Talk:Queers Against Israeli Apartheid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled comment[edit]

There seems to be the beginning of an edit war in Pride Week (Toronto) where reference to this group is editted out. Thought you'd like to know.206.130.173.55 (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

I've reverted the edit to add a "reception" comment which has been added and removed twice now, so I think it's a good time to discuss it. I, personally, think this kind of thing does belong in the article - there certainly is a lot of newsprint about QuAIA now, both positive and negative - but I think that a "reception" section, especially in an article as short as this one, needs to show a broader range of reactions, rather than just one negative one. When I get a minute, I can try to dig up some more reactions to the group, but definitely welcome others to do the same. I think that this article needs more work before we can include this comment as is. Thoughts?Quietmarc (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally argued against inclusion based on WP:UNDUE, mainly because it is such a short article. Another editor argued that the source in question is from an established (and not fringe) academic and so I left it at that. The removal which I subsequently restored stated in the edit summary that we need to be balanced. Although I am uncertain of the value of this information, Wikipedia is not a journalistic resource. We do not strive to be "balanced" in such a way that every single bit of information needs to have an equal representation of another viewpoint. Wikipedia is to be neutral which is very different from so-called balance. So my revert was based on that, not on particularly agreeing with the info in the first place. Having said that, I agree that in a very short article some more information from other points-of-view would be appropriate. There was a great deal of news coverage of this in Toronto so it may not be too difficult to expand this section. freshacconci talktalk 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much along the lines of my thinking - I'm not suggesting that we have a point-counter-point article, but having followed the story (I'm in Toronto myself) there were a lot of educated and worthy POVs bouncing around, and so there's definitely room for a bit more development. I'll take a look and see what I can dredge up, but I'm leaving for a week at a cottage tomorrow, so I might not be able to contribute until next week. Quietmarc (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing undue about it. Gil Troy is a relevant academic. Feel free to balance "reception" with positive reviews - I'm sure there are many. The movement is obviously fringe within the general gay/lesbian rights group, the article should reflect that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's fringe, but saying it's "perverse" is definitely a very, very strong statement that I don't think is backed up by reality, and is -certainly- contested by some notable sources, so as it is we now have a 2 paragraph article about a group where one paragraph is a summary and another paragraph is a quote from somebody who is clearly critical and has definite stake in the ideological battleground (which is fine, because everyone's entitled to their opinion). I'm not going to reverse it because, as I said above, I'm away from my computer after today.
One thing to add, though, is that you may want to take a look at the 3RR rule on wikipedia - it's considered bad form to revert a good-faith edit more than 3 times, which verges on an edit war. By restoring "disputed" content, after it's been removed 3 times, without waiting for agreement or consensus, you may be violating wikipedia ettiquette. Hardly an issue here on a small, barely-notable article, where we're all polite, but something to be aware of.Quietmarc (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edits were made unilaterally with the basic claims without sufficient rationale. And I only made 2 edits, not 3. Troy says the group is "perverse." Your basic beef is you don't like the edit because 1 paragraph is predicated on an assessment by a major, prominent, Canadian academic who is a popular contributor to Israel/Palestine relations. I really can't think of an honest rationale that supports a whole-sale removal of 3 sentences. If you think it needs balance, feel free to edit the article and add a differing POV (using reliable sources of course). Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decision to pull out of parade[edit]

Note that I removed the original brief mention of the fact that QuAIA pulled out that claimed that the group was 'bowing to pressure from Mayor Rob Ford' (paraphrasing). That claim is pure conjecture; the stated reason of the group for pulling out of the parade was to issue a challenge to the Mayor. Local media (Star, National Post, etc.) seem to have taken QuAIA at face value on this. Hence there seems little justification for the claim. I also tried to give a bit of a fuller picture of what happened. Yavanna of Valinor (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing for sub-section under 2013: Executive committee deputations and motion to defer[edit]

I wanted to cite the Xtra article (Ref. 29) in both the first and third paragraphs of the present version of this section, but I wasn't sure how to do it without redundantly including the same link twice in the bibliography. Could someone help me with the redundant references, so that I can refer to that link twice but with only one bibliography entry? Thanks Yavanna of Valinor (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queers_Against_Israeli_Apartheid&oldid=1205047930"