one edit, because in cases where the antisemitism category is a parent category, obviously here is no need to add it.
- Let's discuss this some more, and perhaps I can be convinced that the category is not appropriate. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Debresser. Conversion of the Jews, Down and Out in Paris and London, Jewish lobby, and other articles categorized under Category:Antisemitism have discussion within the article on the appropriateness of labeling the concept as antisemitic. Reasonable people can disagree on those three and reasonable people can disagree about BDS, where there is extensive discussion about its antisemitic character (or lack thereof). --GHcool (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, you're mistaken. Please read the guideline I linked to above, which says (in part): "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." The article is in Category:Boycotts of Israel. Virtually every boycott in that category has been alleged to be an antisemitic boycott, but the category, and the boycotts, aren't in Category:Antisemitism. Neither should this article be. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz The consensus is 3:1 that this category belongs here. I noticed that you warned GHcool on his talkpage not to edit before consensus is establish, per WP:ARBPIA, but I think he did so and that consensus has now been established, in favor of adding the category. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Debresser: Consensus is not a vote.
I would have posted sooner, but when I saw you'd posted the relevant guideline link I honestly quit reading - it hadn't occurred to me that you'd promptly jump to this conclusion after reading the guideline and posting your 4/23 comment, and Igorberger and I had been sparring enough that I thought my [further] posting here could be distracting. Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles is very clear: - Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.
- A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.
- Prior to adding such a controversial category, the onus is on the editors supporting addition to demonstrate that both of these stringent requirements have been met, and the category is both neutral and defining. That demonstration most definitely has not happened, and your claim of "consensus" here is premature. VQuakr (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)