Jump to content

Talk:Boycott of Russia and Belarus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

more here

https://www.voanews.com/a/apple-ford-other-big-us-brands-join-corporations-shunning-russia/6465880.html Victor Grigas (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Title

Should this not be titled "2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus"? Russia is the main target. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It's primarily (though not exclusively) about Russia. Samer (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. title should be "2022 boycott of Russia". Cassiopeia talk 03:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
There are some sanctions on Belarus and Belarussians related to this, due to their allowing Russia to use their territory. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Exactly; that's why I reversed the title but kept Belarus. Samer (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Note on loading page?

Is it possible to get a note reminding editors that entries should be written in past tense? I'm seeing a significant number of entries in present tense (e.g., "Disney pauses" instead of "Disney paused"). Samer (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Visa and Mastercard suspend operations in Russia

Not sure how best to reword the sentence about Visa and Mastercard (Banks and payment processors section) but it needs an update:

  • "Mastercard, Visa suspend operations in Russia after invasion". Washington Post. Associated Press. 5 March 2022. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022. Mastercard said cards issued by Russian banks will no longer be supported by its network and any card issued outside the country will not work at Russian stores or ATMs. ... Visa said it's working with clients and partners in Russia to cease all Visa transactions over the coming days.

Aluxosm (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we mention Shell?

Resolved

Shell is not boycotting Russian produces but after a recent public outcry it said it will donate profits from Russian oil purchase (which it intends to limit) to humanitarian aid on Ukraine. See Shell_plc#2022_Russia_invasion_of_Ukraine. This seems somewhat relevant... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Major companies not yet boycotting Russia

Would it be worth adding a list of companies that haven't left Russia yet? People want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.191.47 (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We already have that in this article. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we mention boycotts but not notable companies?

I noticed this: https://zondaglobal.com/en/news/zonda-will-terminate-accounts-belonging-to-russian-users Zonda is the new name of BitBay, a small crypto company whose article got deleted (by me - I was the nom): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitBay. So, do we list it among boycotting companies or not? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Title

Any objection to moving this to 2022 Russia and Belarus boycotts and divestments? A boycott involves consumers, while divestment involves businesses, and this appears to cover both. Neutralitytalk 21:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I almost wonder if divestments could be split off into a separate article as the boycotts pile up. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@Neutrality @331dot I concur, divestments are NOT boycotts. They should be split, yes. See also my edit here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I think splitting it into divestments and boycotts is difficult since it is not always easy to determine whether the business is trying to limit its exposure in Russia, because it doesn't support Russia, because it was forced to by international sanctions, or possibly a combination of these. There doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer for some of them and splitting them into different pages could cause arguments over where it should go. Perhaps a generic title should just be chosen that covers all of these, since all such information should be documented. We shouldn't remove it simply because it is similar, but does not fit a technical definition of a "boycott". DiophantineEquation (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This page should be reworked into a sortable table

Right now this is a mess, the companies are divided into categories based on who-knows-what, and within their sections, they are not sorted either by alphabet or chronology. I think we should reorganize this into a sortable table-style article, with companies displayed by name. People could then sort by date of first announcement or category (that one is extremely problematic, our Category:Companies by industry is kind of ORish, I don't know if there is a globally recognized one - ILO, US BLS, Statista, WSJ, see also industry classification. It may be best to just remove the classification entirely from our list here, since what we have now is an "adhoc taxonomy developed by a few Wikipedia volunteers").

Since making this into a table is few hours work, for now I'll start organizing the sections into those resembling the above-mentioned category, and within them, sorting entries by name, and adding dates for the cited annoucements. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be great to take the more extensive data on this page and convert it to a sortable table. Could that table live somewhere else? This other page, List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, has similar data in table format, but it's less extensive and lacks some columns useful for analysis. The simple bulleted approach on this page has some advantages, though. GeorgeHenryBorrow (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
That list page is quite superior, although the name is rather clunky. Outside of the date needing change from year to day-month-year format, I am not surewhat its lacking (you say it's less extensive but I think it is about the same?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Amazon joins boycott

Hello fellow editors, I have noticed that Amazon is still listed as not joining the boycott, but I found this source saying that they did Felicia (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to move content to Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine #2

1. I will start merging duplicates into Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to prevent confusion which page to update.

2. Will place a note to contributors that ANY corporate-related response info must be updated ONLY in Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please do not delete.

3. Will move all non-corporate responses from Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to this page 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus (e.g. Sports, Educational orgs, etc.)

4. Please stop referring to Yale list as a source. It is not the source!

Thanks all, Twitter: @Dmitry_

DmitryShpak (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree and would like to halt it for the time being. The Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine page is a mess. The "Suspended Operations" column contains phrases instead of full sentences. It has inconsistent formatting, some start with capital letters, some do not. Some entries are blank, one of them has the country's name in the suspended operations column. There's a column which is 99% empty. I do not want to move such high quality content over to a mess of a table yet. It is confusing readers and is hard to navigate.
Moving the content over is not of priority at the moment until we can properly organise the content. We should work on one page at a time, rather than two at a time. Finish this page first since it is far more superior and detailed. Then, we can filter out everything corporate related and write up an appropriate redirect, so readers know that all corporate responses are on a different page.
However, it is ridiculous to delete entries three at a time and move them over to a different page while this page is still being organised. The content on Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine isn't even organised appropriately yet, so you're getting a mix of quality entries and entries with no references or detail. We're going to waste even more time in the future trying to fix that.
I would like to request an immediate halt of moving content. When this page is more complete (i.e. transferred into a table, however long that will take), we will filter out everything corporate related, move it over and write up a redirect with a nice summary paragraph so readers know where to find it. But it is ridiculous to organise this into a table while moving content at the same time. I think this is a more reasonable plan of attack. DiophantineEquation (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to move page to Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion

Hello everyone,


1. This page with a list discussion on "boycott", which I don't find the perfect definition to all actions. "Boycott" has certain meaning which is often far short from what corporations and other organization did. OK, NHL can boycott games, but company that temporary closed own stores but continues to sell to distributors is not boycott. My point is Boycott is a loaded term and should be avoided in the title of the page which lists such broad range of reactions by different organizations.

2. I'm trying to consolidate lists of Companies only. There are multiple wiki pages and web with groups of people doing a lot of work. We must consolidate efforts asap. Proposal:

3. Move all Corporate responses from this page to a separate page Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion. A lot of records. Should be only in table format for easy export to excel and filter/sort. please review.

4. Keep here all non-corporate info (Criticism, organizations outside of Corporate like churches, goverments, sports, Science projects, Education & Research, Airspace closures, etc.) in list format as-is.

5. It is important to stop updating multiple pages asap. Start from a message "this page can be out-of-date. For all new updates please use Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion". If we'll ever decide to consolidate pages - easy to do.

6. After merging records delete ALL moved records.

7. Breakdown by Industry is nice but not scalable. You can go by some list like https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag_index_alpha.htm but it will be quickly overwhelming. Otherwise most companies on this page would end up in "Other" - defeats the purpose.


Thanks, Send a message: @Dmitry_

DmitryShpak (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to change the name since "boycott" is not always the correct term for some of these companies/organisations. However, currently, the Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion is just a vomit of the "Yale research". There are literally 102 citations to the same article on the page rather than primary sources from the company or secondary media articles. The page even copied the wording of the responses which are bland and generic like "suspend operations in Russia". Looks like straight up plagarism. This page is far more comprehensive and detailed, thus, it would be easier to move everything from that page over to this page. Then, we can rename this page and discuss the transfer of non-corporate responses.
I'm not sure why you disagree with "breakdown by industry" when Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion is just a straight up unsorted list. DiophantineEquation (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
That's a good name. I'd support a WP:RM. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


>> 1. "Yale research" is not a source. Totally agree. Did not look who added all these companies, but likely someone from Yale group or helper. I'm updating citations as I go through them. I'm also trying to contact to Yale group/dean and ask them to merge their list properly and just work on Wiki instead of spreadsheet. Same with https://www.thegoodlobby.eu/2022/03/04/ukraine-corporate-index/ and a few people on twitter collecting own lists.

2. Just completed migration of all companies from main page Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine => Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and placed an "obsolete" message on List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War

3. So, only two pages left to merge! I'm OK either way, BUT the structure on Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is already straight table and that page doesn't have all other staff (churches, goverments, sports, Science projects, Education & Research, Airspace closures, etc.) - Due to high number of companies to track I would strongly suggest to keep Corporations page stand-alone. Clean. Just have page references.

4. I don't disagree that "grouping by industry" is a nice feature. My concern is that it is not achievable. Let's say in 5 days we have 1,500+ companies across 100+ industries. It will be a mess and 50% of companies will be in "other industry" anyway. Plain table as-is can be easy copy and paste into excel for sorting/filtering. My point, can't have it both ways.

5. Most import is to stop maintaining two pages ASAP. I propose to place a note on 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus that all Corporate updates to be done only in Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. If we'll see no point to have two pages, we can merge them later.

6. I can start manual merge of records tomorrow, but that also means as soon as I confirm the record exists in both places, I have to remove one. There is quite a bit of overlap.

7. I would actually say as soon as you get rid of the word "Boycott", this page 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus will show A LOT of overlap with main page Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would suggest to take a hard look and maybe merge content into main page and be done.

8. P.S. Section "Companies criticised for not joining the boycott" is a fuzzy one. It is an opinion, not the fact. That's why the first reference I checked was to "a vomit of the Yale research" https://nypost.com/2022/03/08/the-companies-that-are-not-boycotting-russia/ :)

Let's do it asap.

DmitryShpak (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S. "Companies criticised for not joining the boycott" is a bit too soon, and thus much more than a Yale list is required for verification. There has been no official word on the future of the "Heart of Russia" DLC by SCS Software, and I think it is only safe to assume that they are still thinking on what they are going to do after over a year of development (since October 2020). --Minoa (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Response to undo

@DiophantineEquation

0. Please read my comment in full before undo-ing my updates. You did not respond to ANY of my concerns or suggestions. Inaction is not a valid response.

1. The Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine page is a mess - please define mess. I would argue current page is a mess! Mix of tables and lists, different org types, tried to split by industry and a bunch of companies in "other" category. How is it better? ANYONE can easily update blank field in a table, much easier than create 100+ industries (this is a dead end). Please stop being protective of pet project. It is critically important to have one page for all corporate responses. This page is way too broad and already hard to manage. As I proposed to move only corporates out due to extremely high number of records and keep here all other organizations in the current page. Will look a lot more organized and allow all contributors to update a single page. What we currently have a is mess!

2. The "Suspended Operations" column contains phrases instead of full sentences. - Feel free to correct. There are citations. The phrases are not journalistic opinions like in this page.

3. It has inconsistent formatting, some start with capital letters, some do not. Some entries are blank, one of them has the country's name in the suspended operations column. - These are simple not "material" issues. every page has issues. Current page has basic syntax and grammatical errors. I don't complain. Fix it.

4. "Moving the content over is not of priority at the moment until we can properly organise the content." - in most cases there are 3-4 pages on Wiki that have the same content about IKEA halting operations in Russia. 3 out of 4 are out of date. How would you suggest to fix that?

5. Do you just disregard someone's else work? I checked citations, updates to most recent company's statements, etc. Do you suggest to keep old version here so someone will do it over again? Sorry - this is plain wrong.

6. " I would like to request an immediate halt of moving content.": This is not a "year-to-make" project. Due to urgency to keep this companies reposes list as clean and up to date as possible we have to have only one list. There are several other groups working on the same objective. I'm trying everyone to update ONE page. That's it. ASAP. Can you organize all content on this page in a table format and check all citations / merge from Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ? I'm ok with that. Do you know how many hours is that? I'm trying to put all my day time into this project now, so all contributors update only one page and not 4 similar pages like it was two days ago.

Hey, due to urgency if this information available in clean format to the public, lets make decision a bit faster. DO NOT reverse any updates. Always can do that later. I will continue cleaning up records.

No offence, but moving all these corp records to tables is not even half the story. Any ideas how many industry sections you need to maintain? What if I want to see all companies from Finland only? Can't do that with 100+ tables. Please be more open minded. I'm a person who worked with data for over 20 years. The path you have here is not sustainable, trust me. In a few days we need to have 1,000-2,000 companies from 50 countries across 100-200 "industries". I totally agree that other types of organizations (churches, government, sports, etc.) need to stay here in the format you have. I will be moving all of them from Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine here and DELETING them in Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to prevent duplication.

Feel; free to chat real-time on twitter @Dmitry_

Thanks, DmitryShpak (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The best case scenario is we have duplicated content if you disagree. I have already explained my position that you should not just start deleting content from here. It is making it messy and you have not even bothered to appropriately redirect the page. You have duplicated the pages Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War and are now attempting to make it even messier by emptying out this page without even bothering to clean up the other entries first.
The general consensus here was the support of a merge with List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War and there was no consensus to your obsession with "deleting all records". There is nothing to gain from you deleting the content from here, especially because you have not bothered to redirect users to that page with an appropriate summary of the page. I am requesting immediate action since you are just continuing to delete entries rather than for us to come to a consensus about what to do and instead plugging your Twitter. DiophantineEquation (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


@DiophantineEquation

Obviously we all passionate about the topic. Everyone has a right to a vision and while wiki has quite a bit of rules, decisions about changes to page structure/content are slow to achieve and even slower to implement.

1. I'm a strong believer it should be only one page listing companies and their "reactions". Otherwise everyone who wants to contribute or trying to figure out what company did is finding 4 wiki pages with IKEA. And all 4 have overlapping citations and conflicting commentary.

2. "Boycott" in the page title is plain wrong word because it implies these organizations/companies actually "stopped doing business", which is not the case in majority of companies. Please see my earlier comments.

3. The list "Companies criticised for not joining the boycott" is misleading. What does it even mean? So if I were to criticize the company, you would add the company to the list too? Can the company be listed in more than one section? Even if company like Bosch stopped sending products to Russia? I just suggest that it is an opinion with negative connotation, that's all. No substance, especially with citations from Yale obsoleted list (not a source).

4. I will say again, breaking companies by industry is nice ... if you have a small and limited number of industries. In the current growing list you have 3 options: Continuously add sections, mis-categorize so they will fit in some "higher" category e.g. Finance/Manufacturing/Services/Other. OR just keep adding companies to "Other" category, which is what contributors are doing because it is an easy way to add company to this page. Dead end.

5. OK. I will stop deleting records here. Fair.

6. I didn't want to split Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine from List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War but the discussion about changing title and format of the page went nowhere. I didn't have a choice. As for me, it is just an inconvenience to be solved later. I'm trying to get a single list which can be used by public/journalists to investigate and exert pressure on companies. That's it.

I really hoped there is genuine interest to make this important content better and easier to access by combining efforts, but it is what it is. I will continue to rally people to concentrate on updates in Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Feel free to contact when you get ready to merge the pages, although I don't see a way to do other than company by company due to different page structure (I don't care of attribution to my contributions to any article. That's not why I'm here for).

Take care, @Dmitry_ DmitryShpak (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your cooperation in not deleting the records here. We can agree to disagree, and simply duplicating the content for the moment is the fastest way of solving this conflict. In my opinion, it is still better than deleting content. Duplicated content is common on Wikipedia and I would rather have it be duplicated and deleted later, than deleted now and us being unable to find it later.
To address your points, I have not disagreed that boycott is the wrong word. There was a discussion on this earlier, but it is difficult to even tell whether something is a boycott or not. Most of these companies have stopped operations while condemning the actions of Russia. But whether they are doing it as a boycott (to comply with public opinion) or whether they are doing it to preserve their assets can sometimes be difficult to tell. There is no consensus on what to change the name to, so we will wait until we find something we can all agree on. I am not saying the title is perfect.
Secondly, critics are determined by references to reliable sources from reputable people/sources. You are not allowed to reference yourself. We do it for movie critics such as here. This should be done as per WP:RSOPINION (which it isn't perfect at the moment, but I will fix it when I have the time if nobody else does since this is time consuming to go through each reference). A company can be listed twice for being criticised for not doing enough, if there is a reliable reference to it.
Thirdly, we will hopefully not have any "Other" section. All companies and organisations will fit somewhere. I have left the Church of England, because it is technically only boycotting its investments in Russia. It will be move it to an appropriate section (likely under a Culture and Entertainment section) when the section is created. Such a major edit takes a long time and I am actively rereading sources to add detail that will reinforce the impact of the company's response.
Lastly, Wikipedia is a cooperative effort. You cannot say that you "don't have a choice". You didn't discuss in talk sections, ask opinions of others and come to an appropriate consensus. This talk page reached a consensus to merge List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Instead, you went the other way and tried to split it. You then went out of your own way to control this page, telling me to edit where you wanted me to, and telling me I wasn't allowed to undo your edits as if you had authority over the page.
You also ironically later told me to be "open-minded", as if I had gone completely against everything you said and did not try to negotiate a compromise. I agreed to moving the list of companies, but only when this page was more organised. I also intend to help you with that, however, you just rudely told me to go "fix" the other page as if I can clean it in five minutes. I am limited in my capabilities and openly invite help to convert to a table, but nobody seems to want to help, despite readers coming to a consensus here to convert to a table. I had invited you to duplicate content, just not delete it here three entries at a time.
We will have an entire section dedicated to the companies. There will be an accompanying paragraph and a redirect so it is easy to spot. The time hasn't come for that yet, since what's here now still needs to be organised. DiophantineEquation (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@DiophantineEquation

While Wikipedia may have duplicate content, I disagree that it is best practice. Especially in a simple list of events like this.

I don't really care if companies are split into a separate page or not and I neither care of any attributions to my name. I would totally support to merge all these pages! if it can be dome ASAP ... the problem is to reach consensus here is either going to take a very long time or NEVER because there is no concrete voting process or defined group of people who have to vote. Everyone has veto power. You can continue to talk about merging for years to come. I don't feel that we have time for that.

I just think that with the list of companies will grow quite drastically and it simply doesn't make sense to keep on the same page with other content. I would also say, you should just merge this page 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus into Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine because of many similar/overlapping sections (see Science, Religious institutions, Culture, Sports on the main page Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ) ... are you up for this merge or want to keep your page as a duplicate?

No offence, if this was a topic about some historical even in 1990s, we would have all the time in the world to discuss and plan to merge pages in two year timeframe. I don't believe we have more than 1-2 days to make a decision and just keep working on a SINGLE PAGE, whatever it is.

"We will have an entire section dedicated to the companies" - You still didn't respond my point that this list can easily grow to 2,000+ companies across of 100+ industries in a matter of days. Scalability does matter. I really like table as output for readers as it is exportable format. What is wrong to have a dedicated page for companies only?

Can I just ask: you keep citations in a separate column. I don't see any great benefits (a bit cleaner, but requires extra column and not sure this is a common practice either), It definitely disconnects statements from citation, especially where there are multiple statements/citations. I would suggest to keep them together - will make merging two pages easier in two years :)

@Dmitry_ DmitryShpak (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

My two cents. I also dislike duplicate content - it happens a lot, but is rarely optimal. We certainly have content that is a mess right now and is unnecessarily duplicated. That hinders our work and results needless duplication of our efforts, and confuses the readers. Here is my review of the content we have:
  • Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Good: broad. Bad: nothing really. But as a parent article to others it has the right to duplicate a summary of content from subarticles about boycotts and others.
  • 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus: Good: has a good overview section. Contains interesting sections on airspace closures and companies criticized for not joining the boycott. Bad: badly defined scope (in addition to boycott, also talks about divestments and related issues). Has a badly organized 'Boycotting companies and organisations' that is not sortable and based on semi-random sections. Also, it is focused on companies, but boycott is also carried out by other organizations, which is mentioned in the article (ex. European Film Academy). Note: scope is for 2022+.
  • List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War: Good: sortable table format. Bad: title (the concept of companies applying sanctions is weird). The main field is 'suspended service', which is also problematic - is suspended service the only "sanction" applied? Note: scope is for 2014+.
  • Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Good: sortable table format, better name. Remaining operations field is very useful. Bad: 'Suspended operations' has the same conceptual problem as in the list above. Table misses 'date' parameter (which while not ideal is valuable once defined). Also misses the 'industry' category (which likewise needs to be defined, see my comments at [[#This page should be reworked into a sortable table[edit source]] for associated problems...). Note: scope is for 2022+.
My proposed solution:
Consensus is important on Wikipedia because that's how you start an edit war (see WP:Consensus). If you acted like you had authority like you did earlier, Wikipedia would be a terrible place. You do not get to call the final shots and this is not your or mine's article. I come here to discuss like everyone else does. It doesn't matter how long it takes, leaving duplicated content here is better than deleting it. I'd rather have excess of information that can be cleaned up and reduced later than missing information that we later need to research again. It is faster to delete duplicate content here than it is to do a side by side comparison of both pages later on to determine which is missing from the other.
The key reason I would rather duplicate content is because we haven't organised how to split the company responses yet. If you want another page, you need to redirect to that page and have an appropriate section for it. How will editors know where to look for company responses, they will instead edit it on this page. How will readers know where to look, they will think its missing. Readers are even more confused when you've left corporate responses behind since you're still deleting them three at a time. I'd rather have it all here, and when the time comes, then we can give it its own place on this article.
Also, scalability is not and has not been an issue so far since everything has fit into appropriate industries (Churches will likely be merged with Culture and Entertainment so you can quit complaining about that). I've used the industry mentioned on the entry's Wikipedia page and under an even broader sub-heading that can be easily changed. It wouldn't be difficult to move or split them up. Want to scale this up? We can now chuck this whole section onto a new page (e.g. List of Finance company responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) along with the whole table since all of it is already done and organised. That is MUCH BETTER than removing entries a few at a time over to another page.
I originally put citations next to the information cited, but decided it was messy since citations would often span multiple columns. Some of the sources are only cited because I needed the date. For some, the date and the actions are on the same article. I don't want to have repeat the same citations multiple times for both columns. I've seen the same done on other pages and I felt it was better but I invite you to explain a nicer method since citations are needed solely for the date. DiophantineEquation (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding duplication, like I said above (your post gives no indication you read mine) I disagree, but to have the cake and eat it, I support redirecting sections using hyperlink or see also/main templates. Problem solved, I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


I Like a LOT of these suggestions.

101. I believe the most urgent goal is to make sure all of us are updating content on only one page, whatever it is. Any non-corporate info I come across, I try to add to main article Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine if the is a section there. My fall back would be this page.

102. restoring List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War to pre-2022 invasion version - I have exactly the same opinion. People did a lot of work in 2014-2022 and for historical refence it is different event than 2022 responses. The page should be named to something like List of corporate responses to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine

103. Renaming Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to List of corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - totally agree. This is just a list without any creative writing. Any overview of the responses should be on Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine which has empty section now. Not my forte, I'm focusing on the list right now.

104. 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus - the page does have a purpose, but has to better integrate into main article Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and remove duplicate content. I like the teh structure of expanded comments by section. You should try to do it now for better article referencing. (But first, please update the title to something less controversial than "Boycott" - I'm not planning to even vote for this as I didn't contribute to the page)

105. ":** as a stop gap measure, if the merge is done section by section" - Agree. Better than what I was doing as an ad-hoc method of copy/update by company and DELETING ;). Still to prevent confusion of the public and occasional contributors the merge has to be done asap.

106. on additional columns in Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: I believe Date column is meaningless: (a) most just say "2022" because it is hard to gauge when exactly company made the decision or started implementing it. Not a clean historical date like "battle X started morning of August 1, 1943". (b) But then company reverses the decision next day - do you update the date to the most recent one? This will quickly become inconsistent and very confusing.

107. on additional columns in Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Industry category. It does have Industry field! It is not very consistent because we don't use any taxonomy like Global Industry Classification Standard. As for me, it is less important now and can be a clean-up for 2022+

107. "Ideally I'd like o see 'suspended operations', 'closures and divestments', 'remaining operations'" - while would be nice to categorize companies' responses, it is extremely hard to make a judgement call what exactly company did and didn't do. In most cases corporations actually hiding what they did under titles "will exit business in Russia", but more often than not meaning of "exit" is stop acquiring NEW clients and other partial business suspensions (stopped direct sales, but continue manufacturing and sale through distributors. Just see IKEA example). I'm not in the position to interview each company and ask a questionnaire what part of their operations is suspended, when is effective date (for some they are just "planning"), etc. I think a text field where someone can just write up what exactly going on is good enough.

108. On citations, I guess we just have different opinions. When I read something I want to know the source, not try to hunt it down in some column on the right. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/quotations

109. For any decisions on renaming, etc. I would suggest to place a proposed change, and voting deadline. Otherwise every change becomes 2023+ project.

Thanks, DmitryShpak (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@DmitryShpak 101. Agree. 102. Agree. 103. We agree. 105. Same.
104. I am not sure I understand. I support removing (or moving) duplicate content. But as I said above, the current title is ok ("What would remain here (at 2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus) would be prose and a list of non-corporate responses, the latter should be organized into the same table as corporate and could also be split off eventually") outside the issue mixing divestments with boycott. I'd rather we had divestments discussed elsewhere, either in the Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or in a separate article called disinvestment from Russia (which for now I just redirected here, note we have disinvestment from Iran, for example).
106. The purpose of data is to see which entities reacted quickly and which delayed until weeks/months later. I think this is an important piece of data. I do agree it's hard to chose the right date, and there are exceptions, hence my proposal to, common-sensically, use the date of the first major action taken (not the first minor action). However, that made sense when we had focus on boycott/divestment. Now, the corporate responses also include 'staying' and 'not boycottng/divesting'. Hence I'd suggest to change 'data' into 'date of first major boycott/divestment'. It would also allow sorting the table into companies that did boycott/divest (and have the entry) and the ones that did not. How does that sound?
107. I agree this is lower priority. I can work on this at some point. It's a toss up whether to use ILO or GICS, and I am not sure we can always find easily what is the official classification of the company, sigh. If anyone knows a search engine or such in which we can input a company's name and get an ILO or GICS or such result, I'd love to know...
108. I agree with Dmitry. Also, from the practical, wiki table point, columns are precious and wasting one on citations seems not good.
109. Sure. Renaming can be done through WP:RM, someone just needs to start it. If it is controversial - I don't see anyone opposing adding the 'list' to the corporate responses. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

List format?

Is there a reason this entire page is bulleted like a list? Perhaps we should convert into prose, or move this page to List of ... ? ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Another Believer Just a ping that we are discussing the structure of this a few threads below and more opinions, and help merging/rewriting, is always welcome. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge from List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War

There is a lot of overlap between the information there and here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Combine them into a more generic title that encapsulates everything from boycotts, sanctions, divestment, etc. The Headquarters, End Date and Remarks columns should be removed from the other page since they aren't really that important. The Suspended Services column should be in similar detail to this article, such as including value of divestment or impact of pulling out of Russia, allowing readers to have an understanding of the effect each company has. DiophantineEquation (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree with all your comments. Aggregating all this information into one sortable table would be very useful for follow-on analysis and visualizations. GeorgeHenryBorrow (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the useless columns from List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War. If someone wants to begin merging the contents of the pages into a nice table, feel free. DiophantineEquation (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

*Support Merge: Same types of content under one article. Cassiopeia talk 01:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)



There's also an article named "International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War" similar to both of them. Here are the differences:

Should we also expand this article to include sanctions before 2022 and rename it to International boycott during the Russo-Ukrainian War? —Wei4Earth (talk, contribs) 15:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wei4Earth You may want to see the proposed changes in sections below. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yale research available as spreadsheet; categorizes company responses

Noting that the Yale research is now being made available as a spreadsheet, putting company responses into four categories:

  1. WITHDRAWAL - Clean Break: companies completely halting Russian engagements;
  2. SUSPENSION - Keeping Options Open for Return: companies temporarily curtailing operations while keeping return options open;
  3. SCALING BACK - Reducing Activities: companies scaling back some but not all operations, or delaying investments;
  4. DIGGING IN - Defying Demands for Exit: companies defying demands for exit/reduction of activities

GeorgeHenryBorrow (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspended postal services

A number of countries have suspended postal services to or from Russia and Belarus (and in some cases Ukraine itself and Moldova) due to the ongoing situation. In most cases it seems that this is not a direct boycott, but it is the result of unavailable flights. Should this be mentioned in this article, or is it beyond the scope? If it's not suitable for here, do any of you think it should be mentioned in one of the other articles about the impact of this invasion?

Examples of suspended postal services are as follows:

This is not an exhaustive list - I think it's quite likely that it should actually be much longer.

--Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal (divestments and boycott)

Please, discuss here. K8M8S8 (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Note previous discussion of this at #Title Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll also add that the correct terminology seems to be disinvestment not divestment. Note I am creating redirects from various terms to here for now as a stop-gap, search engine friendly measure (disinvestment in Russia, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Seems unnecessary once the WP:INDISCRIMINATE list is removed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Bold removal

The listing of every single company which withdrew is just excessive and unencyclopedic: it provides no useful information to the reader beyond mere trivia. It is also already partially covered in the prose, without having to resort to a mindbogglingly huge list. A more generic listing of which sectors were affected (so saying, for example, The boycott was taken up by a wide spread of businesses, including in banking, science, energy, ...) would be more appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas: Have you even bothered taking a look a WP:INDISCRIMINATE? This kind of excessive listing is not informative, it's trivia of no encyclopedic significance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, there are many articles that contain lists like this, I'll mention Henley Passport Index as an example. This is useful and informative. If someone wants to find out how 'open' a specific passport is, they can. For the boycotts, if someone wants to find out if they will be able to stream Downton Abbey or get parts for their car or wonder if the stock they bought might drop in value they could. This does not appear to me to be an indiscriminate list of data. If it's an issue, perhaps the lists themselves could be forked into another article, like how #3 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE had polling moved to another article. I just don't see it as irrelevant, but if others do, I'd suggest that as the solution here. Victor Grigas (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:OSE is not a great arguments: those other lists probably also fail WP:NOTSTATS, as it simply is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to provide exhaustive database-like listings of trivial statistics. For the boycotts - that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. We're not a how-to guide or an economic advice website. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide a summary of knowledge, ideally backed up with relevant secondary sources, even more ideally from academic sources like scholarly journals or books. Providing a full listing of which companies boycotted Russia and Belarus (in addition to the fact that in some cases, this is entirely meaningless: airlines didn't boycott Russia, they were forced out of it due to mutual airspace closures...), based on what are essentially primary sources (press releases and newspapers report of recent events) is simply an indiscriminate collection of data which does not provide meaningful knowledge to the reader. As it stands, having this as a list (nevermind that, de facto, with the massive list included, it is one in all but name) would also fail WP:LISTN - while there are certainly sources discussing the boycott of Russia and Belarus, sources which explicitly discuss the grouping of companies which did so (and provide something out of which to build such a list) don't really. And even if there was somehow justification for such a list, this wouldn't be the article for it (it should be at a proper title which accurately indicates to the reader it is, in fact, a list... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
See discussions above. I concur this article should not list all such instances, and should be mostly a prose analysis. The complete list belongs at List of corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (to be renamed from Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ) However, the bold removal should happen AFTER the merge is done. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Irrespective of where it would be, that list would still fail LISTN, and due to it's sheer size (there are hundreds of companies involved), it would be hard to justify it under the list criteria (WP:CSC): Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short and could be useful or interesting to readers. The list would neither be reasonably short, nor would it be really useful, and "interesting" is of course a subjective opinion, but given that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is policy, it does take precedence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Given the topic has been covered by numerous RS, I don't see a problem. Length has never been an issue, we have many lists which have hundreds of entries, some split into numerous sublists for navigation. The problem is that we have 2+ articles that are somewhat overlapping in content, and we need to clean them up. But the content should be moved, not removed. A list of companies that have left Russia and those which didn't, for a varying definitions of "left", should be on Wikipedia. I am pretty sure any AfD would fail badly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I object to the bold removal of information that is appropriate. It is also the work of may wikipedia editors, whose contributions to what was removed suggests they are not of one mind with the lone, bold, removing editor. Pretty odd in my view, and not in keeping with us working as a community. Someone should immediately revert this. I agree with points made by User:Victorgrigas. And size is never an issue - if size is too great, we split articles. We don't willy nilly delete swaths of content, RS sourced, supplied by many contributing editors, because one or two editors dontlikeit. What was removed was totally in keeping with WP policy. Plus - the effect here is to reduce the textual discussion, rather than to add to it. Plus, the title is wrong. When a sports federation for example stops giving loans to Russian athletes, or allowing them in their competitions, or requires them to compete under another flag, that is not what is meant by a boycott. Strongly object to this boldness. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6528:1DBF:BD5F:C607 (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Collapsed tables

I do not know why the tables should be collapsed. Please clarify, thanks. --Minoa (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I also think that the tables should NOT be collapsed. These tables are the main/primary content of the article, rather than illustrative data (which is sometimes excessive and is worth collapsing). Mindaur (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The tables are restored to the original non-collapsed state, because they are part of the main content of the article. Tempting it may be, but the length of the article does not always require collapsed tables, with List of 2021–22 NBA season transactions being one other example where the tables are not collapsed. --Minoa (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Date of End is empty

Take Date of End never been empty to be a correct end of Boykot of Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.214.248.157 (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Bizarre. No idea of what you are trying to say. 50.111.39.61 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Culture

There exists some forms of boycott of Russian culture, eg. performing classical Russian music. The boycott is controversial. They boycott is something more than the 'Entertanement' table and the controversy should be somewhere described.

Personally, as someone highly involved, we've seen no 'boycott' of Russian composers at all in concert halls, recordings, etc. As they had nothing to do with Putin's fascism, let alone the majority of them being long-dead before he came to power, this is understandable. Outside of Ukraine, where is this happening? 50.111.39.61 (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

selling a franchise is boycotting?

So, McD's sells its 850 restaurants, it doesn't close & dismantle them. They open up under a new moniker, using the same equipment and obtaining whatever foodstuffs that can still be obtained to produce their product. Is this truly a boycott? Looks more like plain ol' abandonment. 50.111.39.61 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What matters is how reliable sources describe this. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

add basketball teams

BC Kalev and Zastal Zielona Góra left VTB United League. أحمد توفيق (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus/Archive_1&oldid=1244568297"