Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

External links -> Official Website notably missing

On ADL wiki page: "External links Official website"

On this page: Nothing.

Please fix.

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."[1]

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".[2] 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)

Actually you should be reported. You are showing yourself to be a consistent reverter to a version you like, which keeps changing (two times falsifying the source), and two editors are perplexed by what you are doing. You have 1,052 edits. The inexperienced who can't grasp WP:OR but keep waving it, should follow procedure and get imput on the OR page. This for example is a threat:'I'll keep reverting it, and/or escalate the issue,' and were any arb to see it would earn you a severe warning. Why, because you are declaring an intent to editwar until you can extort a concession, the grounds for which neither I, nor I believe, Selfstudier, can see any logic to.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to report me, that's your prerogative. But my intent here is to make sure that the page correctly captures what the source says. I am 100% correct in saying the original quote you provided did not support your claim. The more extended quote is now questionable at best. IMO it's WP:OR and you're making guess.

The text you chose to bold is the another way of saying "not inherently antisemitic." It doesn't dispute that there are other ways that BDS might be anti-Semitic. e.g.

...no more constitutes anti-Semitism than doing so on behalf of Tibetans in China is in itself anti-Chinese racism ... but there are still 1,000 ways a boycott movement could be racist against Chinese people.

I'm going to make a good faith effort here to get consensus on things that Goldstein clearly said. I hope you are too.

You skipped my question -- Why would Goldstein differentiate using terms like "inherently antisemitic" and "spurious accusations" if he felt all accusations of anti-Semitism were the same? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't skip anything. I quoted Goldstein's view that accusing BDS of anti-Semitism is a smear. He says that. You are trying to challenge his remark eliciting from the source a distinction (intrinsic/spurious) about the question of anti-Semitism itself, to displace the citation's specific cogency and draw out a discussion on varieties of anti-Semitism, that have nothing to do with what Goldstein said regarding BDS.Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Based on a bit more research, I retract the above question, at least for now, because WP:SYNTH seems far more relevant:

"Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source ... If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

I think your text in the lead violates syth, and thus needs to be removed. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If you need to do 'a bit more research' that turns out to be actually consulting a core policy page which we are all supposed to master even before editing, then that only speaks to your lack of familiarity (1,000) with Wikipedia. You have a right to your opinion. So if you think I engaged in WP:Synth, and cannot convince either myself or Selfstudier that my paraphrase is WP:OR, you don't threaten to editwar, and you don't act on the basis of your personal assumption. Protocols requires that you go to an appropriate board and try to get third party input that changes your minority opinion into a consensus. This is the way Wikipedia works. Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the maligning (calling, smearing, whatever, a bunch of words might fit the bill here) is clear cut; as I pointed out ((with an rs) there are two camps, the BDS is antisemitic camp and the hr camp, so which camp do you think the maligners are in? All the OR is on your side, you keep making up alternative explanations for things that don't need any.Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 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)

Source misrepresentation (2)

There you go again Bob. you add

On the flip side, Human Rights Watch says it's indisputable that some anti-Semites are using the term "Israel" or "Zionist" in the place of "Jews", and say this needs to be "called out". ""Anti-Boycott Measure Wrong Way to Combat Anti-Semitism"". May 28, 2019.

• 'On the flip side' That is not acceptable in wiki prose.
• The context is an article by Wenzel Michalski, a German director of Human Rights, and must be attributed to him. You apparently do not do so because you are trying to tease some ostensible contradiction in two separate reports by HRW, that doesn't exist. There is no 'flip side', aside from your flippancy. The article is not a backflip on the view, you challenge, from HRW's Eric Goldstein. To the contrary:

Governments like Germany’s are right to be concerned about the virulent cancer of anti-Semitism. But the joint CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Bündnis90/Die Grünen motion that passed the Bundestag recently that present boycotts of Israel as anti-Semitic is misplaced and the wrong way to combat anti-Semitism. The German government should reject it. There’s no doubt that some anti-Semites have learned to use the term “Israel” or “Zionist” as a substitute for “Jews.” That should be called out. But it’s also true that legitimate criticism of Israeli state actions is sometimes wrongly tarred as anti-Semitic. Wenzel Michalski, Anti-Boycott Measure Wrong Way to Combat Anti-Semitism The European 28 May 2019

Everybody agrees that anti-Semites using Israel or Zionist to hide what, on inspection, is actually an anti-Semitic hostility, should be called out. A zillion sources state the obvious. There is nothing noteworthy in citing that here to HRW, from an article that specifically attacks legislation and practices in the US designed to counter BDS. Indeed he criticizes the very use of the German/Jewish boycott analogy we cite in the lead. The source clearly suggests acting against BDS is wrong because in international law, many companies are bound not to trade with products produced in an occupied country. It's criminal, even if laws exist within Israel and abroad punishing firms for observing international law. Indeed that point should be in the article. Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC) So you editing here consists of serial misrepresentations of sources.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Summing up Goldstein

As I said earlier, you are unwittingly or not, throwing sand in the eyes of your interlocutors by confusing general statements and specific cases. Since you can't grasp the point, and refuse to seek outside opinion against the skepticism about your inferences from the text, I'll make it crystal-clear by a propositional analysis of the text in question. I know you will jump at this to come back and recycle your objections, but I won't be arguing beyond this. Go seek the consensus you reverts and editwarring on this issue require. I.e.

Goldstein’s piece is subtitled 'Repudiate Trump Slurs against Activists Critical of Israel and its Settlements

• (1) In the first para he says the Trump Administration’s views is that on NGO calls to boycott of Israel over settlements is that they are anti-Semitic. (fact) .
• (2) The American Administration has therefore made efforts to malign the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against Israel,(fact)
• (3) Biden probably won’t end this Trump policy of smearing/maligning. (author’s guess)
• (4) BDS advocates a peaceful boycott to end the occupation, and obtain equal rights for Palestinians in Israel (referring to BDS foundational policy statement of aims) (fact)
• (5) Pompeo tarred BDS as inherrently antisemitic.(fact)
• (6) He went beyond this: he also classified all NGOs who adduce international law as a reason why businesses should not deal with settlements antisemitic. (fact)
• (7)International law is opposed to complicity in abetting human rights violations, of which settlement and business in an occupied territory is an example-(fact)
• (8) US states have legislated to punish companies that support boycotts of Israel.(fact)
• (9) Joe Biden specifically said BDS delegitimizes Israel for its positions. (fact)
• (10) But he fell short of calling it (as Trump did) inherently antisemitic.(fact)
• (11) Within the Biden administration there is a conflict between the statements of the US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield who stated that BDS ‘verges on anti-Semitism’ and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken who qualified his dislike of BDS by stating the US will respect the First Amendment guarantee of a right to express what one thinks or believes.(facts)
• (12) Goldstein then draws his conclusion in the face of these various positions between the Trump and Biden administrations regarding BDS:

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. (this is the view of HRW as expressed by its regional director for the I/P area(EG's opinion, for which he is quoted).

• (13) Goldstein then adds a counsel for the administration that must deal with with malign smearing of BDS inherited from the Trump Administration

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. (advice)

The unambiguous meaning of this in context is that (a) BDS is not antisemitic and to assert it constitutes maligning. This refers to the specific case of BDS as an NGO (b) the Trump legacy of ‘tarring criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in spurious ways’ refers not only to BDS but the position Mike Pompeo pushed that all ‘nongovernmental organizations . . that support boycotts of Israel‘ are, ipso facto, anti-Semitic’. (6 above) (b) is the generic statement, not specific to BDS.

This page is about BDS, not about all NGOs with similar boycott proposals. The specific issue is whether it is anti-Semitic. What you are doing is trying to twist and blur the clear distinction in Goldstein’s article between the specific case of BDS (no more antisemitic than a pro-Tibetan org which called for a boycott of China for the similar abuses it commits against the occupied Tibetans would be racist), and the Trump Administrations blasting as antisemitic all NGOs in spurious ways. There is no WP:OR in writing therefore

Human Rights Watch's Eric Goldstein considers the charge of antisemitism against BDS a smear.

Your attempt to manipulate the text so as to insinuate that there is some ambiguity as to whether or not for HRW's Erik Goldstein BDS is intrinsically or contingently anti-Semitic is POV pushing, and draws on a consistent distortion of straightforward language.

I've done this so you can copy and paste it as my view when you, as protocol requires, address the WP:OR discussion board with your minority complaint. I have responded exhaustively so I won't reply if you try to use the above as a new starting point to 'negotiate'. Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs: I'm not convinced that the Goldstein material is OR. You could consider adding a relevant quote to the ref if you think that would clarify the prose. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I also don't find the current summation of Goldstein's views to be OR. I am fine with "smear", or "maligned", or a direct quote like "wrongly tarred as anti-Semitic" (stricken quote not from the Goldstein source). I am not sure why Bob drobbs is reverting this material citing failure to get consensus; as it appears more editors have supported it than opposed it. +1 to support now. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC) striking 00:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the "wrongly tarred" quote is from the Michalski HRW source, and I got them mixes up. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani rejected getting additional input on the DSN. So, put his request, I've created a new discussion on the OR noticeboard.

^^^^^^ Please move discussion here. ^^^^^^^

And Firefangledfeathers, IMO there's a huge difference between "accusing" and "wrongly accusing". Both cases seem to be SYNTH, but the former case also seems to blatantly distort HRW's view. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Bob drobbs, I am not sure what you're referring to. Who said "accusing" or "wrongly accusing"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Let me try again:

Nishidini: "the charge of antisemitism against BDS a smear"

Goldstein: ""wrongly tarred as anti-Semitic""

Nishidini's version deleted the word "wrongly", and that changes the meaning. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I paraphrased the article's key point re BDS and the anti-Semitism maligning, not the snippet of a few words in one sentence. Now kindly desist, and listen to others, since you won't listen to me. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

To me “smear” is fine as a paraphrase of “wrongly tarred”(I was wrong about this quote being Goldstein's). I still don’t feel I understand your objection. My parsing of Goldstein is that some are tarring boycotts as antisemitic and that they are wrong to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to know, if you were to add a relevant quote from the source as I mentioned above, designed in your view to clarify the prose, what would that quote be?Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Thanks for engaging with a legitimate question to gain understanding. I parse the text a bit differently, it says that people like Trump "spuriously" or "wrongly" call BDS anti-Semitic (i.e. every boycott of Israel is racist by nature). But the text deliberately leaves room for others, who are not the topic of this article, to call BDS anti-semitic in ways that are "non-spurious" or "correct" (i.e. some of it's methods are antisemitic).

If Goldstein felt like every single accusation of anti-semitism was false, why would he add qualifications like "spurious"? Why would he differentiate between those who call it "inherently" anti-semitic and those who don't? Goldstein clearly has a problem with Trump and Pompeo, but does NOT imply he objects to other's more nuanced descriptions of BDS's antisemitism. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Eh, what? "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." Selfstudier (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:I'm sincerely hoping that you're willing to listen. The quote you pulled up, yet again leaves room for racism from a boycott movement:

e.g. "To campaign or boycott solely on behalf of Palestinians ... but if the goals and strategies of this boycott are racist, or many of it's members chant racist anti-Chinese slurs, then that movement is racist."

Goldstein _never_ said all accusations of anti-semitism are wrong. Please note that the HRW called out Trump and Pompeo, they did _not_ call out the German Parliament who said: "The pattern of argument and methods of the BDS movement are anti-Semitic" -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I refer you to the quote above, that seems pretty clear to me and this discussion also seems rather pointless because it seems to make no difference whatsoever what anyone says here, you just keep right on going, classic WP:IDHT.Selfstudier (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty position

We currently have

"Amnesty International does not take a position on BDS, except to say that advocacy of boycotts in general is an expression of freedom of speech." sourced to a August 2019 statement.

However This November 2020 statement takes a stronger line.

"The US administration is following Israeli government’s approach in using false and politically motivated accusations of antisemitism to harm peaceful activists, including human rights defenders, and shield from accountability those responsible for illegal actions that harm people in Israel, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and here at home...." as well as

"Advocating for boycotts, divestment and sanctions is a form of non-violent advocacy and of free expression that must be protected. Advocates of boycotts should be allowed to express their views freely and take forward their campaigns without harassment, threats of prosecution or criminalization, or other measures that violate the right to freedom of expression." and

"We will continue to support our Israeli and Palestinian colleagues, including BDS activists, who like human rights defenders around the world, speak up when justice, freedom, truth, and dignity are denied."

References

Anyone like to precis that? Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Various possibilities. If this can replace the now slightly inaccurate ref to AI, we should restrict an alternative phrasing, with this source, to the 25 words we have for the present ref to A1's position

Amnesty International, stating that the US Administration and Israel both used false claims of anti-Semitism to harm peace activists and limit free speech, expressed support for BDS members.

Hm, that is 3 words over. I'll par it back, when I've had a cuppa.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty International, expressing support for BDS members, stated both the United States and Israel make false claims of anti-Semitism to harm activists and limit free speech.

26 words Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty International, expressing support for BDS members, stated both the United States and Israel make false claims of anti-Semitism to harm activists and limit free speech.

26 words Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The NPOV balance per wordage should be 56: (BDS is anti-Semitic) balanced by 56 (it is not). If we included the above, it would be unbalanced in favour of the defense against the charge. I.e.

The 2021 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism says "Boycott, divestment, and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states,"[19] and that boycotting Israel is not inherently antisemitic.[20] Amnesty International, expressing support for BDS members, stated both the United States and Israel make false claims of anti-Semitism to harm activists and limit free speech. Human Rights Watch's Eric Goldstein considers the charge of antisemitism against BDS a smear

amounting to 68 words, 12 beyond our self-imposed limit.

If one wrote:

The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism excludes BDS from its definition, stating boycotts against Israel are not inherently antisemitic Amnesty International, in support of BDS, stated both the United States and Israel make false claims of anti-Semitism to harm activists and limit free speech. Human Rights Watch's Eric Goldstein considers the antisemitic charge against BDS a smear.

That's 56 words, perfect parity in wordage. The footnote for a quote would solve the issue.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The description that the Jersusalem Declaration "excludes BDS" should be removed because it's repetitive and confusing. See ezlev's comments above. The only thing it excludes it from is being inherently anti-semitic. This feels like POV pushing and trying to do everything possible to mislead people into thinking these sources claim BDS _cannot_ be antisemitic:

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.

As for the claims that Amnesty International the Us and Israel did something, the "who" and "when" needs to be clarified. You appear to be pushing the idea that Trump is synonymous with USA and Netanyahu is synonymous with Israel. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Query about the self-imposed word count: What did you count?? This sentence seems neutral, and I'd actually suggest cutting everything after the comma to get rid of the of the verbosity in the paragraph.

Countering BDS is a top priority for the Israel lobby in the United States, where 30 states have banned the implementation of boycott and disinvestment measures proposed by BDS.

This could become simply: "Countering BDS is a top priority for the Israel lobby in the United States" -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edit adds another 4 words, so no parity: 60 to 56. Put in German Parliament, and you are asking editors to react by adding in the next sentences, that the German parliament proposal is regarded by one of our sources as misplaced. Then you could add the United States' measures etc.etc.etc. That is how ill-considered tampering invites editwarring. But the most serious part of your error is writing 'it's' for 'its'. Really, if you can't tell the elementary difference between the two, arguing about how to précis shouldn't be on your agenda.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The description that the Jersusalem Declaration "excludes BDS" should be removed because it's repetitive and confusing

Several simple words in an orderly sentence cannot be construed as 'repetitive'. Good grief.

You quote with approval in Green Ezlev's remark. Have you read it? It reads:-

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.

These weird contradictions are too frequent in your remarks, and because they are disattentive, only lead to the kind of endless repetitiveness that mars the discussions above. Please take more time to parse correctly what others state, and you intend to argue.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You skipped over the other half of the sentence.

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.

Please stop the ad-hominem arguments, especially on talk pages. Please restrict to discussing the content of the text and what the sources says, instead things you think about me. I'm making this comment here, because you've insisted I not comment on your talk page:

And in terms of ezlev's message, you overlooked this:

...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.

His point was very clear, and you're yet again advocating for the version of the wording he said can be misinterpreted to be included in the lead. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I think attempts to turn the lead into a laundry list of who supports/doesn't support BDS is misplaced. The first sentence encapsulates the issue in general terms, AS vs HR, that's it ie if you are HR/rights supporter you are likely to at least condone if not actively support BDS and if you think it is AS, you won't, it really isn't any more complicated than that in the final analysis, all the wordsmithing notwithstanding.Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I concur. We had a nice, evening balanced third para (balanced if you ignore the footnotes for the anti-Semitism accusation, which contain material that is pointless. Alan Dershowitz is not a reliable source, but can stay in as far as I'm (un)concerned. The recent changes are, indeed, overegging the pud to give a heavier spin to a charge neutral sources are sceptical of. We had a generalization, three charges, and three responses 56/56. That is NPOV, and tweaking for advantage in disregard to the larger issue of balance, parity, and terseness is tantamount to POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree that the lead would be improved if it stops being a laundry list of supporters and opponents. It's been an escalation since Nishidani did the first name drop. Here's the lead as of October 2:

"According to critics BDS is antisemitic,[13] seeks to delegitimize Israel,[14] and resembles historical discrimination against Jews.[15] Countering BDS is a top priority for the Israel lobby in the United States, which has been successful in over 30 U.S. states in putting in place measures that confront BDS activities.[16]"

I suggest reverting it back to this point. Then adding one sentence, similar to the anti-semitism sentence, which correctly summarizes the Amnesty International, HRW, and Jerusalem Declaration positions. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This fails to recognize the sea change in opinion that led to the need to rebalance the lead to begin with, certainly anti-BDS forces were in the ascendancy until about a year ago, the situation is markedly different now. By laundry, I was actually referring to your ADL and German parliament additions, both of little or no consequence so speaking for myself it makes no difference whether they stay. If I were going to do anything at all, I would lose the lot except the first sentence but again I am not that concerned about it. This lead has consensus as it stands so might as well leave well alone.Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Interesting that you don't see the Jerusalem Declaration, Amnesty, and HRW to be a "laundry list" too.

As for Amnesty's position, the text needs to be changed to past tense. Amnesty was speaking about things under Trump and Netanyahu, who are no longer in power. There's no hint that they believe this is an ongoing pattern.

"make false claims" => "have made false claims"

And really, the original source should be put back up and the text should be fully clarified for the reader that Amnesty was specifically referring to Netanahu and Trump's administrations. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What you refer to as the original source is a policy position superseded by the new policy statement which is much stronger than previously, "We will continue to support our Israeli and Palestinian colleagues, including BDS activists, who like human rights defenders around the world, speak up when justice, freedom, truth, and dignity are denied." (We could quote this but we were trying to keep it short as I recall). Should Amnesty alter their position once again, it will of course be incorporated in the article. I have however altered the text to make it clear that it was the then current Trump admin that was following Israeli policy, a policy of successive Israeli administrations including the current one as far as I am aware, no particular Israeli administration was referred to.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Wrong statistic

Under "Palestinian Reactions", it is written that "BDS enjoys overwhelming support among Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territories. In a poll from 2015, 86% supported the boycott campaign, 64% believed that boycotting would help end the occupation, and 88% said they had stopped buying Israeli products.[283]" However, going to the survey of that source, the question of whether they had stopped buying Israeli products is question number 63, and it is only 52% who has stopped doing so. I think in the summary they by mistake added "did stop" and "did not stop" to reach 88%. In addition, the question was about two specific Israeli companies, not a boycott of Israeli products in general.

This is also more in line with other polls, such as this one: http://www.miftah.org/arabic/Docs/Reports/2015/Other/PalestinianPublicOpinionPollNo51Ar.pdf

On the top of page four they ask the same question, and only 49% say that they don't buy Israeli products (while 8% only buys Israeli products and 36% don't care whether the product is Israeli or Palestinian and decide based on the quality alone).

So I propose we change that paragraph to reflect the actual findings of the polls, that while the movement enjoys broad support in the abstract, it is to a limited extent heeded by Palestinians.

NeffeG (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. For now, I removed the 88% altogether since the relevant q in the survey only applies to 2 companies (apparently, it's a bit unclear). I will take a look at the miftah survey later, ideally it would be better to find secondary sourcing so I will have a look and see if I can find some.Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

http://www.miftah.org/Doc/Polls/PalestinianPublicOpinionPollNo51.pdf is the English version of mifta survey rather than the Arabic.Selfstudier (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Lots of dubious sources, and other issues, too...

With respect to all involved, especially the single editor responsible for more than 60% of this page's text, I suspect that very few people coming to this page for the first time (as I have just now) could honestly claim that it relies on reliable, authoritative sources ("especially where the topic is controversial"); that it gives due weight to the major points of view; or, most of all, that it avoids advocacy. I have already stripped out one publication published by something called AK Press, which is apparently a fringe press with no peer-review process that is devoted to publishing "books, pamphlets, and zines", presumably with an anarchist bent (bonus points for the book's foreward by Cynthia McKinney!). But the scope of the problem far exceeds this. BDS isn't very important to me and I have no desire whatsoever to get stuck in on this, but I expect that serious editors will not in good faith assert that, for example, the following are reliable sources that should anchor large portions of the text (I have just looked at the first two main sections, a small fraction of the article):

Taraki, Lisa (19 August 2004). "Boycotting the Israeli Academy". ZNet.

Hickey, Tom; Marfleet, Philip (13 October 2010). "The "South Africa moment": Palestine, Israel and the boycott". International Socialism – A quarterly journal of socialist theory.

PACBI (27 December 2011). "What is normalization?". +972 Magazine.

There is also a worrying reliance on unpublished PhD Dissertations, and publications from Haymarket and Zed Press that are not clearly peer-reviewed (it seems some from Haymarket may be, but Barghouti's publication in their "Ultimate Series" is not, so far as I can tell? More to the point, as a general matter, why not opt for serious university presses and reputable peer reviewed journals? There is plenty out there on this topic!). If there were more high quality sources involved and a higher proportion of the text were sourced to them, the odd unpublished dissertation and non-academic press publication might be reasonable; as it now stands, considerably less than half of the opening sections of the article (a representative sample, I would expect) is sourced to what are conventionally agreed to be high quality RSS where controversial topics are concerned.

Most unusually, there are also some extensive passages based entirely on the BDS website itself, which contributes to the page simply reading like a promotion or a paid advertisement.

I understand the passion some may have for this page, but I think we can do much, much better here. If editors do not want to improve the quality of the sourcing, I think we should strip out all of the plainly unacceptable material, accept some amount of the unpublished PhD material and non-academic press material (where it is peer-reviewed), and then flag the page as having some important issues; alternatively, editors with a genuine passion for the topic might provide sources of the quality that Wikipedia and its readers deserve. As always, happy to discuss further in a calm and well-reasoned way. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

especially the single editor responsible for more than 60% of this page's text arrived at this page and said much the same thing as you are saying now. We all have a POV and given your editing at the David Miller article, it is clear that their POV (and to a lesser extent, mine as well) is likely the other side of your own. All of his editing was scrutinized, in particular by editor G H Cool and I watched all the back and forth as well. Since they haven't been around for a while and can't speak for themselves, I can assure you that this article is in a far better condition for their efforts, your insinuation notwithstanding.

If editors do not want to improve the quality of the sourcing, I think we should strip out all of the plainly unacceptable material That's amusing, you don't want to improve the sourcing yourself but will happily strip out material you don't approve of. That's not the way it works.Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, Selfstudier. In an ideal world, that's precisely what one would do, and the good news is that on this topic (unlike, say, with David Miller's sacking), one would also be in the enviable position of having at one's disposable a wealth of high quality, peer-reviewed publications from reputable university presses or solid academic journals with which to build up a good article. Since you bring up the David Miller page, which I think does have big problems, you'll remember that my first substantial intervention there was precisely to strip lots of material [3] that was not well sourced (in some cases salvaging key material where better sources, such as e.g. the BBC, The Times, or even the Bristol Post could be found) and, through a process of building consensus on the talk page [4], I was actually hoping to go further. But watching what happened there (and seeing how other episodes at I/P-related pages have played out do not) suggested that further efforts devoted to the page were unlikely to produce many improvements to it in an efficient way; unfortunately, and with respect, you were on more than occasion one of the main reasons (though certainly not the only one) to think that one would be more likely to get bogged down in time-consuming and bitter personal disputes without any clear benefit to Wikipedia users [5], [6]). Hope always spring eternal, however, and I have been working to compile serious, peer-reviewed sources to address another I/P page that also relies on substandard sources (and has other serious shortcomings), and, thankfully, has editors who have demonstrated a commitment to high quality sourcing; I am looking forward to having enough time soon to have a go at improving the page by adding in well-sourced and appropriate material.

For better and worse, I have a full-time job unrelated to these matters, and of course proper research and drafting takes a lot of time, which, unfortunately, I do not have at this moment (I'm sure you will understand [7]). In the meantime, however, we still have an article that is in quite poor shape in many ways. As a first step, it thus seems eminently reasonable and consensus-oriented: 1) to note that the current article much too heavily on substandard sources; 2) to take the first step of flagging this up as a problem on the talk page; 3) to appeal to editors who are invested in this page, appreciate the value of quality academic sourcing where it is possible (as on this topic), and want to make Wikipedia more like a battleground and more encyclopedic to improve it; and then, if necessary, 4) intervene in the article itself or add a tag (I'm sure you'll understand [8]. If you prefer, I am happy to skip to step four and follow your lead in noting failed verifications and clarifications that are needed. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding material is much better than deleting it as a rule. Arbitrarily deleting sources will certainly receive my close attention. Tag as you wish, just make sure to explain why they are being added. I see nothing else in your commentary that needs a response other than I think you meant to say "less like a battleground" rather than "more", Freudian slip perhaps? Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Columbia

On to the edits, the first of these re Columbia being the addition of "non-binding" (fails verification, not in given source), "Columbia rejected the resolution" (also fails verification); "explaining this decision" (what decision?), Lee Bollinger, the university's president, wrote that Columbia "should not change its investment policies on the basis of particular views about a complex policy issue, especially when there is no consensus across the University community about that issue."

So the only bit of this that is correct (but still incomplete) is [In response] "Lee Bollinger, the university's president, wrote that Columbia "should not change its investment policies on the basis of particular views about a complex policy issue, especially when there is no consensus across the University community about that issue." omitting that any decision would have to made via the Uni Advisory Committee. In other words, students said divest and Bollinger responded no change in investment policy without consensus across the University community. Also omitted was what the resolution called for, "to boycott and divest from companies that "profit from or engage in the State of Israel’s acts towards Palestinians,".

I will look at the rest of the editing later but if this effort is anything to go by, I am not hopeful.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Brown

The non-binding thing (again). "Brown rejected...". the letter from Paxson makes it clear that she is rejecting it, not necessarily Brown even if the effect is the same for now. Omitted is the 2020 Advisory Committee official recommendation "that the University divest from "any company that profits from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land," which I will add for balance. This is presumably a similar committee to that referred to by Bollinger above, so it would seem the matter is not closed as yet. Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

What is a "non-binding" student resolution anyway? No university considers itself bound by student resolutions, so it isn't like there is a distinction to be made. Zero^talk 13:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure if this is true; I haven't encountered any systematic study of the relationship between student government resolution processes and university decision-making protocols. Perhaps you have. Second, if you you are correct - and you may very well be - saying that a student resolution is non-binding would then be something akin to an analytic statement that, in this instance, provides invaluable context for those unfamiliar with the nuances of university administration (which is, I think, nearly everyone who is not involved in adminstering a university. I have spent a great deal of time at universities, and I myself had no definitive understanding of the obligations of a university to implement the demands of this sort of resolution by its students. That is because I have never actually seen this kind of referendum before, so I had even less to go by.)

The reason this matters is that when I first read the phrase In 2019, Brown University became the first Ivy league university to pass a divestment resolution, with 69% of the students in favor and 31% against, the conclusion I took away from this was that Brown had indeed divested or begun divesting; without any further context, that is, I think, the most reasonable inference. (I would hate to think that this had been done intentionally to mislead, and I'm sure that was not the case.) It is also incorrect, and so in order to avoid misleading our readers, it seemed some explanation that a) the student body passed this resolution (with, notably, just over a quarter of the student body voting for it), not some part of the administration, and b) that this resolution was non-binding and thus did not necessarily lead to Brown divesting, was in order. I hope this clarifies my reasoning and my intentions; naturally, I would welcome any improvements to the phrasing you might wish to suggest. (Incidentally, because it, too, provides further valuable context, I think the subsequent addition of the Advisory Committee on Corporate Responsibility in Investment Policies decision is also helpful - though the 'nevertheless' is probably not quite on the money, and it doesn't need to double the length of the entire paragraph...) Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The proper response to failed verification is to demonstrate the claim as wrong (which you haven't done) or else remove the OR.Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Source removal

Leaving aside throwaway commentary about specific sources in the article, two sources were removed, not one, Enforcing Silence:(Zed 2020)(Jeff Handmaker contribution) & We will not be Silenced (AK Press 2017)(Robinson & Griffin (eds) contribution). Your argument for the first is that the material in Zed Books is "not clearly peer-reviewed" and that AK Press is "a fringe press with no peer-review process". Please supply evidence for these assertions and explain precisely why this material is not due. And be so kind as to not remove any more sources without a discussion here first.Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS on those who want to retain the material. Both publishers are fringe and WP:UNDUE Shrike (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That is patent nonsense, Shrike. I regularly cite Zed Books on Wikipedia, always when they are quality academic works, and your's is the first challenge to it. It is a major venue for many I/P books written by scholars. Is that the problem. In any case, a large number of their academic works will in future come under the Bloomsbury Publishing imprint, which also no one challenges. Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Misleading text on article: "In 2019, Israel caused some controversy by denying entry to two BDS-supporting U.S. Representatives, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar."

They were not denied entry to Israel due to their BDS positions, but due to a request from the Trump administration to the government of Israel. AnonMoos (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The source says:

"Israel's decision on Thursday to bar two American Democratic congresswomen, Representatives Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, from visiting the country rests on a law passed just two years ago. Aimed at Israel's critics, the law has been used to deny entry to outspoken foreign supporters of a global movement to boycott the country, which has significant support in Europe as well as the United States".

The article later goes into detail about the law to which it is referring:

"Passed in 2017, the law was aimed at outspoken supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement who encourage individuals and institutions ... ".

The article also mentions Donald's opinion, but does not directly link Donald's statement to Israel's action:

"The announcement came hours after President Trump encouraged Israel to deny entry to the congresswomen, an extraordinary attempt to influence an ally and punish his domestic political opponents".

The article does state that, although these were the first two Americans banned under the law, a number of other people had previously been refused entry under the law.

Burrobert (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

That's nice, but https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/16/world/middleeast/rashida-tlaib-israel-visit.html and much other news coverage at the time placed a very different emphasis on this. The Trump tweet apparently used to be at https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1162000480681287683 , but of course can't be directly accessed now... AnonMoos (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I think both versions are true. The Israeli government cited Israeli law in refusing the two entry, but they did so after Trump had given them the green light. The Israeli press presented it like this and opined that Israel would never have taken the action without permission from the Trump administration. For example, in this article we find "According to Netanyahu, defending his decision, barring the entry of Representatives Omar of Minnesota and Tlaib of Michigan was defensible because in his words, 'Tlaib and Omar are leading activists in promoting boycott legislation against Israel in the U.S. Congress.' ... Originally, the Israeli government had determined to allow in the two congresswomen. But President Donald Trump pressured Netanyahu not to do so as an extension of his attacks on Omar and Tlaib...". Zero^talk 07:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)hj

I would suggest expanding that paragraph, using appropriate sources. Where there are conflicting versions in reliable sources we should include both in a suitable way.

• We should mention that the law was used to refuse entry to a number of people prior to the incident involving Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.
• We should mention the Israeli government's stated position linking the refusal to Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar's BDS activism. For example, we could use Netanyahu's statement quoted above.
• We should mention that some sources state that Donald's statement was reported to have influenced the decision by Israel. An example is the opinion piece from David Rothkopf quoted above.

Burrobert (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You're still kind of missing the main point -- The Israeli government was entitled by Israeli laws to deny entrance to Tlaib and Omar on the basis of BDS, and Netanyahu would have personally preferred to deny entrance to Tlaib and Omar on the basis of BDS, but they were NOT denied entrance until Trump placed his heavy thumb on the scale. Therefore the critical precipitating event was Trump, not BDS. AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Produce an rs saying exactly that or close to it (ie Trump instructed the IsGov what to do and they did it even though they didn't want to) and then we will see. NYT first line says "Israel relented...under pressure from President Trump" so that's clearly no use and Trump tweets are no use either.Selfstudier (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh? There probably won't be any source saying that Netanyahu (at least) didn't want to deny them entry, because he DID in fact want to deny them entry (as I said immediately above) -- but he didn't quite dare to exclude U.S. members of Congress until Trump conspicuously gave him permission to do so. And the "relenting" didn't apply to the original exclusion from the Congressional junket, but to a subsequent offer of a purely humanitarian trip for Tlaib to see her grandmother (this did not apply to Omar). You need to brush up on some of the facts of the case... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The article currently says "In 2019, Israel caused some controversy by denying entry to two BDS-supporting U.S. Representatives, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar". This seems an accurate, though not a complete, description of what happened. It does not, for example, explicitly say that they were refused entry because of their support for BDS. Why don't you suggest an alternative wording, with supporting sources. Then we will know what we are arguing about. Burrobert (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Burrrobert -- since their support for BDS is the only factor mentioned, therefore by what linguists call "Gricean implicatures" it creates the impression that their support for BDS was the only factor in their being denied entry and/or that BDS support purely on its own was sufficient to get them banned. That was and is true for other people at other times, but it was NOT true for Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in 2019 -- they would not have been denied entry to Israel at that time without the heavy-handed intervention of Donald Trump. So BDS was not the only and/or sufficient factor. The wording on the article would be just fine for some other cases of people denied entry to Israel, but it needs some clarification when applied to Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in 2019... AnonMoos (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No sources, just opinion. So here's a source:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-on-tlaib-omar-ban-israel-respects-congress-but-wont-tolerate-bds/

"Katz said that, with the visit drawing closer, Netanyahu met with cabinet ministers to discuss the matter and decided to bar the lawmakers. Katz denied reports that US President Donald Trump had pressured Israel to disallow the two congresswomen from visiting. He also said the decision to bar the two was made before Trump tweeted support of a ban on Thursday."

So that's the end of that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Israeli Foreign Minister denied that Israel had acted under US pressure. Why does that settle it? Wouldn't Katz say that regardless? Zero^talk 02:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Selfstudier is saying that the Israeli government made its decision prior to Donald's tweet, so the decision could not have been affected by the tweet. Anyway, I don't have a problem including all this in the article with appropriate attribution of the various opinions. We should also note that the law was used to refuse entry to a number of people prior to the incident involving Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. The existence and use of the law seems to be quite pertinent to the topic of this article. Burrobert (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would not pay that much attention to things said by IsGov but I don't really see what they would gain by deception in this case. The level of detail also suggests its true but if there are other sources denying that or saying something else, then of course we should include them as well.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

What they would gain is clear. It is bad press for any government to admit they acted under pressure from another government. But I have no objection to an attributed mention. Zero^talk 12:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How about using this as a source, it seems to cover all the bases.Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier -- Sure, that summary seems reasonable (though I'm not sure why there's a link to the Charles Koch foundation at the bottom of every page on that site). AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the status quo article text is fine. For an article about BDS, Israel's decision to bar sitting US Reps from entry, while citing an anti-BDS law, is relevant. The nuances of the decision do not help readers understand anything about BDS, though they are certainly informative about Trump, Netanyahu, and American-Israeli bilateral politics. Firefangledfeathers 18:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

However, BDS support on its own would not have been sufficient to get Tlaib and Omar banned in 2019 without Trump's intervention, so if the Wikipedia article implies that it would have been sufficient, then it's misleading. Of course, there are plenty of other people (not members of the United States Congress) whose BDS support was in fact sufficient on its own for them to be denied entry to Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)