Talk:Limmud South Africa

South Africa Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think we should have an open discussion about how to portray the Budlender report on this page. A prior edit citing those portions of the Budlender report which corroborated Limmud allegations about abusive behavior by protesters at the 2009 conference (in tandem with, though not replacing, discussion of elements of the report critical of Limmud), as well as clarifying that Mr. Budlender rejected the "racial profiling" allegation, was reverted as not "constructive".

I'm not sure what was non-constructive about the edit I put forward -- indeed, I would say it corrects a critical lack of neutrality. The Budlender report clearly focused on two issues -- first, the allegations of racial profiling, and second, the allegations of abusive harassment by the protesters. The prior iteration of the post only focused on the former. I added the latter, and also clarified the details of the former (namely, that Mr. Budlender did not find a policy of racial profiling, while also finding some disparate treatment occurred). This information was extensively cited, is clearly topical to the article at hand, provides important context, and furthers Wikipedia's goal of providing a balanced, neutral perspective by not excerpting only the elements of the Budlender report hostile to Limmud (needless to say, I did not, nor would I approve of, deleting reference to the portions of the report that are critical of Limmud).

I'd would be open to hearing why only those elements of the report critical of Limmud should be present on this page, but I am skeptical why negative and positive information about Limmud from the same source about the same event ought to be treated differently. Alternatively, it might be useful for some proposals of alternate wording that incorporate all critical aspects of the report (rejecting that racial profiling occurred, affirming that some disparate treatment did occur, and affirming that the protesters engaged in inflammatory and offensive language directed at conference attendees).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Limmud South Africa. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limmud South Africa. 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/20110411021935/http://www.saifac.org.za/staff.htm to http://www.saifac.org.za/staff.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]