Talk:J Street#Simone Zimmerman.2C fired by Bernie Sanders

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 95K

|counter = 3

|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(60d)

|archive = Talk:J Street/Archive %(counter)d

}}

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

Opening segment, third paragraph, last line:

Critics allege that J Street and the policies they support are, in fact, anti-Israel.[8][9][10]

Should be:

Critics allege that J Street and the policies they support are anti-Israel.[8][9][10]

Reason: Criticism of a political group isn’t fact, it’s opinion. And an allegation isn’t fact, either. Stating that something is “in fact” shows an explicit bias, and given the highly sensitive nature of this topic the working should be corrected. Davey1107 (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Davey1107}}File:Yes check.svg Done Can I Log In (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2021

:The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved {{nac}} (t · c) buidhe 23:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

----

:J Street (advocacy group) → {{no redirect|J Street}}
:J Street → ?

– This page should be moved back to J Street. It is the primary topic for this name. An editor moved this page to the (advocacy group) parenthetical to create a disambiguation page, but the topics on that page can be covered by hatnotes (or the dab page can be moved to (disambiguation). Natg 19 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

::Note: J Street titles a page with content and so it must also be dispositioned. If this request is granted J Street may be deleted or moved to J Street (disambiguation) at the closer's discretion. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Support The other topics are trivial and don't warrant a dab page. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Although this move makes sense to me, most other lettered streets are treated the same way that J Street is now. The unmodified letter-street name is a disambiguation link, or if there is nothing to say it goes to Street or road name#Lettered and numbered streets. I think the only exceptions are:

::* O Street which links to a novel of that name, and hatnotes O Street (disambiguation)

::* R Street which redirects to to some libertarian thingie R Street Institute and there is no link anywhere to R Street (disambiguation) from encyclopedia pages. (Meaning that R Street (disambiguation) is pretty useless, because nobody will type that in and nobody will navigate to it.)

::So I'd vote for keeping J Street with the common pattern, and fixing up O and R. – M.boli (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

::: I think O and R should stay the same, because they are actual topics with those names. The other topics on "O Street" are partial name matches (compared to the name of a story collection called "O Street"). R Street, I am not sure about, but the think tank group's website is www.rstreet.org, so I believe that they are commonly known as "R Street". With this same logic, the main topic for "J Street" is the advocacy group, so it should have the base name.

::: I have added a redirect hatnote to the R Street page, so there is now a way to navigate to the dab page. In my opinion, the "R Street" disambiguation page is unneeded, but that is a separate topic. Natg 19 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Support. WP:CONSISTENCY is the least of our titling criteria. When other actual encyclopedic topics exist, that will override the convention. Dohn joe (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Support as it is the primary topic for this name. Also, only a tiny fraction of advocacy groups with articles have "advocacy group" in their titles. Plus, the dab page has hardly any useful content. Zero^talk 03:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Support reversal of this recent undiscussed move. There is no other article titled "J Street". Delete the dab page. Station1 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph needs update in description of J-street and source

The link for first citation is dead. The description used in the first paragraph needs proper citing and be changed as it fails to describe the pro-Israel stance it claims to be on its own page as stated in the third paragraph

"the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans who want Israel to be secure, democratic and the national home of the Jewish people ... advocat[ing] policies that advance shared US and Israeli interests as well as Jewish and democratic values, leading to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" I.Elgamal (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Netanyahu won a resounding victory

In 2015, Netanyahu's coalition won a victory in the election for the Israeli parliament. It is highly debatable whether this victory was "resounding": the government that was formed after this election had the support of 61 of the 120 members of parliament, the minimum number for the formation of a government.

The word "resounding" should be deleted. In any case, it is not material to the point being made, or to the article. EGetzler (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Opposition to BDS needs qualification

Currently, the article states (for instance):

:J Street strongly opposes Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

As it stands, this gives a wrong impression, because the statement on their [https://jstreet.org/boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-bds/ website] (the first source that is given as a citation for this claim) reads:

:2) We do not oppose boycott, divestment, or sanctions initiatives that explicitly support a two-state solution, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and focus only on occupied territory beyond the Green Line

:These kinds of initiatives are different from those advocated and initiated by the Global BDS Movement. It is critical to maintain the distinction between boycott efforts that work against the interests of Israel, and initiatives which are limited to opposing the occupation. We neither oppose nor call for these initiatives.

Thus, while it is not wrong that J Street opposes the Global BDS Movement, and persistently so, the article should be changed to reflect that they do not oppose boycott, divestment and sanctions initiatives that meet these criteria. Furthermore, I think it should be mentioned that J Street, notwithstanding their opposition to the Global BDS Movement, is at the same time opposed to legislative measures against BDS ("J Street is opposed to legislative attempts to penalize or criminalize BDS activities because they are the wrong way to combat the BDS Movement", ibid.). --ImmerOrdentlich2 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)