Talk:Students for Justice in Palestine

POV

Current article intro reads SJP is dedicated to educate their respective campuses on the injustice that has taken place in Palestine and that continues to do so on a daily basis.. That's more suited to a campaign flyer than an encyclopedia article IMO. Andrewa 13:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

>>> Typical of these organisations, the name (Justice in Palestine) is the antithesis of its purpose!

Or perhaps they mean that the Jews should have justice, that International Law which recognises the rights of the Jewish people to Palestine should be enforced.

Or perhaps by Palestine they mean Israel as it was the Roman Empire which coined the name in 135AD to replace the name of Israel and Judea.

No, this organisation exists to portray the Arabs as victims rather than invaders and conquerers who wish to destroy the Jewish homeland and take it for themselves.

The 'Big Lie' is a very powerful weapon which the Arabs learned from the Nazi's. >>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.150.169 (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No. The Arabs were living there then the Zionists in 1948 decided they wanted to take Palestine for themselves. The Jews were thinking about making Madagascar their homeland but later decided Israel. The Jews also like to demolish entire villages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.133.164 (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow! So much for wanting to be unbiased. Providing a balanced description by adding a section for how this group is percuieved v. how they define themselves may be helpful in maintaining neutrality. Blackmartian (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign sjp chapter establishment date

A "citation needed" tag has been in place since December 2009 regarding the sentence:

"There is some dispute as to its origin, as a Students for Justice in Palestine existed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign since at least 1996."

This sentence should be deleted within one week if a citation is not added.Intlaware (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Chapters or separate organizations and cleanup required

The article's lead states that Students for Justice in Palestine is one organization with various chapters. However, there does not seem to exist a unified Students for Justice in Palestine website, and no evidence is provided for the existence of an organization above the chapters. An organization typically has, among other things, a website, a board of directors, one or more officers, by-laws, meetings, a mailing address, and a tax status. As far as I can tell, there is no organization above the so-called chapters, which appear to be the actual organizations.

Upon examining various "chapter" websites, I did not find any that mention "various neighborhoods in Tel Aviv" as examples of "illegally held Palestinian lands". This should be corrected. This is especially true since "Palestinian lands" is used as anchor text for Palestinian territories, which states "The Palestinian territories consist of two (or perhaps three) distinct areas: the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem." Tel Aviv is not in any of these three areas. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A recent update has occurred by court ruling at Fordham University. The chapter was barred from acquiring club status and went on a two year lawsuit against the university. In August 2019, Justice Nancy Bannon ruled that the university must recognize SJP. The information is on many websites and I would do it were it not for the protected status of this page (which is understandable). User: Fordham student, 12:43, 6 September 2019 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B820:9C94:AC52:5DF0:620B:72C8 (talk)

facebook chapters

K - facebook chapters are nice, and yes, they can be googled, but they are not official. you, me and my cousin can start any facebook group, etc. - for a group (not just SJP) to be official, they need real official status, and in this case, if it is a university group, then the student union, the university program board, something, will have a place for this group. so, please, revert your good faith edit. thanks. Soosim (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of page

The page is being torn apart and its content removed. For points of contention, let's discuss it here, and then we will move forward. Reformation32 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations are not supposed to be in the lead section of the article. Reformation32 (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The user has been going around articles, shredding them, and then nominating them for deletion. Please help. Reformation32 (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

i can only speak for myself. there are other editors involved, and some of them are not following policy.

you are in violation of several wiki policies on this and a few other pages. the main one, which will get you blocked, is WP:1RR. i suggest you self-revert your recent edits here, at the other sjp/bds page and the burnat page.

as for why the revisions were made: as i stated with each edit, there is an edit summary. you can follow it there. for the most part, you were putting material in which wsa not sourced to a WP:RS. please read the policy carefully. also you were writing in what is called 'wikipedia's voice' about things which were not the case - see WP:NPOV. if you have specific questions about specific edits, please ask. but you can not do wholesale revisions. sorry. Soosim (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There has not been edit warring! I was the one who started this conversation on the talk page. Reformation32 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Materials were reliably sourced. Sources such Los Angeles Times, New York Times, The Daily Princetonian are as reliable as it gets.Reformation32 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Soosim, as I've said elsewhere, your mass deletion, with little tagging or talk page discussion to give an editor a chance to fix the problems, is initiation of edit warring just as surely as 1rr violations and those who complain also can be sanctioned if they edit war. I'm getting fed up with running into you shredding articles and putting them up for deletion too. (Like your removing all but one of the external links in John Dugard because I removed an advocacy one that is clearly against policy?) Also remember how on ocassion I've had too much caffeine and done a bunch of deletions in a row, specifying why of course, and you've mass reverted me? I went back to properly tagging the material and getting neutral editors to come to look at my concerns and eventually the truly WP:OR and WP:Undue material was removed. Sometimes it takes patience.

Reformation32: Do be careful of your referencing and your 1RR. But you can bring complaints about this kind of behavior to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, though you do run the risk of sanction if you haven't been on your best behavior. CarolMooreDC🗽 07:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Major problems in California BDS section

1) There are no RS for most of the claims, in particular about the alleged "victories" at Riverside and San Diego. If RS cannot be found, most of this section will have to go. 2) On of the reliable sources provided (UCSD's The Guardian -- http://www.ucsdguardian.org/news-and-features/california/item/26115-uci-passes-unanimous-divestment-resolution#.UW2TOrWYHSh) discusses a number of failures by SJP at UCSD. But these are not discussed at all in this article. 3) There are also major NPOV problems. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right, the section is crappy and even a bit silly. I'll fix it soon in NPOV way. Since our views of what is relevant may differ, I'm sure you'll add anything you think is missing. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

again, removing non-RS ---- reformation, please, EI is not, not, not RS.

reformation...please. do not revert just to revert. please read edit summaries and if something is not clear, please ask. hey, you know what? you can ask some of the editors who have recently made edits if you don't want to talk to me. no sweat. Soosim (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Doing research instead of just removing material

First in the latest set of edits I saw a couple things which should not have been removed - or obviously should have been tagged - and will put them back.

Second, collaborative editing is also about finding refs for things. For example, I spent far more time looking for refs in Separation barrier, than deleting material. And I deleted because I could not find refs - and that includes looking in news archives and Highbeam. (And I had almost no help at all - except two irrelevant refs - from the editors who wanted to keep all the unsourced/WP:OR material. In fact I added two new separation barriers and someone in a hurry to edit war deleted them! Haven't gotten around to putting them back yet.)

It doesn't take that much work to do a search of the name of the group and the relevant university to find information, rather than just willy nilly deleting everything. It's hard to assume good faith when 2 or 3 editors just go deletion crazy on an article and don't try to do that sort of thing at all.

Here, for example, is a news archive search since 2011 of "Students for Justice in Palestine". At least other editors trying to improve the article can use it as a source. Also, don't forget that existing refs, even if they are from pro-Israel publications and seem to have a negative view from their titles, often have neutral or even positive information in them which has been ignored but which can be used in the article to improve it. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Princeton

Is there an RS that indicates that SJP had anything to do with Princeton? Scarletfire2112 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not check for yourself? Of the four refs there, 3 student. I did check one and NY times mentioned it. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I checked all those sources, including NYT. They all mention a group called "Princeton Committee on Palestine", not SJP. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I was about to write same thing. Is PCP the same as SJP? GoGoBot2 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I found SJPs other chapter in NYT. But well-known journalist Max Blumethal's personal blog entry saying "Princeton’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter" should be WP:RS for the mere factoid that Princeton's Committee for Palestine is an SJP group. I'll put it back and we can get people's opinions on WP:RSN if necessary.

Note WRMEA (see showing a few articles mentioning the group): In November Students for Justice in Palestine at DePaul University in Chicago and the Princeton Committee for Palestine (PCP) at New Jersey's Princeton University asked their university-run stores to sell an alternative to Sabra hummus, the Middle Eastern chickpea dip. Hmmm, smells like coordination to me. Enough to continue looking for even more verification. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but Max Blumenthals' blog can't be used as a reliable source for anything, and the WRMEA source doesn't say Princeton's PCP is same as SJP. Please keep looking. GoGoBot2 (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Listening to a video debate by the enthusiastically pro-Israel president of PCP, and seeing that it looks like the group is defunct, I guess losing that section would not be that a great a loss after all, even if it does mention the SJP conference on its website. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

url

the url listed is not the sjp website. it is advertising a conference concerning sjp. a simple look at the website would indicate such, and so, it doesn't go in the info box. maybe, but still not sure, it might go in EL. but it is time-specific about a specific conference. reads like advertising.... Soosim (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the tabs regarding "about", "statements", "calendar", "resources", etc? Please be more careful because repeated and chronic sloppy reading can look like vandalism after a while. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. i, in fact, not only read all of those, but i also searched the internet high and low for anything that might look like an official website for them. but there is none. this website is strictly about the natl conference. and it reads like an advertisement for such. remember, sjp has no national organization, hence no website. but, as i said, i would compromise and allow it in the EL section since it seems marginally related.

OK, I see that the "about" links do mention the conference. But use a bit of initiative and you will find the other clearly marked tabs that are about the organization. For starters: http://sjpnational.org/resources/ http://sjpnational.org/tag/statements/ etc. I might as well fix it today since not going to be working on anything else here for another 24 hours. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

the adl as RS

carol - thanks for including the adl as RS. it seemed to me that they are the same as jcpa, ngo monitor, EI, Camera, memri, wash inst for nep, etc. sean.hoyland always taught me that these orgs are only RS for their opinions, and not for 3rd party opinions. care to comment? thanks carol! Soosim (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Would that it were so. Per WP:RSN, ADL and SPLC have special dispensations even to be used to trash BLPs with their opinions. See Richard Falk article where we have met so often. So therefore an actually factual and relatively neutral report by them would seem to be solid. CarolMooreDC🗽 06:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

i just don't see that in wp:rsn - maybe you have a specific example of a page where it has been approved? (and why do i care about splc?) Soosim (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Three examples of ADL website being used for FACTS in their area of expertise "antisemtisim" (and of course that's why they are covering SJP): David_Duke#cite_note-82; Terrorism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-40; /Islam_and_antisemitism#cite_note-163

If you say they can't be used for such facts (be they innocuous like when a group started or damning like they have ties to terrorist groups), I have a hundred articles like that that I can go in and delete ADL as source, per User:Soosim's say so.

Also I noted the ADL comment on Richard Falk was covered by Haaretz, making it WP:RS. Though I know other BLPs editors have gotten away with opinions directly from the cite. That's why we have WP:RSN so we can fight out every example there when we can't get any consensus on a talk page. And we can bring this issue there with a few others from this article if you like. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

three examples? you only brought one, david duke. certainly when adl is covered in rs it is rs. not sure what your point is. what i hear you saying is that organizations have "expertise" and can be used for that. so memri, camera, ngo monitor, jcpa, all have expertise in something. let's go for it. Soosim (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Given no 3rd opinions: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#ADL_website_as_source_on_noncontroversial_facts. CarolMooreDC🗽 13:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

POV removal of sourced material/edit warring

• At this diff Soosim removed material from an article about SPJ that provides important information and context; the fact that it also makes SPJ look credible, while removed they look less credible, is probably related.
• This diff you removed relevant info about what they called Dichter which people of all POVs might find of interest. Also relevant is why they gave him a hard time. As the article says: Dichter cancelled a planned trip to the U.K. to deliver an address on the diplomatic process in 2007 over concerns that he would be arrested due to his involvement in the decision to assassinate the Hamas leader in 2002.
• Remove UC Irvine material not previously challenged either in talk or in a tag. (Above is other CA schools.) If you read WP:Edit warring you see one way to avoid charges of edit warring is to tag or discuss problems first to give people a chance to fix them if fixing possible. Which I'll do.
• FYI only, free speech fight at Berkley already was a mess and I've found better sources so will rewrite. Princeton discussed above. CarolMooreDC🗽

hi carol - about the hampshire college edit - what is the problem you are seeing? this article is about sjp, not hampshire college, so " It was the first college to do so; thirty-two years earlier it was the first school to divest from South Africa due to its apartheid policies" is not relevant and that is why we have wikilinks so people interested in more info about that subject can click and find out more. the other two parts of that diff are: rewording of what happened based on RS and the school's response, etc.; and the dershowitz quote, explained in that edit as well. so again, what was not clear? thanks for explaining.

the second diff you supply is the same as the first. but, i took the liberty of searching for the dichter material. i now see, and thanks for pointing it out, that the comment about what they called Dichter will help explain more. i am readding it.

the irvine material was discussed and edited on the former sjp bds page.

and you can try to rewrite, good luck. not easy. and let's see how well you follow your own advice above! Soosim (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems there's an on-going, slow-paced edit war here to reinsert BDS material , with Electronic Intifada as a source . The editors doing this should gain consensus for the material's inclusion, here on the talk page. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2015

Please Change:

"SJP has used Facebook successfully to do outreach to individual and organize and promote events both on and off campus. Many chapters have hundreds of members and also use Twitter and other social media.ccountsing its reach and visibility, which can be somewhat attributed to the organization's use of online social media.[1]"

to

"SJP has used Facebook successfully to do outreach to individual and organize and promote events both on and off campus. Many chapters have hundreds of members and also use Twitter and other online social media networks for a broader reach and visibility[1]"

because

There are grammatical/syntax errors.

Godoy music (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Before" was broken, "after" is better worded. Done. “WarKosign” 18:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

NPOV - Loyola University Chicago subsection

The statement that protesters "harassed" the Hillel students is wildly inaccurate (the source cited links to a video which shows SJP students standing silently holding signs). Also, the source is clearly non-neutral; it even describes itself as "right-minded news" (emphasis theirs). This is in contravention of WP:NPOV - I suggest the wording be changed, and neutral sources be found.Drummerdg (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if that was true, sources are required to be reliable, but not necessarily neutral, unbiased, or objective. Besides, the source provides enough audiovisual evidence.--24.232.79.155 (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Biased sources can only be used to explain positions of individuals or groups (i.e. "Person X claims that..."), not to give descriptions of events. The video, if you watch it, shows students standing quietly, holding signs. That is not "harassment" by any reasonable definition. Drummerdg (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are some more sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I think that "hurling a variety of insults" and asking “How does it feel to be an occupier?” or “How does it feel to be guilty of ethnic cleansing?” can be very reasonably described as "harassment". “WarKosign” 09:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Each and every one of those sources is inherently biased since they are affiliated with Israel or have a pro-Zionist editorial slant (see for instance this article from one of them). The Jerusalem Post is also known to be right-wing and obviously pro-Israel. Let me put it to you this way: would you accept this as a source? If not, then you certainly can't use any of the ones you cited. Go find a neutral, uninvolved, non-Jewish, non-Israeli, non-Palestinian source describing the incident. If they describe "harassment", then perhaps the language can be kept. Otherwise, it's merely personal opinion and remains against WP:NPOV. Drummerdg (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you discard any source that might biased, there will be no sources left for the Israel-Palestine conflict. How would you propose to describe this incident in neutral terms, without contradicting any of the sources ?“WarKosign” 19:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That's hyperbolic and you know it. You (and I, in my response) picked sources that are quite obviously on one side or the other side of the issue. To then say that there is no neutral source is a non sequitur. What about the BBC? The New York Times? Der Spiegel? NPR? All I'm asking is for a valid source to be used that doesn't have an obvious dog in the race.

As far as language to be used, how about "activists blocked access to the table while holding signs and verbally confronting Hillel students regarding perceived injustices perpetrated by the Israelis"? That describes exactly what they did, although a source would need to be found showing them actually yelling something (as mentioned, that video does not show that - the students are standing silently there). Also notice the word "perceived"; that does not condone either the position of Hillel or of SJP, it only states SJP's position. Drummerdg (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome to find a source supporting your theory that SJP protesters did NOT verbally abuse members of Hillel. Your version disregards the reliable sources reporting verbal abuse and insults. Again, see WP:BIASED - there is nothing about not using a source only because it may be biased.

This source is obviously biased, but per WP:ABOUTSELF we could add that SJP claimed that the protesters were not affiliated with it.

This source, which you can't suspect of pro-Israeli bias, also reports that the Jewish students felt “threatened” and “harassed” by the "Palestine solidarity activists".“WarKosign” 20:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You just made my point for me. From what you linked (WP:BIASED):

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs

How can you look past the fact that the quoted source specifically describes itself as right-wing? Also from the policy:

non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject

In other words, if you use biased sources, they can only be to describe the position of the writer, not to objectively describe what happened (i.e. "Conservative website SuchAndSuch.com claims that..."). You could certainly put in the article that the Hillel students "felt harassed", because that is not saying what happened, but rather what one party to the event feels happened, and is properly attributed as such. Drummerdg (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

So, to summarize the facts:

• On September 9, 2014, at Loyola University Chicago, Hillel have set up a table promoting Birthright Israel, a program that sponsors Jews visits to Israel.
• Palestinian students, reported as SJP members, lined up in front of a table blocking access to it, reportedly "hurled a variety of insults" and asked Hillel members “How does it feel to be an occupier?” and “How does it feel to be guilty of ethnic cleansing?”.
• Hillel members reported being threatened and harassed
• SJP said that the Palestinian students who organized the protest were not affiliated with SJP
• The Loyola University suspended SJP's chapter on September 19, and lifted the suspension a week later.

Is everything properly attributed ? Is anything else missing? “WarKosign” 09:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy. That's generally OK. The only issue I'd have is with the "reportedly" part; the part about "hurling a variety of insults" comes from the source we've identified as biased, which is fine to use if it is made clear that it is the opinion of the authors, but doesn't meet WP:RELIABLE otherwise. The quotes you included of things the SJP students verifiably said are fine since that's reporting facts as opposed to labeling or using a value judgment ("harassment"). If you find a neutral source that clearly demonstrates that the SJP students insulted the Hillel students somehow, you can use that as a source, but going out of your way to prove that would be too close to something that is not welcome here.Drummerdg (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to regard any source that originates in Israel as non-reliable. Reliability should be determined on a case-by-case basis according to the reputation for fact checking. Turkeyturkeypieyum (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

And I don't see how there can be any argument here on the facts as even the Electronic Intifada is reporting more or less the same information.Turkeyturkeypieyum (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2017

The link/ source for the statement listed under history (Note number 6) is no longer an existing website. JohnR1948 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: Placed the {{dead link}} template by the URL. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 18:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add on to this. Once you reopen this request, please specify what source you would like to add in its place. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

SJP: Anti-Zionist or not?

@Icewhiz: The National SJP does not have anti-Zionism as an official platform. Individual chapters work independently and often take anti-Zionism as a platform. I am not defender of SJP (having had my friends harassed by them) but this article needs to be NPOV. Asarelah (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

According to a lot of sources you are mistaken: ... anti-Zionist groups like Students for Justice in Palestine ... ... Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a radical anti-Zionist club ... SJP continuously uses the phrase "anti-Zionist" While those who loathe the Jewish state are often quick to insist that they are “anti-Zionists” rather than anti-Semites, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a prominent campus anti-Israel group, seems to have dropped all pretenses “WarKosign” 14:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Individual *chapters* are often anti-Zionist, but the *national* SJP does not have official platform saying such, and chapters operate independent from it. I propose what we do is that we create a subsection with an explaining the national SJP's platform, and then describing the anti-Zionism of its individual chapters. I despise SJP, but I really want to be as balanced as possible. Asarelah (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps SJP doesn't declare anti-Zionism as its official platform, but outside sources consider them to be anti-Zionist. Sounds like two POVs and both need to be represented. “WarKosign” 16:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

SJP is anti-semetic hate group. There is no such thing as Palestinians, they are TransJordanians.107.77.199.233 (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What is BDS?

Article uses the acronym several times and does not explain it. 2605:6000:EE85:8100:74D2:3EA1:A208:93C0 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Ive clarified at the first instance of the acronym, thanks. nableezy - 15:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2018

The NYU Student Government Assembly passed a divestment resolution recently, so the list at the end of the article should reflect this. Under the subsection "Universities that have passed divestment resolutions (student governments)," Add a new bullet point:

• New York University (SGA) 35-14-14 https://nyunews.com/2018/12/06/student-senators-pass-bds-resolution-after-shouts-screams-and-snaps/ Gambiewambie (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It should say a student government not the university as NYU's student government does not speak for the student body. they also have no authority so it means nothing.107.77.199.233 (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2023

Expand the "Organization" heading with more text and/or eliminate it entirely. It is not necessary to have a full heading with one sentence in reference to branches at two schools. Flubberpuff (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Section removed per WP:FAIL going back to atleast July. —Sirdog (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Columbia SJP suspension statement

Here is a url for a CBS source that includes the statement why SJP was suspended for the rest of the fall term: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/columbia-university-student-groups-suspended-students-for-justice-in-palestine-jewish-voice-for-peace/

Threatening rhetoric and intimidation is significantly different than the current version of the event. TMLutas (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

AMCHA report, possible bias

The AMCA report seems biased, it equates anti-semitism with anti-zionism, and the database which it uses (it's publically available here https://amchainitiative.org/search-by-incident#incident/display-by-date/) doesn't distinguish between targeting zionist organizations and targeting jewish students (for more information read the study's methodology and appendix https://www.amchainitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Antisemitism_At-the-Epicenter-of-Campus-Intolerance_Report-2016.pdf), or anti-semitic statements and anti-zionist statements. Here are some examples of them just equating anti-zionism with anti-semitism, or equating jews with zionists [5] [6][7][8][9] It seems that instead of the study correlating BDS and zionist groups correlating with anti-semitic activity, it instead correlates with anti-zionist activity. The majority of incidents that I see are anti-zionist, not anti-semitic, unless you equate zionists with Jews and zionism with judaism. SapphicGae (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2024

Please change "In 2023, Haaretz found" to "In 2023, the Israeli publication Haaretz found" to provide more context for the audience unfamiliar with this publication. Jookhalter (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jookhalter: Hello! I believe that the wikilink is enough, if the user wants to know more about the Haaretz, they would just click the link and there is Haaretz is Israeli newspaper. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the use of a Gunrel and highly biased source such as EI is not appropriate here

As it is generally considered unreliable for facts, I believe that either a better source should be found or the content should be removed for being non-notable. Does someone disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"Racism"

This part here does not put racism in quotes which I feel like it should.

According to members of SJP, the point of trying to register for Birthright Israel was to expose the program's racism.

The main gist here is that since birthright allows only Jews, then it must be racist. Saudi Arabia doesn't allow non muslims to enter Mecca/Kaaba yet I haven't anyone accuse it of being racist! Steveonsi (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2024

Anti-American Bias Their webpage refers to the US and Canada as "occupied Turtle Island" https://nationalsjp.org/ Their values include "liberation from Palestine to the Rio Grande. https://nationalsjp.org/about GaryBx88 (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 23:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)