Talk:Academic boycott of Israel

message: Here are additional primary sources for criticism or opponents.  --Deodar 03:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now integrated most of the specific sources above.  --Deodar 05:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Primary Sources

message: Professor Klug  writes in the Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights about the academic boycott, in particular the analogy to the South African boycotts:
In short, the intention of the Natfhe motion - what it seeks and why - is obscure. But even if the policy and rationale were clear and unambiguous, there is a deeper problem with motions of this sort that prevents them from attracting a broad base of support: they rely on the false (or limited) analogy implied by the word "apartheid"...But as I have argued elsewhere: "The validity of the analogy does not depend on a catalogue of atrocities, however appalling".
In terms of history and motivation, the differences between the two situations are greater than the similarities. And in the end, any political action that is aimed at ameliorating the conditions of the Palestinians must be based on an analysis - not an analogy.--LeflymanTalk 05:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a long quote from him that best covers his core objection -- I think....  There is already some coverage of issues with regards to SA comparisons at the bottom of the article.  Feel free to just contribute to the article directly.  --Deodar 05:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We need to find the original source for that piece.  The content looks legit but it is, as it stands right now, just a message board post.  --Deodar 05:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *That is "a" source; the board is part of the group he helped found. However, here's a source from The Guardian UK that can be used in lieu: .--LeflymanTalk 09:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Klug's criticism of  boycott 

message: I am unsure how best to structure the article.  There are key events that should be covered chronologically.  The problem is that the responses to them are repetitive and could best be pulled together and organized topically.  But at least some of the repetitive response to the events is necessary though in the chronological coverage in order to explain why events and people responded as they did.  As a test, I have moved towards a full chronological organization.  The result is that the thorough coverage of the themes in the responses is lost.  Its a tough issue to which I don't have a good solution at the moment.  Thoughts?--Deodar 05:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing chronological verse topical article structure 

message: These should probably be documented in the article content in some way:
* Palestinian: Palestinian campaign for the academic and cultural boycott of Israel
* Irish: James Bowen, Making Israel take responsibility, Haaretz, September 15, 2006.
--Deodar 00:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More boycott efforts 

message: Which template is most appropriate is the question?  I put on the "Arab-Israeli conflict" template initially but since then I have collobrated in the creation of the new "Israel-Palestinian Conflict" template.  I just put on the "Israel-Palestinian Conflict" template today.  Humus sapiens has just reverted that change claiming the Arab-Israeli conflict template is more pertinent.  I disagree since the academic boycotts are specifically related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict not the wider Arab-Israeli conflict.  Although I do agree that the economic boycotts are more Arab-Israeli conflict related, but that is not the topic of this article.  The difference between the economic and academic boycotts is that the academic boycotts are mostly British and Europe rather than other Arab countries.  I would encourage Humus sapiens to explain his reasoning for changing the template... I might be missing something.  --Deodar 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the two conflicts are indeed related, the IPC is a subset of the wider AIC. The boycotts are only tangentially pro-Palestinian and even some Palestinian academics find them unhelpful: Palestinian academic opposes Israel boycott. The boycotts are just another weapon in the global war against Israel, therefore the AIC is more pertinent here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We could just as easily put the anti-Semitism template on this. I think templates should not be used when there's a debate about which one would be most appropriate in terms of NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very oddly written article. It's basically a list with little narrative, which makes it hard to read or make sense of. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome your contributions SlimVirgin, collaborative editing usually results in higher quality results.  --Deodar 22:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its Friday evening were I am thus I got stuff to do.  I'll give some feedback on your changes tomorrow or Monday.  Have fun and thanks for the help.  --Deodar 23:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which template: "Israel-Palestinian Conflict" vs "Arab-Israeli conflict" 

message: I just removed the following sentence:
:The Mona Baker case intervened (see below), which caused several leading academics to distance themselves from the proposal, including Richard Dawkins and Sir Colin Blakemore of Oxford University. Gerstenfeld, Manfred. "The Academic Boycott Against Israel", Jewish Political Studies Review 15:3-4 (Fall 2003). 
The main issue is that according to the Guardian's corrections to this article, , Richard Dawkins and Colin Blakemore were mentioned as supporting and then distancing themselves from the petition erroneously.
:"Recently, some articles have begun to confuse who has signed up to which of two texts critical of Israel and mounted on a joint website.  To try to clarify as succinctly as possible: what Oxford professors Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins endorsed with others was the call for Europeans to suspend scientific grants and contracts until Israelis "abide by UN resolutions and open serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians"."
Neither of them had originally signed or voiced their support for the petition in which Mona Baker was involved.  Unless we find original sources showing their support and then their pulling of it, it would be best to classify them as just critics of that proposal.  --Deodar 05:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Dawkins & Colin Blakemore 

message: Hi there,
The opening of this article mentions an "Irish group" that is pushing for the boycott as well. I'd love it if the article could add a little more information about this - there's not much right now. What group is this? Does it have any relationship with the UK groups calling for the boycott? Have they had much success? Could there be some quotes / links to their information and site? Many thanks. Harpo Hermes 10:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Irish group" 

message: IronDuke, I don't want to get into a hopeless edit war over this, but the entire world except the US and Israel considers the West Bank and Gaza "occupied." They were taken by force of arms in '67 and never relinquished. They are de facto "occupied territories" any way you look at it. Removing the word "occupied" in favour of "territories" is itself a statement of POV. I'm not going to revert your edit, but I would like to make it perfectly clear that I strongly object to it. Third party? Famousdog 14:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaza? Kope 14:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Famousdog 14:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I checked, Gaza and parts of the West Bank were ruled by the Palestinian Authority, and was not occupied by Israelis. In any case, the term is disputed, and all anyone has to do to see the nature of the dispute is to click on West Bank. This war has already been fought here. On a side note, you seem to have followed me to another article I was editing. If this was a coincidence, we need say no more about it. If you did deliberately follow me, please don't do it again. IronDuke 03:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ruled"? (snigger) Hardly. But this is not the place for that discussion. Sticking to the topic of this page, Sue Blackwell, I am interested in this topic because I was present at the AUT EGM that overturned the boycott - that's why I'm watching both these pages, that's why I saw both your edits. So how about an apology for your baseless accusation that I'm stalking you? Regarding th content change, I left in the reference to antisemitism because a citation is provided. Add a reliable citation for the rascism accusation and I'll be perfectly happy to leave that in as well. Famousdog 13:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit puzzled by your response. The "topic of this page" is not Sue Blackwell, it's the use of the word "occupied." As you've neither responded to my arguments nor reverted, I'm happy to call the matter closed. As to your contention that you found your way to a page you had never edited before and partially reverted an edit of mine a few hours after reverting me here, well, I'm going to AGF and trust that your explanation is true in every particular. As I said above, "If this was a coincidence, we need say no more about it." And indeed, from your response, I feel confident that no more such coincidences will arise in future. As I have accused you of nothing, I cannot see what there is to apologize for; I certainly did not intend to hurt your feelings. IronDuke 23:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "this page" I meant the article (Academic boycotts of Israel) to which this talk page is related. I was suggesting that we should stick to the topic of Academic boycotts of Israel. The wider issue of the validity/legality/etc. of Israel's occupation of the WB, Gaza and GH is beyond the scope of the article. Hope that's clearer. Famousdog 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Occupation" 

message: If you have evidence that academic boycotts are always antisemitic in nature, provide it. Otherwise, its insulting and offensive. Famousdog 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said "always"? See strawman argument. As for "insulting and offensive", that is your POV. See WP:NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay... if you have evidence that a particular academic boycott is antisemitic in nature, provide it. Otherwise, its original research. Is that NPOV enough for you? Famousdog 20:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New antisemitism 

message: What is the significance of the Lasson paper? Where was it published? Why is it relevant? Famousdog 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a scholarly resource. See WP:EL. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is its relevance to this wikipedia article? Wikipedia is not a collection of links! See What wikipedia is not.Famousdog 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kenneth Lasson paper 

message: Sorry, but I have to remove this section citing a press release by SPME with the title "OVER 11,300 SCHOLARS..." In the very first paragraph they accuse the UCU of "promoting" the boycott. As I have repeatedly emphasised, UCU passed a motion calling for consultation of the membership on the possibility of a boycott. Please read Motion 30. Frankly SPME's "press release" (and the rest of their website, which emphasises combatting anti-Semitism over any discussion of "peace") strikes me as a little shrill, and as a matter of course I mistrust most 501(C)(3) "interest" groups. Famousdog 13:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that the press release is a good source for the fact that this petition/call/joint letter has been issued. Its existence should be mentioned, but not in too much detail, as its significance in the debate is yet to emerge. If the petitioners have made an error of fact, as I believe they have, in saying that the UCU is promoting the idea of a boycott, then the best course of action at this stage is probably to leave out or downplay those parts of the statement that are in error. Itsmejudith 17:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual errors in SPME source 

message: This article claims to be about international boycotts of Israel, but the only examples it mentions are from the UK. Is this because it's only in Britain that such proposals have been taken seriously? I would expect that there must be other countries that have at some stage carried out or considered academic boycotts of Israel, like the Arab countries, but I may be wrong. In any case, I think this article badly needs a more globalised view to make it clear whether or not this is a purely British phenomenon. Terraxos (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation is that at the moment the proposals are largely being made in the UK. Of course the media in the Levant is closely following the debates. There could well be an extension of the proposals to North America or other parts of Europe in the near future. Please feel free to add a sentence to explain that it is currently a UK phenomenon. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK bias? 

message: I need to explain my thinking in moving the criticism section later. This was one step in a radical restructuring of the whole article that I think should be done. For two reasons I don't want to go ahead and do the restructuring in one go: a) it is not something that I find very easy to do - I find it easier to work incrementally - and b) it is not a very good way to get consensus. 
Why do I think the whole article needs restructuring? Because presenting a whole load of criticism right at the front of the article is not conducive to NPOV. On the other hand, the article must reflect accurately how these proposals have been received, and it is fair to say that they have on the whole been received negatively. When I say "on the whole", I mean that that is the overall effect when many different viewponts are taken together. There have been a range of responses from "great idea" through "perhaps, but", to "no thanks, not a good idea", "appalling suggestion" and "outrageous, antisemitic". All of these need to be mentioned. 
There are various possibilities for the article structure. 
1) Many good articles on controversial subjects do not have a separate criticism section at all but interweave all the relevant points of view through the whole discussion. This might work well on this article. Under each subheading we would explain what the proposal was and then how the controversy developed. When presenting statements by Tony Blair etc., we would have to be sure which proposal they followed. 
2) Change the "Criticism" heading to "Responses". In that section present the favourable views first, then the mixed ones, then the unfavourable ones. If we adopt this structure it will not be appropriate to match the criticisms with the counter-arguments by the boycott proponents. All the proponents' views will have to be grouped together at the start of the article before the Responses. 
3) Again, have a "Responses" section but group the different opinions under headings such as "Criticism that boycotts are antisemitic" and "Boycotts and academic freedom". This would be easier to do on this article than on some others, as the points made do seem to fall into groups. However, it might too easily lead us into the trap of original synthesis. 
Hope this helps. Looking forward to reading people's views on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, Judith. For me, what makes this article so frustrating is that it covers a number of discrete events over years, making it very hard for the casual reader to follow. For a while, I was even wondering if they should be spun off into daughter articles, with a master article as a kind of portal spinning people off into each one, but I'm not really wild about it. Whatever the case ends up being, I think we need to entertwine the crit with the text. For example, "Boycott X happened in Year Y. Crticism was voiced against it at the time [give cite] and at a later time. Support was voiced and/or critcism of the criticism at Time X." In terms of who gets the last word in each section, I guess it could be whatever has the latest timestamp on it.  Was that clear or hopelessly muddled? IronDuke 23:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's a fine summary of what I was trying to say. The thing now is getting round to doing it.... Itsmejudith (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering 

message: Given prominent South Africans' use of the term, it's hardly even controversial. If Desmond Tutu says it's like apartheid, I'm sorry, but it is. It doesn't mean the criticism isn't notable or can just be discarded, but the article's written as if it's a few radical anti-semite Nazi wants to kill all Jews have made the comparison. It's not. I wouldn't be surprised if a rough analogy is the majority opinion in the South African anti-apartheid community. I'm sorry if I value Desmond Tutu's understanding of South African apartheid a hell of a lot better than I value Alan Dershowitz's. --Jammoe (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If Desmond Tutu says it's like apartheid, I'm sorry, but it is. Are you serious? Kope (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he is, but this is not the place to discuss the substantive issue. Both Tutu's and Dershowitz's opinions are relevant and can be mentioned without us wikipedians having to weigh in. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are some 200 countries in the world with lots of politicians having opinion on this matter who are not connected to the topic. Should we include them all? How about my opinion? What about other articles? Kope (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the opinions of the politicians that are relevant, but their public statements that have received news coverage. We only report those statements for which we have an independent source. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the opinion of a politician is always public and receives news coverage. Even then, I don't think that someone's opinion should be mentioned as a fact, as Jammoe suggests. Do you think that it is me and not Jammoe who wants to discuss substative issue? Kope (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Politicians would love it if all their opinions received news coverage. In their dreams. Tutu is not a politician, of course, but a religious leader of world stature. I think his view is worth including but it should be attributed to him and not to WP. I was worried that Jammoe's post was going to lead to a discussion of the substantive issue so I came in to guide us back to topic. Unless there is a clear proposal for an amendment to the article we have to leave the discussion here. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unfair comparison" w/SA Apartheid 

message: May I add the Jewish ethnicity of Weingarten to the article? And Summers, too.Pinocchio3000 (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than asking a question, it would be more useful if you could explain why this information is necessary to the article.--Soulparadox (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

text: It would help to explain why they stand up for Israel. It helps readers understand the situation better. Now tell me, why are you opposing this?Pinocchio3000 (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so it seems that your implication is that individuals who are Jewish oppose boycotts against Israel solely, or mainly, because they are Jewish (i.e. this "explain[s] why they stand up for Israel") and that you want to note this fact in order to "help readers understand the situation better?"  Do any of the sources cited here support your hypothesis? Do any of the sources cited claim or suggest that Weingarten and Summers' "stand up for Israel" because of their Jewish ancestry? If this is your own personal conclusion, then it is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

text: It doesn't help to explain anything. Only an individual can explain why they "stand up for Israel", to use your phrase. All sorts of people support or oppose the boycott for all sorts of reasons. If an individual's position on the boycott issue is dependent on their ethnicity, you will need a source where the person explicitly says that is the case. We're dealing with living people and we can't imply or decide on their behalf the factors that resulted in their adopting their personal view on the boycott issue or any issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add the statement "these people are Jewish so they are biased about Israel" to the article. I want to mention the facts so they can decide for themselves. Let me put it this way: Are the changes I'm trying to make breaking any rules?Pinocchio3000 (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to mention facts based on what decision procedure ? There are an infinite number of facts. You selected the ethnicity of some people who oppose the boycott. Why not their favorite color so readers can decide for themselves whether that was pertinent to their position on the boycott ? You need a policy/reliable source based reason to select information or else there is no reason for it to be there, other than that you think it is pertinent. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning roots of some people involved in this affair 

message: While researching through various pages to understand boycott and divestment as an artist this one sidedness of those links out seemed inappropriate. Seemed like there would have been a few or half going the other way. 
Kraig Richard is moltenmedia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.177.132 (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are simply wrong, check again. The purpose of all links in this article is to serve as sources for the information in it. If you'd like to add or suggest a few new ones, please do so. -Shalom11111 (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They are probably talking about the external links, all of which apart from pacbi.org are anti-boycott. To translate what they are saying into Wiki-speak, this is a violation of mandatory NPOV policy (see WP:UNDUE section) and the WP:EL guideline. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now. So the editor who added those links may have violated a policy. But notice how it specifically says above them "Official Stop the Boycott campaign publication", it didn't say something like "Websites about the Boycott campaigns." A big difference. -Shalom11111 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Big difference ? Not really. It's just nationalists unethically exploiting a charity. Happens everyday in this topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, really. I just don't understand why you're not editing or changing the "external links" section instead of complaining about it. -Shalom11111 (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links all lead to anti boycott groups 

message: Students make statements all the time. To say a student group or student representatives voted to support such a thing is not notable. The University of Wisconsin is a nuclear-free zone, is it included in non-proliferation articles? No. This addition adds nothing to the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And why just this universities' students? Are we going to turn this into a list of all student orgs/reps that participate? The question answers itself. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do many univesities possess nuclear weapons? I thought universities were academic institutions and that an academic boycott of Israel might be related to this article. Why remove Witts while keeping so many other universities' responses? Sepsis II (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

text: It's not clear how you are measuring notability. You've made an assertion that appears to be based on a personal view rather than one that employs the method used by Wikipedia where weight is assessed via the presence or absence of information in reliable sources. The Israeli media and other media like JTA, Forward etc often provide what is in effect free advertising to BDS by reporting decisions like this and hosting related opinion pieces, so it might be worth looking for more sources before deciding that this does not qualify as notable. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Students and student groups are not universities. One brief AP note does not make this worthy of inclusion.Capitalismojo (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many, many student groups and student governmments around the world that have voted for this that are not listed in this article. Thus, again, why is this notable? Capitalismojo (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes something worthy of inclusion ? Can you describe how you would decide when this information crosses the line between non-notable and notable. Please be specific. Also, do you think a similar procedure should be used to exclude opinions only published by one source given that there are many, many opinions on this issue and the article has some of them. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would think it is notable when academic institutions,universities, and national or international academic bodies commence a boycott. Student groups or student government orgs are not. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions as refs? I am unclear which you are speaking of. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A very quick search shows that, aside from AP, this boycott decision instance received coverage by Ynet, JPost, JTA, Times of Israel, Algemeiner, Haaretz and INN. It probably received more coverage but I stopped looking after a couple of minutes. Your position seems to be that decisions by student bodies are inherently non-notable even when reported by RS. This decision method doesn't appear be consistent with policy i.e. WP:UNDUE. To clarify the question about opinions, I was asking whether you think an opinion about the topic of this article (reported by RS) should be treated the same way as a decision by a student body (reported by RS) i.e. should opinions also be treated as inherently non-notable by default in this article and therefore excluded (given that there are so many opinions about this issue) unless they meet some kind of criteria e.g. the opinion received coverage from more than a certain number of RS ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions can be notable. It depends. Perhaps you could start a new section on the opinions you believe are not notable. The noteworthiness of students as opposed to universities and academic institutions is clear. I have found many, many, many other student orgs/govs voting or announcing similar positions. They are not listed here. This is an article not a blog or list. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding "The noteworthiness of students as opposed to universities and academic institutions is clear."...it's not clear to me. What I see is evidence of the notability of a piece of information established by RS coverage, the only method I can use to measure notability according to policy vs an assertion based on a belief. How do you suggest we resolve this given that notability can't be measured according to an editor's beliefs ? Regarding "I have found many, many, many other student orgs/govs voting or announcing similar positions. They are not listed here." But the absence of information from an article doesn't tell you anything and the notability of a piece of information in Wikipedia isn't normalized based on the size of a set to which it belongs e.g. the notability of an event, a crime for example, doesn't depend on the crime rate, it just depends on the amount of coverage that particular event received. If a student org's decision received no RS coverage it's invisible to Wikipedia. If it was widely reported it was regarded as notable by RS. The notability of each student org's decision is independent of the notability of all other student org's decisions and only dependent on the extent to which each decision was covered by RS. RS coverage is the method Wikipedia employs to establish notability. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And my point is that it is easy to find mainstream RS refs for many other student groups actions that are not listed here. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witts students voting for academic boycotts : Non-notable 

message: In response to various comments on this page regarding the confusing ordering of the article (see comments: Deodar from September 2006, Terraxos from May 2008, and Itsmejudith from July 2008) I propose a new structure for the U.S. section. My plan is to begin the section with an official statement from the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) clearly stating the goals and mission of the U.S. based academic boycott movement. Following this will be a a section titled "succeses" in which I will present a discussion of the associations, departments, individual academics, and other groups whose support for the boycott movement has been reflected in political action. As per the opinion that the article needs a clearer and simpler structure, as well as a more balanced NPOV, voiced by both Itsmejudith and  Ironduke in July 2008, I want to end the section with the criticisms already present in the article. I think that this might be a good way to bolster the U.S. section, as much of the support and success is coming out of that region, while simulataneously giving a bit more structure and clarity to the article. --Gabriellaskoff (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Structuring of U.S. section

message: Hyperionsteel , your deletion of the information added under the United States heading of Boycott Campaign is not in accordance with any specific Wikipedia standards or guidelines, as I did not post any “promotional material”, but rather cited from a notable source, as I had claimed I was doing on both the talk page for this article as well as in the sentences preceding the quotes (see original revision as of 01:58, 27 March 2014). Having cited my source, the quotation is entirely acceptable, following Wikipedia’s guidelines regarding External Links, which states: “External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article.” Furthermore, the information which you have deleted augmented the NPOV of the article by stating clearly and plainly in the organization’s own words exactly what their goal and mission is. I find that your deletion of my edit is unjustifiable and I have thus proceeded to “undo” your edit. For future reference, please state a valid source of reason as to why you chose to delete a large portion of explanatory text that does not come into conflict with any of Wikipedia’s rules and/or regulations.--Gabriellaskoff (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyperionsteel deletion of large portion of text

message: To avoid duplication, I've removed most of the information regarding the controversy between "Mona Baker, Miriam Shlesinger and Gideon Toury" and replaced it with a "main article" link. Since a detailed account of both sides of this issue is already available in Mona Baker's Wikipedia article Mona Baker#Middle East conflict and Israeli academics, it doesn't need to be repeated here.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of information from "Mona Baker, Miriam Shlesinger and Gideon Toury" section

message: This section, about just one union in one smallish country, is ridiculously long & tedious. It is article-length in itself. I suggest it is either heavily cut or moved to its own article (or the University and College Union article).Ben Finn (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: University and College Union

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Academic boycott of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060130124019/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kis/unions/aut/council.htm to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kis/unions/aut/council.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the "Comparisons to academic boycotts of South Africa" section it is said that "Hillary and Stephen Rose in Nature" make a comparison, here is the source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6886/full/417221b.html. The source of the response is http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6890/full/417690a.html. I suggest that someone with access to the first checks if the argument there can be summarized in the same fashion as the second. Davidsevilla | Talk 13:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to add sources to two Nature letters (links here) 

message: There's still more fat to trim.  Unless I hear any objections, I intend on making the following trims:
#Remove the two sentences beginning with "The major potential" until "from within Europe." 
#Remove paranthetical sentence beginning with "No other Middle" 
#Remove the two sentences beginning with "The meeting was" until "outside this meeting" 
#Remove the second resolution in the "National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education" section and make the 1st paragraph flow more elegantly into the second 
#Remove the sentence about Frank Wilczek. 
#Begin the Brian Klug quote with the sentence that begins with "But even if" 
#Remove the sentence that begins "Paul Mackney, the" 
#Remove the sentence that begins "It shared the goals" 
#Remove the sentence that begins "Out of the 9,359" 
#Remove the sentence that begins "In this sense, they do contribute" 
--GHcool (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Phase 2

message: There's still more fat to trim.  Unless I hear any objections, I intend on making the following trims:
#Remove the sentence that begins "On 30 June 2011" 
#Remove the sentence that begins "The campaign for" 
#Remove the "Israel" section 
#Remove the bulleted list in the "Criticism" section 
#Remove "Academic boycott of South Africa" and "Academic freedom" from "See Also" section 
--GHcool (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Phase 3

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Academic boycott of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.aut.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1684
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613014726/http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf to http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf
*Added  tag to http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/14/steve-janke-cupe-pulls-ryan-proposal-from-union-web-site.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Academic boycott of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202031820/http://www.egs.edu/faculty/judith-butler/articles/israel-palestine-paradoxes-of-academic-freedom/ to http://www.egs.edu/faculty/judith-butler/articles/israel-palestine-paradoxes-of-academic-freedom/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090826051726/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1928865.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1928865.ece
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0%2C%2C1490444%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003092844/http://www.sott.net/articles/show/164818-Anti-semitism-British-Academia-and-the-Israel-Lobby to http://www.sott.net/articles/show/164818-Anti-semitism-British-Academia-and-the-Israel-Lobby
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160731173103/http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2058 to http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2058%23
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928092610/http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/comment.php?id=2072 to http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/comment.php?id=2072
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721070958/http://www.iengage.org.uk/component/content/article/1-news/218-academics-write-to-the-guardian-israel-must-lose to http://www.iengage.org.uk/component/content/article/1-news/218-academics-write-to-the-guardian-israel-must-lose
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120053641/http://artsresearch.brighton.ac.uk/research/academic/hickey to http://artsresearch.brighton.ac.uk/research/academic/hickey
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505151815/http://www.liv.ac.uk/ltwc/personnel/martin.htm to http://www.liv.ac.uk/ltwc/personnel/martin.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140318095635/http://www.theasa.net//from_the_editors//item//council_statement_on_the_academic_boycott_of_israel_resolution// to http://www.theasa.net/from_the_editors/item/council_statement_on_the_academic_boycott_of_israel_resolution/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110213221324/http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/boycott_divestment_campus_09.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_2 to http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/boycott_divestment_campus_09.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823064257/http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1144758 to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1144758
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706192031/http://www.cupe.on.ca/doc.php?document_id=658&lang=en to http://www.cupe.on.ca/doc.php?document_id=658&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823063128/http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1148748 to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1148748
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've added a quote from the UCU judgement in 2013. The preceding section goes into some details as to the events that preceded and led up to the court action, most of it from the POV of the complainants. The fact that their case was comprehensively dismissed and that the Tribunal was so scathing as to the emptiness of their case and critical of their motives in bringing it is an important counterpoint. I believe it should stay because of WP:BALANCE.Steve3742 (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from UCU judgement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Academic boycott of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://alternativenews.org/images/stories/downloads/Economy_of_the_occupation_23-24.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925004831/http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4826_62.htm to http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4826_62.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927221627/http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2030206 to http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2030206
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005193640/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/03/12/1003651/aft-rejects-academic-boycott-of-israel to http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/12/1003651/aft-rejects-academic-boycott-of-israel
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090618082354/http://australianbdscampaign.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/australian-university-students-support-bds-campaign/ to http://australianbdscampaign.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/australian-university-students-support-bds-campaign/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823113949/http://www.jwire.com.au/news/sydney-students-call-for-israel-boycott/1516 to http://www.jwire.com.au/news/sydney-students-call-for-israel-boycott/1516
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified