Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Achievements and Failures

Hey everyone. I think it is slightly unfair to have an "Achievements" section without having a "Failures" section. I suggest one of two things to remedy the situation:

1. Make a "Failures" section and move all of the BDS movement's failures from their specific country categories into that new section
2. Placing the achievements from the "Achievements" section into their appropriate country.

I'll await further responses before I act boldly and do something by myself. --GHcool (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no policy about fairness that I'm aware of. Perhaps you mean WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV? I agree, we should integrate the achievement section into the country sections. A failures section doesn't seem appropriate but adding significant failures to relevant countries might be interesting. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League and NGO Monitor

Is the Anti-Defamation League and The Forward reliable sources on what the Anti-Defamation League believes about BDS? Is NGO Monitor a reliable source on what NGO Monitor believes about BDS? My feeling is that they are. I will restore the material cited to them within the next couple of days unless someone gives a compelling reason why they are not. --GHcool (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to the beliefs of some editors, wikipedia is not here to promote the ceaseless number of pro-Israeli organizations spread their non-notable statements. If NGO Monitor makes a statement and no one cares should it be added to wikipedia? No. Sepsis II (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't care, but other people do. NGO Monitor resources are published all over Wikipedia. --GHcool (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The existence of a source is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The sources might be "reliable", but that does not mean we must or should coverage of anything for which there is a source. I very much agree with Sepsis: we should not include material like this unless there is a secondary source for it (and even then...). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a call for censorship to me. If it were up to every individual Wikipedia editor to decide what should or shouldn't be included in an article about a controversial topic, Wikipedia would look a lot different. Two famous groups known for their opposition to anti-Semitism have called the BDS movement anti-Semitic. This is significant and deserves to be mentioned in the "allegations of antisemitism" section. --GHcool (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Forward is concerned with topics of Jewish interest. We don't dismiss it because it focusses on exactly what we are concerned with. We are concerned with a question: Are the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions antisemitic? There is no final answer on this. As a balanced article we include the view of The Forward. The Anti-Defamation League is entitled to an opinion—in fact it is ludicrous to think they are not entitled to an opinion. After all, they set themselves up as an organization to detect and expose antisemitism, among other reasons for their existence. We don't rule out their opinion if we are really asking the question as to whether or not the "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" movement is antisemitic. We should be asking this question. The reader knows full well to consider the source. Is it hard to look at the source and know that they have a particular concern with Jews and antisemitism? If the article is to be well-balanced it should allow the inclusion of views not necessarily complimentary to the central topic of the article. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well the ADL is an organization that actually wears two hats. It is concerned with anti-Semitism, but it is also a pro-Israel advocacy group as is the Simon Wisenthal centre. In this particular article the hats overlap. To write an NPOV article we should be looking at how third party, secondary sources present and publish their opinion and what weight third party secondary sources give their opinion and we should weight our article accordingly. If we have WP:ADVOCATE editors just trying to cram as many self published advocacy sources into the article as possible, with no regard to the weight these sources are given in third party, secondary sources we are not going to end up with a neutral encyclopaedic article. This is not censorship it is just basic principles of how to write a neutral article in line with policy.

The reason why there is so much NGO monitor self published material across the IP topic area is because they had a paid editor operating in Wikipedia for six years skewing articles away from NPOV to fit their agenda. Almost any source self published source such as blogs, or material published on activist groups websites is reliable for their opinion, but that does not mean their opinion can be introduced across Wikipedia on any and all subjects. We need some evidence from secondary, third party sources that their opinion is notable on the specific topic of the article in question. Dlv999 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Div999's reasoning smells a lot like censorship to me and to any fair-minded person.

The ADL and SWC do not take a stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict except to say that anyone who works towards the destruction of the Jewish state, demonizes it out of proportion, etc. is guilty of anti-Semitism. It is true that they support Israel's right to exist, but so what? It is only something they "advocate" in the context of the anti-Semitic call for Israel's destruction. The ADL and SWC have nothing to say about left-wing or right-wing Israeli or American politics or the status of Palestinians nor does it have anything to say about what Israelis and Palestinians ought to do or what a final peaceful settlement of the conflict would look like. It is completely neutral on these topics. It only addresses the question of whether a movement crosses the line from mere criticism of Israel to outright anti-Semitism.

I will stipulate that NGO Monitor is not like the ADL and SWC in that NGO Monitor is more specifically pro-Israel. I am willing to negotiate on what we can or cannot say quote from NGO Monitor's website. Whereas the ADL and SWC clearly state that they are in the business of fighting anti-Semitism regardless of politics, NGO Monitor states that it is in the business of advancing a pro-Israel agenda.

NGO Monitor doesn't target the Ku Klux Klan, but SWC and ADL do. SWC and ADL don't target the New Israel Fund, but NGO Monitor does. Alas, the fight against anti-Semites and the fight against anti-Israel bigots often overlap. Sadly, this is the case with the BDS movement. --GHcool (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

NGO Monitor is a very minor organization whose presence on Wikipedia is way out of proportion to its importance. The argument that it should be all over this article because it is all over other articles is the wrong way around. The ADL is important enough that its view should be reported briefly without puffery. Zero^talk 07:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out: "The Simon Wiesenthal Center has been discussed before at WP:RSN regarding claims of anti-semitism against opponents of the Israeli government. It is not regarded as RS by the community for this kind of thing and should be withdrawn. Third party, secondary sources are required to support the inclusion of their opinion. The same principle applies to the other Israeli advocacy/public diplomacy sources particularly as the material is making claims about third parties so needs to be well sourced." Dlv999 (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You're drifting into WP:NOTFORUM territory now. Do you have the requested secondary sources? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That discusion on RSN doesn't seem very conclusive to me. SWC and ADL are both sources for identifying anti-Semitism. It really isn't rocket science. NGO Monitor is more of a grey area that I am willing to discuss, but SWC and ADL are bullet proof as far as I'm concerned. Shall we open a RfC? --GHcool (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, given the your recent edit pattern on this page, your opinion of a source as "bullet proof" does not carry much weight. Certainly not more weight than a discussion involving multiple editors at the WP:RSN. It should also be noted that you are not simply using self published advocacy material for their own opinion, you are using these sources for verification of facts in the Wikipedia voice. Dlv999 (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We are not discussing a topic closely related to that discussed in the "Reliable sources/Noticeboard" thread of November 2012. We are not discussing whether antisemitic material for 5 year olds were distributed to them by Hezbollah. In that instance a lot of variables are found. Also sourcing is weak. But in our instance the variables are absent and the sourcing is fine.

Almost any assessment of antisemitism would probably be on the topic of this article. Do boycotts tend to have negative consequences? Are Jews the population group intended to be negatively impacted by the tactics of the "BDS" movement? Some prominent organizations have produced and disseminated clear statements characterizing "BDS" tactics as being antisemitic. Those statements most certainly are not being made in "Wikipedia's voice". Any statement relating to this matter in our article should take efforts to be clear that the sentiments expressed are attributable to the specific organization being named.

WP:NPOV is achieved by bringing counterbalancing sources. Are there sources attributable to reputable and prominent individuals or organization that take issue with the charges of antisemitism? If so, they can be considered for inclusion in our article. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop is right. Rather than censoring those who point out the anti-Semitism inherent in the BDS movement, we should publish both the charges of anti-Semitism and the response of reliable sources (if there are any) that defend BDS on the charge. --GHcool (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Is someone still suggesting a change to the article? If so, can they restate the suggestion along with sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I made an edit [1] but then realized I had edited last night to so I reverted for now. I compacted it, removed some of the excess sourcing (three sources all backing the simple idea that Simon Wiesenthal Center thinks its antisemetic - one is enough, same for ADL). I also found counter criticism while reading the sources already in the criticism section so I added it to the article. Sepsis II (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I liked the spirit of your edit regarding Michaelson and created my own version which I think expresses Michaelson's views a little better. --GHcool (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this behaviour acceptable

So Claude S. Fischer is sourced as saying

"It is certainly true that anti-Semitism fuels the BDS movement. But most of the fuel — and the greatest problem for Western defenders of Israel — is the occupation, its settlements and the ugliness it often brings. That is why, for example, one of the powerful voices at the Berkeley BDS meeting for the proposal was that of an Israeli graduate student who had fought with the IDF in Lebanon. The hard-core may stop up their ears, shut their eyes and yell “anti-Semite” as loud as they can..."

Yet in the article we have his quote as merely "It is certainly true that anti-Semitism fuels the BDS movement." Sepsis II (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously unacceptable, indeed a serious offence. GHcool, please explain. Zero^talk 00:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You make a fair point. I've edited the article accordingly. --GHcool (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"Regardless of that truth". Is that your final answer? You are going to leave your gross misrepresentation of Fischer and add to it by refering to an opinion as a fact. I would also question why you had originally left out Jay Michaelson's counter criticism statements out of the article and why you have changed Jewish leaders (in the source) to Jewish supporters in the article but with such an offensive user page I think the answer is obvious. Sepsis II (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that as humor and direct you to WP:POINT. I had a good chuckle anyway. I suggest we drop the Claude quote outright, unless we can find a WP:SECONDARY. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I support fully articulating Michaelson's, Fischer's, and Foxman's points of view. If I make errors of omission or if I write something in a way that reflects my own biases, I hope that others will point it out (which they have) and if they make a fair point, I will change it (which I have). Censorship is not the answer. --GHcool (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Great once again you revert without respect for others or for 1RR. Sepsis II (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There is still an open arbitration enforcement request regarding GHcool's behaviour in this article, and in particuular repeated breaches of 1RR. RolandR (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Arab League boycott

Regarding the recent expansion of this section. I checked the source, it doesn't mention the topic of the is article: The BDS movement. A lot of material discussing boycotts of Israel was removed from this article because the sources did not specifically discuss the BDS movement, which is the article topic. I think therefore it is difficult to justify inclusion of any material not sourced to citations that are not directly related to the topic. And in fact that is what our policy tells us (WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.")

In a controversial topic like this I think we should be very strict on this and require that all sources are directly related to the topic of the article. This should be equally applied to all material whether it is positive, negative. Dlv999 (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

There's a nice Timeline here as a reminder of any events that need to be added. Tweak to memory and research. User:Carolmooredc 12:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)==

Nazi comparison

As the boycott resembles the Nazi closing and appropriation of Jewish stores and business, this should be given equal weight to the false analogy to arpathied South Africa.74.104.159.130 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)