Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Right of return

Hello everybody. This is the first time I've ever contributed to a 'talk' page, so my apologies if I get protocol wrong ? My suggestion is that the sentence "...BDS demands that Israel allow the Palestinian refugees displaced in the 1948 war to return to what is now Israel.." should be changed to read something like "... BDS demands that Israel allow the Palestinian refugees displaced in the 1948 war - and all their descendants through the male line - to return to what is now Israel..." This is particularly relevant in the subsequent discussions on a 'right of return' creating an Arab majority in 'Israel'. There are only a few thousand 1948 refugees left alive, and readers might be puzzled as to how this could change Israel's demographics. What the PLO - and the BDS movement - is demanding is that their descendants be given the 'right', which would be several million people, which would most certainly change the demographics ? Regards, Roofgardener (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Roofgardener.

German neo-nazis, again

There is currently a paragraph in the "Political" subsection of the "Support" section which reads According to Ha'Aretz, German Nazi parties and BDS find common ground in the effort to dilute "the widely accepted definition of anti-Semitism put forward by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Since the IHRA definition cites the demonization of Israel as an example of contemporary anti-Semitism, BDS supporters ... oppose this definition just as bitterly as neo-Nazis." This seems misplaced at best, which is why I removed it, but now it's been reinstated with an edit summary implying that it should be included because it's from Haaretz. To be clear, I just think we should remove it because the Support section is about support for BDS, and the paragraph is not about support for BDS. Not going to redo the removal myself because I don't want to edit war, but pinging GHcool who reinstated the content, and happy to hear from other editors too.

References

ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev, This is textbook WP:UNDUE - an opinion piece in a partisan source. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed it, seems to me should be in the IHRA article if anywhere.Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

With that sort of programmatic smearing, it will end up with BDS, German Nazis and the 200 Jewish liberals in Jerusalem and diaspora who drew up the Jerusalem Declaration, all sharing common ground.

Tom Suarez, The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism: a critical view Mondoweiss 31 March 2021

Tony Greenstein, Why we should critically welcome the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism Mondoweiss 1 April 2021 Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

::: We write according to what reliable sources like Haaretz say, And they discuss this in the context of BDS. Kenosha Forever (talk)

There's a pretty major difference between something being vaguely in the context of BDS and being explicit support for the BDS movement, which is what the section it was placed in talks about, no? Besides, the source is an opinion article by a pro-Israel activist. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 02:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

:::::Let's unpack this a bit, shall we ? "the source is an opinion article by a pro-Israel activist" - yes, but so what? If we were to start excluding opinion pieces by activists, I think we'd need to remove more than 50% of this article. If you want to attribute the opinion to the writer, go ahead, but don't remove it, wholesale. "something being vaguely in the context of BDS " - come now, BDS is the headline of this opinion piece, not something "vaguely in the context of BDS". Kenosha Forever (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I only brought up the sourcing because you mentioned it as if it justified inclusion, but my mention of it seems to have steered the discussion off topic, and I apologize for that. I'd like to focus on the specific issue of whether the disputed content should be included in the "Support" section of this article.

Again, I removed the content because it did not say anything about any person or group being in support of BDS, and the section it was in is about support for BDS. I'm not saying that the source shouldn't be used in the article - I can't even read the source, it's behind a paywall. My sole reason for removing the content, and for starting this discussion when it was added back, was that its placement did not make sense in the context of the article and I didn't find a place to move it that made sense either. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 03:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

When we are adding published opinions to articles, we need to take care who to attribute them to. "According to Haaretz" is a false claim, since this is not a Haaretz editorial but an op-ed by Petra Marquardt-Bigman published by Haaretz with an "Opinion" label. Haaretz publishes many opinions that disagree with each other, including pro-BDS opinions. The only acceptable attribution is "according to Petra Marquardt-Bigman". One then needs to ask (1) who? (2) does her opinion support the proposed text? To me it feels rather like "Nazis like chocolate, therefore chocolate is evil". Incidentally, Kenosha, headlines are generally written by sub-editors and not by authors, so they don't count at all. Zero^talk 04:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As an opinion piece it should be attributed to the writer Marquardt-Bigman and not Haaretz. The argument uses guilt by association (the Association fallacy) by linking BDS with "German Nazi parties". Many people and groups other than BDS and neo-Nazis regard criticism of Israel as not antisemitic. There is no reason why these two groups in particular should be linked unless the writer is trying to discredit the BDS and/or protect Israel from criticism. Anyway, that is Marquardt-Bigman's opinion and editors don't get to add their commentary when including it in an article. We need to decide whether the opinion satisfies the wp:weight requirement. I think the point about BDS challenging the IHRA definition of antisemitism would have received sufficient coverage to be suitable for inclusion. However, has anyone else linked BDS with neo-Nazi's. If not, then "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth)". The other thing to note is that, when there is disagreement about text that has been added to an article, the text should be removed from the article until a consensus is reached. Burrobert (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that attribution should be to Marquardt-Bigman, and that this is a question of due weight. Marquardt-Bigman was a historian, who wrote extensively about anti-Semitism. She was regularly published in Haaretz, The Times of Israel, The Forward, The Guardian, The Jerusalem Post and other media outlets. She was a scholar at The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law , and published academic work on anti-Semitism under its imprint. Her opinion is at least as notable as the countless activists currently present in the article, from Ali Abunimah to Peter Beinart, who have ZERO academic credentials in this are. This would be true even if she was the only one to connect BDS with neo-Nazis, but she is of course not alone: [1],[2] Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC) blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100

"to connect BDS with neo-Nazis" <- problem right here. That they both don't like something doesn't otherwise connect them. That's the same thought in the BBC article "[could be associated]"..bah. Of course, Israel would like to connect BDS with Pol Pot if they could, you do know, I suppose, about the relationship between the MSA and the Jerusalem Post? You have a whole raft of Jewish scholars saying that BDS isn't antisemitic and you are pushing this drivel, time to move on, methinks.Selfstudier (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

::On this project, we go by sources, and we don't discount sources as "drivel" just because we don't like them. Her opinion is notable, right or wrong, politically motivated or not. If we can quote that provocateur Abunimah, we can quote an academic who knows something about anti-Semitism. Kenosha Forever (talk)

It is patently a smear by a pro-Israeli activist, part of the spin wars.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

::::On this project, we go by sources. Many consider the rants of Abunimah or the screeds by Beinart to be similar smears, part of spin wars, yet they are in the article. As should this one. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself as well as teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. What opinion? That BDS and Nazis don't like IHRA? Put it in the IHRA article. Drivel will fit right in there and I won't even object. It doesn't connect BDS with Nazis other than that. Nor does not liking IHRA make you anti-Semitic.Selfstudier (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

::::::You may not like the reasoning she uses, but that's just tough noogies for you. On this project, we go by sources, and a notable opinion published in a reliable source has made the connection. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about her reasoning, I only care about yours so I will wait for your RFC asking whether said "opinion" should be included in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, Its shame that don't care about fellow editors opinion. If there should be RFS it should be general one about what type of opinions we allow in this article Shrike (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I have placed no restriction on anyone's ability to open any RFC they please. Of course, RFCbefore requires a discussion prior to opening such RFC and all we have discussed up to now is the false BDS/Nazi equivalence. Maybe you should begin a separate discussion rather than engaging in disruptive editing in respect of this one.Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

While you are writing it up, you can absorb this "opinion" (same subject).Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have veered sharply off topic, and there have been multiple reverted attempts to reinstate the disputed content, so I'm going to reiterate what the removal was actually about. I removed the paragraph quoted at the top of the discussion because it was in the "Support" section of this article, which lists people and groups that support or have supported BDS. The paragraph did not say anything about any person or group supporting BDS. (It said that neo-Nazis find common ground with BDS on a specific issue, and that doesn't mean one supports the other any more than the John Brown Gun Club supports the National Rifle Association or vice versa.)

It's that simple. The content didn't make any sense in context, so I removed it. Adding it back with no substantial changes will not fix the problem, which is that its location in the article makes no sense. Other issues which have been raised above can and should be discussed if the content is reworked and/or relocated so that its location makes sense and it is a more constructive addition to the article. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 19:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Activities

In the sentence "In 2014 the Gates Foundation sold its $170 million state ..." - I believe this should be "stake"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.154.26 (talk)

Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed, and also moved your talk page comment to the bottom, which is where new comments go. Please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There is another example of "state" for "stake" in the sentence "Veolia sold off its final investment in Israel, a 5% state in CityPass owned by its subsidiary Transdev." 24.212.193.227 (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Internet rando who hates typos

Fixed. Squeakachu (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

erroneous irrelevant tag

citations 54 and 55 are erroneously marked as irrelevant, despite showing their relevance on their face. The location in which they are cited declares that the UN/the international community has supported Palestinian Right of Return, against Israeli legal action. The Right of Return is enumerated in citation 54, though the link given in the citation is to the abstract of a larger paper (this should probably be corrected), which within its full text reads:

• That this language meant the Palestinian refugees must be permitted to return if they so chose is made clear both in the intentions of the drafters, as well as in the discussions by the UN delegates when 194 was passed. Paragraph 11 also makes return, restitution, and compensation equally enforceable, according to the refugee’s own choice.6

This is, on its face, relevantly cited. Citation 55 is also relevant on its face, reading:

• The Right of Return achieved customary status in 1948 when the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194(III) affirming the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and to obtain restitution and compensation. Like never before in the history of the UN, Resolution 194’s consistency with international laws and instruments was reaffirmed by the UN more than 135 times.

And further enumerates actions by the State Of Israel to circumvent the right of return:

• It is illegal as a matter of international law to deny refugees of a particular race, color, national or ethnic origin the right to return to their homes. Yet, subsequent Israeli laws barred Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes in what is now Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories (Law of Return), sanctioned mass denationalization laws targeting Palestinian refugees (Nationality Law), and confiscated Palestinian private property and land-holdings (Absentee Property Law and Land Acquisition Law). While the Right of Return remains the primary remedy, Palestinian refugees are entitled to reparations of their homes and properties based on the UN Principles and Guidelines, ICCPR Article 2, and other instruments. Reparations entail restitution (including right to return), compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction of victims, and guarantee of non-repetition.

It is plain to see that these markups were either erroneous or malicious. 96.241.209.54 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

They are irrelevant to BDS. The citations do not mention BDS at all. They belong in an article about refugees, not an article about BDS. --GHcool (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ben and Jerry's

An editor reverted the insertion of properly sourced material, a logical continuation of material already present in the article and claimed the reason as "nothing to do with BDS". In order to make it absolutely clear I have restored the edit along with additional references. If said editor has anything further to add then he can do so here.Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Said editor has now breached 1RR as well as removing an RS with a false edit summary.Selfstudier (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Now we have a tag for a source commenting about itself, which is a simple case of WP:ABOUTSELF and doesn't need tagging.Selfstudier (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

GHcool was right to remove that. That paragraph is written in a way that make it seems like B&J supports BDS and that Israel was boycotted bc of BDS, which is unproven. (violating SYNTH and NPOV). And why include so many responses and quotes from ppl that nobody cares about? Also, Nishidani's careless "undo" reintroduced an error into the text. - Daveout(talk) 07:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This news is widely and reliably sourced. If one finds some discrepancy in text and sources, one tweaks to make the two gel. Removal is just suppression of information from dislike. The task therefore is to lay out why the text as it stands misrepresents the sources.Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Daveout got my intentions exactly right. B&J does not support BDS. Indeed, they specifically say that they will continue operating and doing business within Israel. The only party relating their political decision to BDS is Yair Lapid (foolishly, in my view, but that's irrelevant to the article).

Daveout is also right that Vermonters for Justice in Palestine is a group that nobody cares about. Anything that they say and do would violate WP:UNDUE unless/until they become a bigger part of the overall BDS movement.

I don't mind if the B&J kerfuffle is included somewhere in this article since Lapid was foolish enough to link the two. I object to framing the issue as though B&J is following a BDS "campaign" (as the heading indicates) or that BDS's decision is under BDS "activities" (another heading). A better place for some of this would be under the "Countering BDS" heading. If there is no objection, I will move it there within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The original edit was short, to the point and followed on logically from the material that was already in the article previously and the location was never objected to before (ie a BDS campaign). So why are you objecting to it now? I suspect it is just because of the outcome and nothing more. I disagree that it is framed as if BnJ is following a BDS campaign, where does it say that? VJP was also in the article previously and not objected to. Lapid is irrelevant, this is obviously BDS related, that's why it was in the article to begin with. So yes, I object to any attempt to downplay or otherwise dilute this material unless you have consensus for that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Vermonters for Justice in Palestine is a group that nobody cares about

Well, 'them arseholes whingeing about Pallies as if there were some problem with their wonderful lives under occupation'? In short, clearly, you couldn't give a fuck about them, which is okay but the business was founded and grown in Vermont, and that link made a group of Vermonters protest for many years, finally with some success. I can't see how any of your objections are anything more than dislike. The Israeli government has managed to persuade numerous state legislatures in the US to act against firms which join BDS boycotting. This company's decision effectively exposes it precisely to such retailiation. It is too precipitate to shift it out here, even were there some query about it, because it is BDS breaking news, and will be for a while. If there's work to be done, one tweaks. There's no policy objection above, so far.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani didn't respond to any of my point and his sarcasm is not helpful. His entire post can be ignored.

I addressed your post only you didn't care to notice. If Lapid, the Israeli ambassador in Washington, and at the United Nations state that the J&B decision will have political and ramifications and that pressure will be exerted on 35 states to apply to that firm the legislation Israeli advisors drafted as a template for laws explicitly framed to punish the BDS movement, then the connection is there and stated in several prime sources, (Ben Samuels, Wants U.S. to Enforce anti-BDS Laws Against Ben & Jerry’s. Will It Work? Haaretz 20 July 2021; Israel PM warns Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever of consequences over sales ban 20 July 2021; Lazar Berman Diplomat says anti-settlement decision by US ice cream company will encourages activists, as Lapid says he plans to address US governors of states that have anti-BDS legislation The Times of Israel 20 July 2021 )It is irrelevant what J&B think of BDS, or omit to mention it. Both the BDS movement and the Foreign Ministry of Israel state that the move is either supportive or connected to BDS, and this is precisely what the present article discusses. No amount of pettifogging can outflank those facts.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier's response was a bit more sophisticated and deserves an answer. I disagree that "followed on logically from the material that was already in the article previously." I agree, however, that B&J does not frame its decision as part of a BDS campaign. That is why it is not appropriate to place this kerfuffle under the "Campaign" heading.

Selfstudier's argument has prompted me to rethink my approach to Vermonters for Justice in Palestine. I don't mind if they are mentioned in the article. What I object to is treating their website as a relevant/reliable source for anything. If VJP is mentioned in ABC, etc. then by all means, put them in the article.

I don't want to downplay of dilute. I only have three two suggestions, both of which would improve the article in ways that ought to be acceptable by all sides:

1. Remove the one sentence that begins, "VTJP describes itself ..."
2. Move the entire B&J kerfuffle (from "On 19 July" to "anti-Jewish discourse") to the "Countering BDS" section. --GHcool (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That's two suggestions, not three and neither of them is any good:-

The objection to VJP has no foundation, it is only being used as a source about itself, aboutself specifically permits a source to comment on itself and the purpose here is simply to show that it says that it supports BDS, nothing else. It was described in the article previously as one of "a number of local campaigns have been created by BDS-affiliated groups and endorsed by the movement". So they like each other, that's all that says and it is entirely unobjectionable in the given context (ie their involvement in the campaign).

This has nothing to do with countering BDS. How you arrive at that is beyond me.

Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent addition to the lead

An editor has inserted directly into the lead "It has been noted that the BDS program seeks to ultimately eliminate the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland." This is based on the opinion of a Sherwin Pomeranz writing in the Jerusalem Post who is described thus "The writer has lived in Israel for 37 years, is CEO of Atid EDI Ltd., a Jerusalem-based business development consultancy, and former national president of the Association of Americans & Canadians in Israel." This individual who I have never heard of seems uniquely unqualified to say "The catalyst for this decision was the pressure exerted by a group called Vermonters for Justice in Palestine (vtjp.org) that is totally committed to supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, a program that seeks to ultimately eliminate the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland." That apart, that an editor would then, based on this, edit WP as if it were a fact is completely undue (as well as rather obvious POV editing). Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Now said editor has altered the statement to "BDS proponents have stated that the BDS program seeks to ultimately eliminate the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland" again without attribution and this time citing JVL unreliable source per this RFC which I have removed and another source of doubtful value (the Jewish Journal(Los Angeles)) which is a recycled piece of junk news that has been doing the rounds for years and the edit does not even properly reflect it anyway. Tagged.Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

In case I am still not making myself clear, I am content to take this to RSN for a view on this.Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

As the founder of the BDS Omar Barghouti has stated that his desire is the elimination of the State of Israel. That is sufficent evidence.2603:8081:6B04:5300:B061:6CEB:BCEC:3FE0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

ADL's views on BDS anti-semitism

The ADL is clear and nuanced in it's description of the ways that the BDS movement is anti-semitic:

"IS BDS ANTI-SEMITIC? - Many of the founding goals of the BDS movement, including denying the Jewish people the universal right of self-determination – along with many of the strategies employed in BDS campaigns are anti- Semitic." (link)

For unexplained reasons, editors want to wipe that any nuance about the ADL's views: (AlsoWukai,SelfStudier).

Instead of turning this into an edit war, can we get a clear explanation why a sentence explaining their views needs to be removed? And if there is no reason to remove my text, it needs to be restored.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Your acquaintance at the StandWithUS article is fond of pointing out the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include disputed content. At this point, you have been reverted by two different editors so you don't have consensus for your desired change. Perhaps some other editors will appear and support your position.Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: There is absolutely nothing disputed about ADL, a reliable sources, spelling out the ways they feel BDS is anti-semitic. The original reverter did so until a false pretense, it was not just a "ce". Your explanation is "it was fine as-is" is also not sufficient. Why did this text need to be removed?

And if you're going to continue to engage in your absolutely intransigent behavior, blocking changes, without any solid basis behind your actions then this may need to be escalated to incident reports. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In case you have forgotten, I was the second editor to revert, not the first. And "not an improvement" (= "it was fine the way it was before") is a very common reason for a revert. Your edit essentially added nothing of any consequence. Also WP:CIVIL if you please.Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Bob drobbs, your edit in question here has been reverted by two editors and there is no consensus to include it – so independent of anything else that might be going on, Selfstudier is entirely correct that in this case the WP:ONUS is on you. (And unless I'm mistaken, belief that the status quo of an article is fine or that a change is nonconstructive is actually a valid reason to oppose a change.) ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The first editor reverted my change under a completely false premise: "ce".

As for Selfstudier's revert, how and why is spelling out ADL's views in more detail not an improvement? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what you need to discuss. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ezlev: ADL does not simply describe BDS as anti-semitic. It spells out the ways in which it is anti-Semitic (goals and strategies). This information is from a reliable source, it's nowhere else in the article, and thus it should be clarified.

Now can Selfstudier or anyone else explain why they feel that this additional information must be removed? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a relatively minor point (nuanced, might be a better term), but I agree with Bob drobbs on the two points he makes: (1) His original change was reverted with a misleading edit summary that called it "ce", which it was not and (2) there is a difference between saying "Organization/Person X is antisemitic" and ""Organization/Person X have goals which are antisemitic". If indeed the ADL said the latter and not the former, why would this article present the moe accurate/nuanced position? Inf-in MD (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I edit and here you are again, never having been on the page in recent times. Admit it, you have a thing for me, that's it, isn't it?Selfstudier (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You overestimate your importance- see the simple explanation Inf-in MD (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Well I mentioned WP:HOUND to you at the StandWithUs article and I will now mention it once again that it is a bad idea. Benefit of the doubt for now.Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes you did, and I appreciate that, and can tell you I am not doing that. You happen to edits a lot of article sin the same topics areas I am interested in, so naturally our path cross. But you never did answer the question I asked you - as to how you found yourself at Talk:Death of Mustafa Tamimi a couple of hours after my edit? A coincidence, was it? Inf-in MD (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably because someone else on my watchlist edited the page. If this is a roundabout way of saying that that could be the same thing for you, sure, but I am not talking about just one or two pages, OK? Anyway we can discuss this on our talk pages rather than here, right?Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: ADL does not simply describe BDS as anti-semitic. It spells out the ways in which it is anti-Semitic (goals and strategies). This information is from a reliable source, it's nowhere else in the article, and thus it should be clarified. That's your WP:ONUS. Unless you can come up with a reason from the WP:MOS why my content should be removed, please do not do so again. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

All you have done is to move a quote from a ref into the article. I don't really give a hoot about the edit itself, what I object to is you deciding that when 3 editors tell you that are in the wrong, you unilaterally decide that you are in the right.Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:Moving relevant content from reliable sources into encyclopedia pages is exactly the purpose of wikipedia. If you don't like that, find another home.

And if you don't give a hoot about edits, then don't revert them. You're making a lot of unnecessary work for people!

And FYI, you are the _only_ editor who claimed that this information didn't belong on the page. The first editor intentionally or accidentally removed relevant information when cleaning up text. Ezlev, said that WP:ONUS was a relevant point but then thanked me for my response. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Please don't characterize my thanks for your response as support for your edits. My intent was to thank you for engaging in discussion. I'm deliberately not engaging in the substance of this content dispute. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Countering anti-Semitism in the lead

@Nishidani: Please revert your last change or otherwise improve it so I don't have to. Basically the source does not say what you claim it says.

The source doesn't mention "smear" and that's a loaded word you should only use if the source does. And it only argues against a very limited set of the many accusations of anti-Semitism made against BDS. Basically HRW just says that singling out Israel does not make BDS inherently anti-Semitic.

By comparison, one of the things that the ADL says "...the predominant drive of the BDS campaign and its leadership is not criticism of policies, but the demonization and delegitimization of Israel. "

Needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure of the best way.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Source falsification

Source Joe Biden’s inauguration as president is unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against Israel, including in ways that threaten free speech. The BDS campaign advocates a peaceful boycott of Israel until it stops occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip, grants equal rights to Palestinian citizens, and allows Palestinian refugees to return. Candidate Joe Biden denounced BDS for “singling out” and “delegitimizing Israel,” but has not called it inherently anti-Semitic. Biden, too, should defend free speech rights, which include the right to call for peaceful boycotts, even if he remains anti-BDS. He should also oppose laws that penalize companies seeking to disentangle themselves from rights abuses inherent in Israeli settlements. And he should publicly repudiate Trump’s legacy of tarring criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways. To campaign or boycott solely on behalf of Palestinians under Israeli rule no more constitutes anti-Semitism than doing so on behalf of Tibetans in China is in itself anti-Chinese racism. Eric Goldstein, 'Biden Should Defend the Right to Call for a Boycott,' Human Rights Watch, 1 February 2021

(A)My paraphrase The accusation of BDS's putative anti-Semitism has been dismissed as a smear by Human Rights Watch regional director Eric Goldstein.

This was rewritten in

(B) Bob drobb’s rephrasing as ' According to Human Rights Watch some of the accusations of anti-Semitism don't have merit. Bob drobbs Clarified that HRW only disputes some of the allegations of anti-Semitism. Removed loaded language.

• HRW did not make that statement. One of its regional directors did. False attribution.
• In writing on the BDS page that Goldstein/HRW stated 'some of the accusations of anti-Semitism don't have merit, the editor falsified the text which has no such language. Worse, in plain English, the sentence thus reformulated means that Goldstein/HRW's view is that 'some of the accusations of anti-Semitism' (context = regarding the article's topic, the BDS movement) are without merit, which implies that HRW thinks some of the accusations of the same have merit. That's how English works. So a sources which dismisses anti-Semitism accusations about the BDS as maligning of that movement is spun to make out that some of those accusations (not all) have no merit. Source falsification like that actually is sanctionable. You twisted the text deliberately to make it say what it nowhere states.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

1) The reference is to an article on HRW's website, written by one of it's directors. I'm puzzled why you claim it's not HRW's position.

2) See the talk section immediately above this one. I have no idea why you didn't engage there. I found your description to be equally problematic. Part of the problem was the loaded word "smear" was nowhere in the source. I tried to come up with an improvement, and I'm not claiming my description of the source's content was perfect.

I'm happy to work with you to come to an agreement for what meets WP:DUE and accurately captures what the source says. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

In English 'it's,' and 'its' are two different things. I gave correct attribution and you didn't. I don't attribute to JPost the views of its main staff. I name who wrote what.

Answer the question, and don't move the goalposts. Your rephrasing has no basis in the source. In short, you rewrote the source and in doing so, distorted it to insinuate something not there. Don't waffle through my point. Address that linguistically. Justify your construal by referring where in the text by Goldstein is it stated that some of the accusations re BDS are without merit. Nota bene. Once an editor has been alerted that they have falsified a source, and cannot account for the distortion they introduced, persistence in defending the falsification is one of the major reasons for people being topic banned. At least that was so in the past.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: The JPost is news agency. HRW is a human-rights organization. The two are not comparable.

I made a mistake in choosing the word "some". It was not intentional. And it has been fixed. Now can you explain how your use of the loaded word "smear" that wasn't in the source wasn't also a falsification?

Again, if you don't like updated text, I'm happy to work with you in order to come up with text that correctly represents the source and meets WP:DUE.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If you don't like smear, use malign. I appreciate your efforts to try to fix the POV hash you made of the source, Bob, but singling out Israel, by itself, does not constitue anti-Semitism is still not what the source states. Writing paraphrase means getting as close to the text used as a source without copying it. It doesn't mean interpreting it in any of a dozen possible ways to create a synthesis of what an editor thinks the author must mean. What you now write does this, and obscures totally what the source actually states. You make it sound like a generalization. The source is specific: BDS is maligned/smeared by those who accuse it of being anti-Semitic. It's as simple as that, and eliding all reference to that straightforward concrete mention of BDS as the object of malign smearing is pointy. The solution is simple. Restore the edit that preexisted these two confusing changes. I.e.

The accusation of BDS's putative anti-Semitism has been dismissed as a smear/maligning by Human Rights Watch regional director Eric Goldstein.

Of course you are not obliged to do that. But tampering twice with a fair text - on both occasions obscuring the quite specific point it made re BDS suggests that your not comfortable with the source being paraphrased for what it clearly states. If you don't, I'll restore the earlier version sometime in the near future. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Since I detect a certain lack of self-assurance about the niceties of English prose (this is apparent since the first version's use of 'some' actually destroyed the intended and unambiguous meaning of the source), 'smear' is a synonym of 'malign' and I simply chose the later as a matter of paraphrasing to avoid copying the language of the original. Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

HRW speaks of problems with only the "spurious" accusations of anti-Semitism. It makes no mention of all of the other accusations of anti-Semitism which are not spurious. Then it goes on to speak about one, and only one, accusation of anti-Semitism which they say isn't anti-Semitic. That's what I captured in my text:

...criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways... To campaign or boycott solely on behalf of Palestinians under Israeli rule no more constitutes anti-Semitism than doing so on behalf of Tibetans

Your text was not "fair". The amount of text was absolutely WP:UNDUE based on it's proportion to the text speaking about BDS's anti-Semitism. And look elsewhere and you'll see word "smear" has differing connotations.

Beyond that, the problem with this source in the lead, is that it falsely gives the impression that it's countering all of the various ways that BDS is anti-semitic. In actuality, it's only countering one very specific thing. I wonder if it belongs in the lead at all? Looking at your comment when you made the edit, it seems your intent was to imply large scale support against all accusations of anti-Semitism, and that's not covered by this source at all:

...the antisemitism charge is rejected by a notable number of scholars, human rights groups and a:ctivists

If you put your text back without even trying to come to some sort of agreement here, I might just revert it. Yet again, I ask you very politely to please work with me to come to some sort of agreement that is clear and satisfies WP:DUE.

As a starting point, can you explain how and why this particular source belongs in the lead at all, as it doesn't seem to meet the goals you were trying to achieve when you added it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Bringing you in here too so we can discuss the lead, it's accuracy, and WP:DUE.

Your source doesn't seem to say what you've written. The word "inherent" is a crucial qualifier that's missing. "Efforts to boycott Israel" are not excluded from being antisemitic. There remain a bunch of different ways boycotts against Israel can be antisemitic even according to the Jerusalem definition:

Boycotting Israel and calling for an end to its Jewish majority is not inherently antisemitic...

And remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be based on trying to achieve Consensus. Are you willing to work with me here to do so?: -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

see here, the paragraph discussing the JDA, note that it does not say "inherently". My edit is a summary of that together with an additional reference. I will leave the other matter for you and Nishidani to sort out between you while noting that HRW director did use the word "malign" in a statement.Selfstudier (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Wikipedia is not a source, and just because it hadn't been fixed in the body yet, doesn't mean the incorrect text should stay in the lead. You made this change, you should own it, and fix it.

Plus, your additional text changes the balance of the lead for WP:DUE. I think one of the other of these sources would be appropriate balance, not both, but either way:

1) The text must accurately reflect what the source says.

2) It should not give any impression that these are blanket rebuttals of BDS antisemitism.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

A WP article body IS a source for a summary in the lead. That's how you get a lead, it's a summary of what is in the body with due weight.Selfstudier (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The information you added to the lead seems to be false. Are you denying any part of that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Which part of my edit is false?Selfstudier (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Go back a couple of comments because you already read it. The word inherently is a crucial qualifier to accurately represent what the source says. This is not a blanket exclusion claiming that boycotts of Israel aren't antisemitic or cannot be antisemitic. This text is false:

The 2021 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"A group of over 200 scholars has released a definition of anti-Semitism that explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel" https://www.timesofisrael.com/over-200-scholars-say-backing-israel-boycotts-is-not-anti-semitic/ if it's an additional ref that you seek.Selfstudier (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice it before but I can see that the ref in the article body is mislinked to Haaretz when in fact it appears that it should be the link I just gave. I didn't look at it before because I was going by the article body and was giving an additional ref in any case. I'll fix it.Selfstudier (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a far better source for your claim. I appreciate you sharing it and I am no longer claiming this text isn't supported by RS. However... if you scroll down two paragraphs, your new source seems to agree with the existing source:

The Jerusalem Declaration goes further ... saying that the movement to boycott Israel is not in and of itself anti-Semitic

Boycotting Israel and calling for an end to its Jewish majority is not inherently antisemitic...

I would say that the more specific statement, and the claim where the two sources seem to agree, takes precedence over what might just be a sensationalist lead paragraph in one source. Do you disagree? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The proper way to proceed if you wish to contest this is either to first contest what's in the body since my edit to the lead is based on that or to argue that my edit to the lead is not due weight. Both of these are likely to be "consensus" matters. This page has many eyes on it so I don't expect much of a problem in achieving such a consensus. Another way might be to collect up many sources and see if there is a prevalent version I also dk if there might be any scholarly sources available since it's fairly recent but I will take a look around all the same.Selfstudier (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/new-definition-anti-semitism-challenges-pro-israel-narratives There appears from this to have been two separate statements "200 international scholars has come up with a definition of anti-Semitism that excludes efforts to boycott Israel," and then "a separate [earlier] statement issued by a liberal group of Jewish scholars, which said that boycott measures applied to Israel were not necessarily anti-Semitic.". That could be where the sources are confusing things. We can delve into all the details of who said what and when but that should be done at the JDA article and I am not sure that inherently or necessarily make that much of a difference when all is said and done, afaics most sources are pointing up the contrast with the IHRA document as the main event.Selfstudier (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: There's a very substantive difference between saying something isn't of it's nature racist versus saying it cannot be racist. Going to the original source seems appropriate to check accuracy when a RS disagrees with itself:

"Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace ... In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic". (jerusalemdeclaration.org)

So, Forward, TOI, the actual declaration, plus Nishidani's original HRW reference all use some form of "inherently". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I still think it's a distinction without a difference (or a mountain out of a molehill). So why not wait and see what others have to say about it? Of course, you could revert my edit, I can't prevent you doing that. I think I have spent enough time on it just for the moment.Selfstudier (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Before I take off, since I have never actually read it I just went and had a look so as you say above, it just says "Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic." so what we are discussing is what that means, right? Interpretations might differ although speaking for myself it seems pretty clear so that's why we have to filter it through secondaries.Selfstudier (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Bob, lay off, desist. You screwed up your rewrite twice, and admit that. Now you want more humongous argufying to negotiate something more to your likes again, when the edit you challenged was plain and faithful to the source, and not question-begging. What you are now saying ignores the specific fact that Goldstein in one para states what he stated, anti-Semitism+BDS-smear. That is what is relevant to this article.

You scour the text and pick up (a)Candidate Joe Biden denounced BDS for “singling out” and “delegitimizing Israel,” but has not called it inherently anti-Semitic (b) 'And he should publicly repudiate Trump’s legacy of tarring criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways.'

(a)The text stated specifically that BDS was being smeared as anti-Semitic and that is what we use it for. So it's pointless culling Biden's words to craft a phrase when the author notes Biden did not call BDS anti-Semitic.

(b) is a generalization at the end of the article about Trump practices of criticizing anyone or group, not only BDS, as anti-Semitic. Secondly, it is inept semantically. You can't 'tar criticism . .in spurious ways' for the simple reason that this implies you can 'tar' someone in non-spurious ways.

You are making a huge fuss about a very simple statement in the source which you have twice inaccurately manipulated. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Just laying the different versions out for clarity:

"In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic." (JDA-primary)

"It explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel." (WP article body -> lead)

"A group of over 200 scholars has released a definition of anti-Semitism that explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel" (ToI lead in)

"The Jerusalem Declaration goes further ... saying that the movement to boycott Israel is not in and of itself anti-Semitic" (ToI later in the article-same as primary)

"Boycotting Israel and calling for an end to its Jewish majority is not inherently antisemitic..." (ToI again - you cited this but it is referring to two things at once)

"Boycotting Israel and calling for an end to its Jewish majority is not inherently antisemitic" (Forward-again, two things, not one.)

"Candidate Joe Biden denounced BDS for “singling out” and “delegitimizing Israel,” but has not called it inherently anti-Semitic."(Goldstein - a kind of reverse usage)

To me, "in and of themselves" (per the primary source) is the same thing as "per se", beloved of lawyers and just means "not considering any other factors" (abundance of caution). Of course it is possible that there might be some circumstances which might be construed as etc etc (same as saying there is always a probability no matter how small for some event). So I think just simply saying boycotts are excluded or the equivalent is in fact correct. The lawyerly way of looking at it would ask "What is the intent?" and I think it is clear that the declaration intends to exclude boycott in the usual sense.Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.inss.org.il/publication/anti-zionism-antisemitism-and-the-fallacy-of-bright-lines/ is the only scholarly thing I found so far (recognized expert in the field, covering all the bases, list of sources) but only mentions the JDA (and Nexus) in passing.Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Four different sources, plus some additional ones above, and this includes the original HRW link all use similar language, which clearly indicates that it's possible for BDS to be anti-semitic or have anti-semitic aspects to it. That's a crucial difference.

Forward: is not inherently antisemitic

HRW: tar BDS as inherently anti-Semitic

TOI: is not in and of itself anti-Semitic

Declaration: not, in and of themselves, antisemitic

Nishidani you made no attempt to come up with language that would be mutually agreeable. As stated above, there are differing connotations between "smear" and "malign". And the large amount of text is WP:UNDUE for the lead. And most importantly HRW does NOT claim that ALL accusations of antisemitism malign BDS. As written it's miseleading, if not completely false, so it needs to be fixed. If you feel that HRW said that all accusations of antisemitism smear BDS, please share the text of where they say that! What I see is "governmental actions malign". Which governmental actions are these?!?

Selfstudier, you can guess at intent. But when a stack of RS say the same something, and it matches the language of the actual document, that's the version we should use for clarity and accuracy.

Adding two different sentences in the lead about generally the same idea, which is that boycotts are of Israel are not inherently anti-Semitic is also WP:UNDUE. These two things probably should be be collapsed into a single sentence for balance, the way the antisemitism allegations are being handled. For the moment, I'll be deleting Nishidani's text completely, and making Selfstudier's text in the lead, plus the body, conform to what's said in the stack of above sources. I would like to try to be constructive and come to an agreement here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Thank you for letting me know about my incidental violation of 1RR with a multiedit. I rolled it back and restored your text. But do you have any strong objections to the new text which I feel accurately represents both the document itself an a bunch of sources. As of right now, I do plan to put it back later.

@Nishidani: Your text has been removed for now. If you feel HRW says that all accusations of anti-semitism smear BDS, please provide the full quote where HRW says it. The source seems to says "governmental actions". Which governmental actions?? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You've shown several problems in reading accurately a simple text, as documented above. You don't reply in a focused manner on what I or other respondents argue. And, it is not that 'your text has been removed for now'. You mean 'I (Bob drobbs) have removed your text for now'. And I Nishidani feel perfectly entitled to restore it. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to ping me, this article is on my watchlist. You appear to be ignoring my comments above re the different sources as well as equating BDS = boycotts (only a part of BDS and the JDA is only referring to that part). You are also "choosing" the Forward source rather than the ToI source used in the article body (and which does not need to be re-cited in the lead for it to be effective. (changing the body as well was a kind of third revert, idk how long it has been there, would have to check) To reiterate you need to go a step at a time or argue one thing at a time. So as I said above, to contest what I put in the lead (which is based on what is in the body, identical in fact, and directly supported by the ToI source), you first need to show that what is in the body is wrong and I don't think you have managed to do that (or at least I disagree with your reasoning based on my arguments above). Alternatively (not as well as) you can argue that my addition to the lead is undue but it is rather difficult to make that argument now having deleted Nishidani's material. Messy, I know, but needs must.Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Please keep discussions about the HRW content here, instead of the other section. We're "edit warring" in large part because I believe you have completely and totally misrepresented what that source says. Where _exactly_ does it say that all accusations of anti-semitism smear BDS? What I see is "government actions malign". Can you please share the text from HRW where it says what you have written in the article? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind you keeping it here except in so far as there is no contradiction with the discussion below, the two things being at a minimum, connected (BDS/Boycott).Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Jerusalem Declaration - Accuracy

Moving this conversation here. Selfstudier, you said I have to show the current content is "wrong". I don't believe that's the case. I think I just need to show that the new content is an improvement. The current text:

• "...Declaration on Antisemitism explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel"

First of all, there is a tangible and crucial difference between any blanket claims that BDS is not antisemitic and claims that they are not by their nature antisemitic, but there is the possibility of them being antisemitic or acting in antisemitic ways.

At least 4 sources make it clear that the document is not a blanket exemption. The document itself does too:

1. Forward: "is not inherently antisemitic”
2. HRW: "tar BDS as inherently anti-Semitic”
3. TOI: "is not in and of itself anti-Semitic”
4. JDA: "they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic"
5. Declaration: "not, in and of themselves, antisemitic”

I think the lead should be edited to match the Forward and HRW use of "inherently" for length and accuracy. The body needs to be changed for accuracy too, but I'm ambivalent which form it takes.

These changes would bring the content much more in line with a majority of sources and the document. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism article, and it's clear to me that this is a key point: the document doesn't say that BDS and related efforts are not antisemitic but rather that they are not antisemitic in and of themselves. However, I believe it's also true that the JDA explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel from its definition of antisemitism: that is, it explicitly states that efforts to boycott Israel are not in and of themselves antisemitic. What I'm saying is that these two phrasings have the same intended meaning.

Of the two, though, only the current wording can be misinterpreted as saying that the JDA defines boycotts of Israel as never antisemitic. So I support Bob drobbs' proposal of using not inherently antisemitic or something similar – it's not perfect but it follows the sources and is the clearest phrasing I can think of. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev, is it your edit at the JDA artice that says "The declaration does not take explicit stances for or against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement or the one-state solution, but rules they are not antisemitic "on the face of it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 11:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

References

) I just came back to sign it and you beat me to it, lol.Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ha! Is "on the face of it" that different in meaning from "inherently" or "in and of itself"? That Forward article you linked quotes Alon Confino as saying “The JDA does not, of course, insinuate that the Jews do not deserve a state, but merely that denying this right is not in and of itself antisemitic”. Emphasis added. The concept of something being not inherently antisemitic is clearly an important one with regard to the JDA. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed it because it was the same Forward ref as the additional reference I added to my edit of the BDS lead and I couldn't recall seeing that quote in it. If it isn't actually a quote (I might have missed it) it should be fixed, of course. Anyway, I prefer the JDA article sentence, fixed if necessary, I do think we should try to maintain a certain consistency across the articles using the JDA article as root -> BDS article body -> BDS article lead, rather than reinventing the wheel, if the sources are actually the same.Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The other point I am not quite happy with is that I was only addressing the boycott aspect whereas Nishidani (HRW) was looking at the entirety of BDS and that material has been deleted so I think we can also add BDS material from the JDA article as well, what do you think?Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

One editor, just one editor, has waged a war against the HWR source. Twice he introduced phrasings that contradicted the source, falsifying it. It was an abuse, and reportable. For Bob, it doesn't state what he wants it to state: He wants their unequivocal source declaration that BDS is not anti-Semitic to leave in the possibility or innuendo as he states above that 'there is the possibility of them being antisemitic or acting in antisemitic ways.' Nothing of this is in HWR. So, what was his third move. Erase HRW and use Arno Rosenfeld The 2021 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism states that boycotts of Israel are not inherently anti-Semitic The Forward 25 March 2021. With this he writes:

The 2021 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism states that boycotts of Israel are not inherently anti-Semitic.

The JDA declaration, according to Rosenfield,

the document purposely did not take a position on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement

So why in the lead does Bob remove a source that explicitly states its view of the nexus between anti-Semitism and BDS, to replace it with a reference to a definition that deliberately does not mention BDS.

Bob, that's your third try. Twice distorting a source because it said what you don't won't noted, and when this failed, erasing the source to cite a declaration which never mentions BDS (though Rosenfield makes the connection) The replacement sentence is out of place because it never mentions BDS. It is a generalization from which the reader is expected to infer that the prior sentence's relating BDS to anti-Semitism via boycotts has been challenged. You are creating problems for the reader in doing so. In sum, you are POV pushing right down the line to main a margin for the innuendo there may be some truth the in negative criticism. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

An alternative for the lead might be to take all of the stuff out and simply replace it with something like "there is no consensus on whether BDS is anti-Semitic" or "Whether BDS is antisemitic is disputed" together with a couple of the most representative sources in that regard. Then we can sort out the body as needed.Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be parity between a number of different antisemitism allegations directed at BDS, and credible people on the other side disputing only one of those accusations. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that? Scholarly and not partisan for preference.Selfstudier (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

TheFourDeuces, at the recent NPOV discussion you initiated, said much the same thing as I just proposed and gave some reasons and sourcing for that opinion.Selfstudier (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Feldman, David.(Pears)(Ed) Boycotts Past and Present: From the American Revolution to the Campaign to Boycott Israel. Springer, 2018 p281, Assessing BDS, Philip Marfleet (Blurb- "In this collection, contributors explore the history of past boycott movements and examine the different narratives put forward by proponents and opponents of the current BDS movement directed against Israel: one which places the movement within a history of struggles for "human rights"; the other which regards BDS as the latest manifestation of an antisemitic tradition.")Selfstudier (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I don't have any scholarly sources offhand. But I do have examples handy:

German Parliament: "The argumentation patterns and methods used by the BDS movement are anti-Semitic."[3]

Anti-Defamation League: "...many of BDS's goals and strategies as anti-Semitic"

The people at HRW and the Jerusalem Declaration say it's not inherently antisemitic to decide to boycott Israel. They don't dispute the statements made by the ADL or German Parliament. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The JDA is sand in the eyes. The point is, why does Bob insist on misinterpreting or erasing the HRW source. That organization is one of the most important and neutral right watch bodies in the world, beyond suspicion for playing politics. Political stances and opinions are likewise predictable, boring: it is a formal part of Israel's diplomatic strategy and huge investments in social media, newspapers, lobbies, and in every political foreign policy argument in European and northern American continental states etc to promote its hasbara trump card equating criticism of Israel's occupation with a putative anti-Semitic bias against Israel as a Jewish nation. The sums mustered for this are enormous. So I yawn when I see people citing things like the German parliamentary declaration. These are definitions that arise from tactical political moves. Before someone says that sounds like David Miller, who was sacked recently for a statement similar to this, read Anshel Pfeffer Israel Is More Focused on 'Hasbara' Than It Is on Policy Haaretz 2 May 2012; Anshel Pfeffer The Politics and Money Behind Israel's Zionist Bureaucracy Haaretz 9 May 2014.(There is phrasing there from hasbarists almost identical to the key remark Miller made which newspapers regard as anti-Semitic:'.” Each of these groups (30 including ADL) has heavy-weight donors, offices in Israel and abroad, a strong presence on the Internet and social media and a steely determination to conquer the battlefield of ideas — for Israel and the Jewish people.') So it is a fundamental Israeli talking point to throw that accusation at BDS. Fine, we state that this is a view of critics of BDS. By par condicio we must state that the equation is dismissed or denied by a major human rights organization, scholars etc. All I can see here is incompetent misreading of sources to undercut what HRW's director said, which, when not successful, led to the elision of HRW and its substitution with ref to a generalization that never mentions BDS. If you mislead and misparaphrase a simple source twice, then erase, put in another irrelevant source and shift the goalposts, the conclusion is obvious. You're not showing equilibrium and are pushing for a POV, one that wants BDS to wear the tinge of being possibily anti-Semitic.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Come on Bob, that's why I said scholarly non partisan sources, I can match you one for one if I just want to cherry pick predictable or well known positions. The noise level was very high during the latter part of Trump/Pompeo but that's all over, we're in the Ben & Jerry era now.Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/14/bds-boycott-divestment-sanctions-movement-transformed-israeli-palestinian-debate & https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/magazine/battle-over-bds-israel-palestinians-antisemitism.html Nathan Thrall.

I see now where "on the face of it" comes from, that is lifted straight from the declaration text (at the top of Guidelines C, it says "C. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are not antisemitic" and then at 14, "Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic." Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I removed the content from HRW because I believe you are the one who has 100% misrepresented it and I didn't see an easy way to fix it. Nowhere in the article does it say "... accusations of antisemitism smear". The actual text in the article says "...governmental efforts to malign".[4] So, I'll ask you again, which governmental actions are these? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say "... accusations of antisemitism smear" We don't ordinarily mirror word for word what an article says, we compose prose. The article currently has "Eric Goldstein considers the charge of antisemitism laid against BDS a smear." and the HRW article by Goldstein says "unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign [BDS].. ", you are saying that these two statements don't mean the same thing, is that right? Not sure I understand your point about "governmental actions", what do you mean exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Here's what the text says, and I think we're in agreement about this:

"unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign [BDS]... "

Nishidani has somehow connected the dots that these "governmental actions" were "charge of antisemitism". I don't believe that's what the article says or even intended to say. My question to him is how he came to that conclusion. Or to put it differently, what exactly are the governmental actions which HRW refers to. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no connecting of dots. The source says

But Joe Biden’s inauguration as president is unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against Israel, including in ways that threaten free speech. The BDS campaign advocates a peaceful boycott of Israel until it stops occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip, grants equal rights to Palestinian citizens, and allows Palestinian refugees to return

Pull your socks up. I'm not concerned with what you believe. I won't be sucked into replying endlessly to questions that do not focus on the precise context, or that arise from your evident inability to grasp what a paraphrase does. I didn't cite the article. I cited what a director stated. That you insist I must cite HRW's view is beside the point. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: This is not paraphrasing. This is WP:OR.

Nowhere in that quote does it say that these "governmental efforts to malign" are "accusations of antisemitism". You have just made that up. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Since you keep harping, about things conceptually resolved, I'll keep reposting what you should have read and understood

Source Joe Biden’s inauguration as president is unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against Israel, including in ways that threaten free speech. The BDS campaign advocates a peaceful boycott of Israel until it stops occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip, grants equal rights to Palestinian citizens, and allows Palestinian refugees to return. Candidate Joe Biden denounced BDS for “singling out” and “delegitimizing Israel,” but has not called it inherently anti-Semitic. Biden, too, should defend free speech rights, which include the right to call for peaceful boycotts, even if he remains anti-BDS. He should also oppose laws that penalize companies seeking to disentangle themselves from rights abuses inherent in Israeli settlements. And he should publicly repudiate Trump’s legacy of tarring criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways. To campaign or boycott solely on behalf of Palestinians under Israeli rule no more constitutes anti-Semitism than doing so on behalf of Tibetans in China is in itself anti-Chinese racism. Eric Goldstein, 'Biden Should Defend the Right to Call for a Boycott,' Human Rights Watch, 1 February 2021

(A)My paraphrase The accusation of BDS's putative anti-Semitism has been dismissed as a smear by Human Rights Watch regional director Eric Goldstein.

There is no WP:OR, no connecting stray dots. That is sparse paraphrase of the source, with correct attribution to the person quoted. Succinct because leads require that. I've been doing this kind of thing for 85,000 edits, Bob, without significant challenges to my ability to précis. If you insist on challenging it as a fair paraphrase, take it to the appropriate page. It's pointless engaging in WP:Bludgeon tactics here. Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I'm sorry, but it's still WP:OR. You're still making guesses.

It's unclear what exactly they meant by governmental actions. The quote seems to give the impression of giving Biden credit for not labeling BDS as "inherently anti-Semitic". At the bottom of the article Goldstein speaks of a problem with "spurious" accusations.

Trump’s legacy of tarring criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways
Joe Biden ... has not called it inherently anti-Semitic.

The "maligning" could mean, at minimum, one of at least three things:

• Accusations BDS is inherently anti-Semitic
• Spurious accusations of anti-Semitism
• All accusations of anti-Semitism

Why would Goldstein differentiate if he felt all of these things were the same? If you're unwilling to work with me to come up with a version that clearly reflects what the source says and intended to say I'll keep reverting it, and/or escalate the issue. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Third Para NPOV issues.

According to critics, including the Anti-Defamation League, BDS is antisemitic,[13] has elements of anti-Semitism,[14] seeks to delegitimize Israel,[15] and/or resembles historical discrimination against Jews.[16] The 2021 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism explicitly excludes efforts to boycott Israel.[17] Countering BDS is a top priority for the Israel lobby in the United States, which has put in place measures that confront BDS activities in over 30 states

• (a) Critics of BDS get 25 words
• (b) Summary of anti-BDS measures in US taken by 30 states (28)

I.e. we have 53 words on what BDS is criticized for, and measures taken in the US to counter it. Part of this is neutral because the effect of these laws is attributed to the lobby. Part is not, because passing laws in 30 states looks likes impressive testimony that BDS is widely viewed as an organization that proposes things states regard as illegal)

• (c) A comment not mentioning BDS gets 12.

The third paragraph therefore is unbalanced. It should summarize the accusations made by critics, and the defense of BDS advanced against those accusations in parity of weight. Instead 53 words underline the criticisms, and a mere 12, vague, and not apparently linked to BDS (it is a generalization about anti-Semitism, not a comment about BDS), are tweaked in as a nod to NPOV.

I have corrected this imbalance by providing text allocating a 56/42 rough parity in terms of accusation and defence, per NPOV.

By the way the sentence in (b) is completely screwed up by inaccuracy and messy attribution. The Israel lobby has not 'put into place measures' to 'confront' BDS. Israel (the laws draw on a draft by an Israeli legal scholar) and a number of pro-Zionist groups have successfully lobbied 30 states to enact laws that make the implementation of BDS proposals unlawful). The measures taken are the responsibility of the states. Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I'll come back to discuss the other issues. But the biggest NPOV issue in the 3rd paragraph right now is what seems to be your total distortion of what HRW says. Please address that issue before moving on to other things. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Since I have no faith in your ability to construe a source, since twice you invented stuff and falsified it, and since you state here I distort what 'HRW' says, when I am as always quoting what Erik Goldstein says, you'd better do some homework and show where I distort what Goldstein says. I don't quote the HRW, but him, and you can't see it.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)