Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Poll

I noticed from my edit request above that there is at least one editor who is allowed to edit this article who agree with adding the "AntiSemitism" category. However, the addition of the category was revert-warred by another editor. So, I suspect that the best way to settle this is by a poll to determine consensus. Thus:

Should the "Category: AntiSemitism" be added to this article?

• Yes. Add the category per my rationale above. Also, it appears that several of the organizations most active in the BDS movement are openly anti-Semitic. AppliedCharisma (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Your second sentence is a claim that I have not heard before. Can you provide sources? Also I notice you opened this RFC with your 10th edit since opening your account - have you had a different username previously? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Clearly treated as such by many authorities on antisemitism. Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. BDS is often accused of antisemitism (it's even mentioned in the lead), so the category is relevant. “WarKosign” 14:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• No At the very least, for this category to be applicable, one would expect a significant set of facts that demonstrate their antisemitic activity or rhetoric. Mere accusations are not enough, as accusations of antisemitism are often political. This article does not provide a single instance of hatred towards Jews by the BDS movement, neither by statement nor by action. Furthermore, BDS supporters consistently deny that the movement is antisemitic. This also doesn't sit well with the fact that BDS supporters include Jews and even Israeli Jews. To apply this category label is to accept it as fact solely based on the views of BDS critics.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. BDS has been proven time and time again to be an antisemitic posture. Even those who deny this fact admit that antisemitism is a common theme in commentary on the topic. --GHcool (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• No The fact that many Zionists like to treat any criticism of Zionism as antisemitism doesn't make it so. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Categories must not be used to express opinions in Wikipedia's voice. Zero^talk 07:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• No The assertion that BDS is antisemitic is an opinion, not a fact. There are many reliable sources for the argument that it is not antisemitic, including from Jews and from Israeli citizens. The claim should be included in the article, with both views fairly and neutrally summarised. But our article should not take a position on this debate by including a pejorative label on the Categories. RolandR (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• No per Exjerusalemite. Number 57 15:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes ShimonChai (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• No - not a part of the topic of anti-semtism. That some opponents wish to tar it as antisemitic does not make it so. We dont tar groups due to accusations made by their political enemies. nableezy - 19:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• No per WP:CATDD “Don't add pages to non-neutral or unverifiable categories.” Our article states that “Critics have also argued that the BDS movement is antisemitic”, i.e. this claim is a particular POV held by critics, and is therefore non-neutral. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. The BDS campaign targets the Jewish state therefore it is antisemitic. And this simple fact is not entirely reversed by the fact that some Jews support the BDS campaign—this merely shows that there is dissension amongst Jews. It would be surprising if there was not dissension within any group of people on any issue. Bus stop (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. In some cases, something must unequivocally belong to the category to be included in the category. In a case like this, though, the very fact that there is substantial disagreement whether it *is* or *isn't* antisemitism means that it belongs here. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes' BDS campaign by its nature is Anti-Semitic as attested by numerous WP:RS [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] and many more --Shrike (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• No per Exjerusalemite. I think the BDS movement has anti-semitic elements, and I can prove it, but that is my opinion. Others think Zionism is a colonialist movement and plenty of WP:RS support this claim, while plenty of WP:RS oppose this claim. Same goes with linking the BDS movement with anti-semitism.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - this movement had clear signs of anti-Semitism that are supported by (and in) violent acts and statements that denies Jews' right to exit in their Ancestral Homeland despite their 2000+ years of hoping to be here once again.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• No Per WP:CATV "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial". Does anyone, on either side of this issue, seriously think it is uncontroversial to say that BDS is antisemitic? Can editors cite reliable sources that clearly consistently describe antisemitism as a defining feature of BDS as a whole? Nblund ^talk 23:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. The STATED GOAL of the BDS is to dismantle the State of Israel. Unless they are anarchists who want to dismantle all states, not just the Jewish one (which they don't), they are anti-Semitic by definition.

VwM.Mwv (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit: To clarify, I'm not claiming that anyone who supports any form of one-state solution is anti-Semitic per se. I am merely pointing out the fact that the BDS' official position (along with most of its members/apologists) is to recognize the right of every state except the Jewish one to choose its own immigration policies, which is an obvious form of anti-Semitism. VwM.Mwv (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Untrue - I have just read that source. Your claim is not in there. Please strike your false comment. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Can't say about the specific source, but the claim is true. [6] [7] “WarKosign” 07:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I actually got "my claim" from Wikipedia (see Omar Barghouti, BDS co-founder, source no. 16). Also, I advise you to take a look at the sources kindly provided by WarKosign. VwM.Mwv (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. These articles all state support for a one-state solution, removing the racial component from the definition of the state. That is not the same as “dismantling”, rather it is “de-racializing”. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The Talk page is for discussion of the article, not for political debates about the topic

@Onceinawhile: I've actually encountered this talking point quite a lot with BDS activists/apologists. My usual response is: Do you also support a one-state solution for the United States and Russia? If not, why not? Is it because you wish to dismantle the Jewish state only? VwM.Mwv (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC) The US and Russia are not currently occupying each other’s population, nor are there millions of refugees excluded by one country from returning to the other. That is “why not”. Name me another country in the world where millions of people are subordinated to and controlled by people that have no form of accountability to them. Then we can have the conversation anout parallels. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC) That's easy: Poland. Do you also support a one-state solution for Germany and Poland, with unlimited immigration of German refugee descendants into Poland? Edit: On second thought, that's actually a flawed analogy. Germany invaded Poland, but Israel didn't start the Arab–Israeli conflict. VwM.Mwv (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC) The answer to your question is yes I do, it is called the European Union and that is exactly how it works. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC) @Onceinawhile: Bullshit. Germans who wish to move to Poland must go through Polish immigration policies. That's not "unlimited". But you admittedly don't recognize the right of the Jewish state to have its own immigration policies. Therefore, you, along with the Bullshit, Deception and Semi-nazi (BDS) movement, are anti-Semitic. End of discussion. VwM.Mwv (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC) For the record, see VwM.Mwv’s apology at [8]. I accept the apology, although I'm not convinced that the editor has yet developed the maturity and open-mindedness to operate in this impassioned topic area. Perhaps with some close mentoring? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC) @Onceinawhile: - there are in fact hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Russian refugees (from the former Soviet Union) in the United States who left prior to 1991 and were stripped of their Soviet (Russian SFSR) citizenship and are unable to return to Russia. I'm not sure what this has to do with BDS being antisemitic (a position espoused by mainstream antisemitism scholars) - but your assertion of lack of "nor are there millions of refugees excluded by one country from returning to the other" - is actually false. Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC) You are wrong, per Citizenship of Russia. They were stripped of their nationality because they took on another nationality, not the other way round. And should they wish to return, there is a mechanism available. Either way, we are talking about the double standards test of antisemitism. The Israel/Palestine military occupation is the longest in history, and the Israel/Palestine refugee sitution is the longest unresolved refugee crisis in history. There are simply no precedents, so VwM.Mwv‘s double standard’s claim cannot hold. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC) That article is wrong or does not the pre-1991 USSR. Several groups were persecuted in the USSR and were recognized as refugees outside of the USSR. Citizenship was stripped the moment got an emigration visa. Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I'm not sure we have an exhaustive survey of antisemitism scholars, but even if we restrict this to a relatively narrow field of noted historians of antisemitism, its not really true that they all see BDS as antisemitic. There are prominent scholars like Deborah Lipstadt who hold that BDS is antisemitic in its goals but who reject the argument that BDS supporters are necessarily aware of or supportive of antisemitism, and there are others David Myers, who oppose BDS but who also object to equating its goals with antisemitism. Nblund ^talk 20:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yet Myers acknowledges that "Yes, some who support BDS are motivated by anti-Semitism. But I don't believe all who support BDS are anti-Semitic.". It is hard to find anyone serious in the study of antisemitism that does not see an antisemitic component of BDS. That BDS also has antisemitic roots/supporters does not say every BDS is antisemitic. Generalities never (all X are Y) never work - Nazi party members were on the whole antisemitic, yet at least 11 are recognized as Righteous Among the Nations.[9] Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to find respected commentators/groups like Peter Beinart who say that the Nazis are not antisemitic. We might reasonably disagree over who is an expert in antisemitism, but clearly this is clearly a hotly disputed question even among critics of BDS. WP:CATV says we are still subject to WP:V and WP:NPOV, I don't see how we could possibly support writing "BDS is an antisemitic organization" in the article based on these sources, so how can we imply that through categories? Nblund ^talk 21:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• No This isn't even a remotely uncontroversial label, so it's definitely not appropriate for a category. Parabolist (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• No Although the movement has been accused by pro-Zionist organisations of anti-Semitism it has not been proven that they are anti-Semites (BTW a lot of Jews support the BDS movement) and the main goal of the organisation is to end the apartheid in the Zionist entityIsraeli regime--SharabSalam (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam's reference to "The Zionist entity" is supposed to be a pejorative euphemism for the State of Israel. Just wanted to make sure that those of us who don't pick up on that sort of thing can follow the discussion. --GHcool (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. This vote should be disregarded for WP:NOTFORUM and SharabSalam should strike his comment. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 Nope. that's a legit vote. That the organisation is targeting the apartheid Israeli regime not Israelis or Jews is a good reason why this isn't an anti-Semite organisation just like when people targeted the South African apartheid regime of South Africa they were not targeting the people but the regime itself.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

If the problem is about the word "Zionist entity" that's because my government doesn't recognize "Israel" so we often use the word Zionist entity to refer to the Israeli regime--SharabSalam (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, no one cares what your personal views are or the views of "your government." While on WP, we're all obliged to avoid inflammatory language in describing subjects. And your "vote" is nothing more than a) an expression of your personal views about the subject and b) completely devoid of reference to policy or sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, to give WP:DUE weight to the many authoritative and reliable sources that describe BDS as antisemitic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory can you cite those sources? The section Allegations of Antisemitism section cites a number of noted voices on both sides of a fairly robust debate. Press coverage from reliable sources like the Guardian, NBC News, and The New York Times also discuss "allegations of antisemitism" and also note prominent defenders. None of them call BDS antisemitic as a matter of fact. Even harsh critics don't pretend that this is an uncontroversial defining characteristic per WP:CATV. I don't see anything resembling an authoritative consensus here. Nblund ^talk 02:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:CAT, particularly WP:CATV. WP:DUE has absolutely nothing to do with the categorization of an article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, to be frank I personally believe -- and can back it up with much sourcing, as well as personal experience as a Jew who originally supported BDS back in my rebellious late teenage phase, and abandoned it in disgust for a number of reasons -- that the BDS movement is irretrievably infested with antisemitism. But I am a bit concerned that this debate is centering on whether BDS is antisemitic (imho a bit more complicated -- more like the host of the antisemitic pathogen than the pathogen itself-- but that's one of many views), instead of on policy, especially WP:NPOV which it should be. The view that BDS is antisemitic is widespread and should absolutely be reported, but not in Wikipedia's voice, which is what placing the category amounts to.--Calthinus (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• No, its not "antisemitic" in the plain-English usage of the term (which refers to Jews, not the state of Israel). If you are looking for a category for groups opposed to the state of Israel, choose a less misleading word.Masebrock (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• No - Accusations of antisemitism based on anti-Zionism, two different concepts, can be mentioned in the text as opinion; but not included as a categorization of an article. To do so would be Wikipedia taking a position possibly based on religious/ethnic/political/nationalist grounds. O3000 (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Characterizations of major elements of the movement as anti-Semitic, at the very least, have been covered in reliable sources.[10] Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  that source doesnt support your claim. It does quote people who are pro-zionist saying tthatt the movement is anti-semitic. the source also states that movement insists that that its goals is to pressure the Israeli regime to return the occupied land to Palestinians and give "Palestinian citizens of Israel: full equality with Jews."--SharabSalam (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You just contradicted your own point. The source describes the views of critics who regard the movement as anti-semitic, which is exactly what I said. Any number of other sources that cover BDS also note this widespread view. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:CATV doesn't say that we should categorize things just because some people believe them. It says that we should use categories for uncontroversial defining features. The Times article shows exactly the opposite: this is hotly contested claim with prominent adherents on both sides. We cover those viewpoints in the article, but adding this to a category for anti-Semitism would be, in effect, asserting controversial claim as a fact. Nblund ^talk 16:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Wrong question - Pretty much every argument here applies equally to the categorization of Category:Anti-Zionism, which by the looks of it, was part of Category:Antisemitism for quite a while, until it was eventually removed this February. There are discussions of this issue at Category talk:Anti-Zionism going back to 2007. But it's basically the same argument, though the category has a more meaningful and logically consistent scope. GMG^talk 17:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You couldn't pay me to watchlist this page. So ping in the doubtful event I'm needed for some reason. GMG^talk 17:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Equal weight

Wikipedia talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM for general discussions about the article topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lead should give equal weight to the critics who call BDS an anti-Semetic targeting of Jews by Islamic terrorist groups.American Zionist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC) no thanks. nableezy - 18:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC) What specifically do you want to change? The lead already cites critics (including former ADL head Abe Foxman) who say that BDS is anti-Semitic or that it relies on anti-Semitic rhetoric. Nblund talk 19:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Put the criticism of BDS and the targeting of Jews in the first paragraph. The comparison to the Nazis is more comparable than the South African one.American Zionist (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Comparisons to Nazi’s is always problematic, and certainly shouldn’t be moved higher up. The ordering seems correct: description, proponents, opponents. O3000 (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC) The lead of this article is similar to the leads for other organizations like the NRA, Black Lives Matter, and the ADL: we start by laying out undisputed facts about what the organization is and what it does, then we talk about their self-description and their motivations, and then we discuss criticisms and controversies toward the end. Readers need basic facts first, the criticisms don't make sense unless readers have some basic context. Personal views about which analogy is more apt aren't really relevant here. Nblund talk 19:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia describes rightly the KKK as a white supremacist group, BDS is just as vile so it is proper that should be the lead.American Zionist (talk) First Islamic terrorist groups, then Nazi's and now the KKK. This is not useful. O3000 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC) <blp violation redacted> Please do not remove this edit. This edit is properly sourced in the main article as well, and should remain. If you don't like it, then don't fund terrorism. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC) User:Sir Joseph, hmmm, where is the proof that Omar Barghoti "support terrorism"? Huldra (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC) See here, [11] Sir Joseph (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC) A propaganda piece by an Israeli Ministry is exactly 0 proof. Ask yourself, would Israel let Omar Barghoti walk around as a free man if there was any proof against him? Any at all?? Of course not, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Also, the only thing that propaganda piece says about Omar Barghoti, is that it quotes him saying: “No Palestinian will ever accept a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.” Now, you might disagree with that, but that is an opinion, and an voicing an opinion does not mean that you are a "terrorist supporter". Please retract your words about Omar Barghoti, or risk being report you for a BLP violation, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Barghouti is a senior official in BNC, and the BNC has ties to PFLP and Hamas. That you consider the report propaganda is irrelevant, they lay out the facts and ties. I read the report, and if the only way to get your point across is by having ties to terror organizations, then perhaps it's time to rethink your ideology. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC) You stated that "Omar Barghoti's support of terrorism is not in dispute". That is an extremely serious allegation, an allegation which you have given exactly 0 proof of. Your only answer is to link to an Israeli Ministry report, and even that does NOT say that Omar Barghoti supports terrorism. Your "Guilt by association" does not work, you should know that. Again, please withdraw your accusation against Omar Barghoti, Huldra (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC) [12] Here's a chapter of a book where he glorifies terrorism. Here is another statement of his, [13], if you want, here is a collection of his statements that glorifies violence and terrorism, [14] Sir Joseph (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC) The two first links does not work for me, and the last, canarymission, is an anon smear site, Huldra (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC) they have links to all his statements of his supporting terrorism and violence going back years. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC) The problem for you is that what he says (like “we believe that people under occupation, in international law, have a right to resist by any means, including violent means,") is exactly what international law says...That does not make him "supporting terrorism". Any people has the right to oppose occupation. (Btw, by your standard, my beloved late father was a terrorist, from 1940 to 45 (the authorities that ruled our land in that period thought so too)), Huldra (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC) "as long as we attack legitimate targets, that is, the occupation, settlers [i.e., Israeli civilians] and people who are armed."Sir Joseph (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC) And shouldn't armed settlers be legitimate targets? Huldra (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC) firstly, he didn't say armed settlers, he said settlers. Secondly, being armed is not an excuse for violence, there are 300 million guns in the USA does that mean I can preemptively kill someone with a gun? Why would an armed person be a legitimate target just for being armed? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Being an armed American in the US is different from being an armed American in, say, Iraq, wouldn't you say? I would look upon any armed American in my country (who wasn't there by invitation of an legitimate government) as an legitimate target... Huldra (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC) @Sir Joseph: said: Please do not remove this edit. This edit is properly sourced in the main article as well, and should remain. If you don't like it, then don't fund terrorism. I removed the post because it was from a self-admitted blocked sock. And please, why are you claiming that I fund terrorism? That’s probably the worst WP:PA I have received in my 11+ years here. O3000 (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"Impact of BDS"

The first source I looked at for the claim that "reports from both in and outside of Israel indicated that the movement had made very little impact on the Israeli economy, and suggested that it was unlikely to for the foreseeable future."

[77] is an article that lists no stats, claims that the primary goal of BDS is in fact 'hatred of Jews', and the quotes cited for the article are from people who have a vested interest in making it appear that the boycott is having no effect.... and I'm looking at all the other sources, not one is from outside of Israel, despite the quote claiming there are some, which is misleading.

Looking at the next reference: [78] is also written by people with a conflict of interest, and includes quotes from the Israeli government as primary 'proof', when they have a conflict of interest to make it appear that they're doing well.

[79] is also all fluff...

[80] is awful... it's like the commercials from Star Ship troopers.

Also the premise of this paragraph is misleading. The point of BDS isn't 'to harm Israel's economy' That's not the point of the boycott, so saying that it hasn't been harmed is changing the subject. The point is to 'frustrate Jewish development in Palestine', not in Israel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7a6c:4500:38f8:416:b105:5466 (talk • contribs)

I've pared this section back in pieces to allow easier reverts of my changes. Some of the sources do seem iffy and it did appear that, taken together, Wikipedia was trying to argue a point. O3000 (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Some of your edits had merit. I made corrections where they were necessary. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Although, I think comments on the significance of Israel's GDP by a philosophy and history major is a stretch for an encyclopedia article. Economists have enough difficulty discerning such effects.O3000 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@GHcool:, note the following:

1. The official BDS website states that it is a Palestinian-led movement. https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds
2. The statement "acknowledging that some people involved in the BDS campaign may be motivated by antisemitic sentiment", is the view of the author of the book and not the BDS campaign.

Kindly undo your edits. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Feel free to find a reliable source that verifies the claim that BDS is a Palestinian-led movement. We do not use self-published sources.
2. If you don't like the views of an author, I suggest that you not cite them. If you do cite them, Wikipedia guidelines insist upon presenting their views accurately. --GHcool (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

1. This is false. A movement's own statements are considered reliable in its own page. From your link: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (emphasis in original). Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
2. You cited an author's view. I cited an official statement and response from the BDS to the antisemitism libel. In fact, what I cited earlier is word for word stated on their website in link provided earlier: "an inclusive, anti-racist human rights movement that is opposed on principle to all forms of discrimination, including antisemitism and Islamophobia".

Again, I'm asking that you revert your edits. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Stmts by the BDS website are reliable only as to the BDS website having posting them. We follow published RSes, and there is no lack of such sources - there is no need here to use non-indepentent sources (BDS website or people involved with the BDS). An "official statement" on their website is also UNDUE if not picked up by RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Palestinian-led" is posted on their website. The rest of what you say about the use of "non-indepentent sources" is quite false and cannot be taken seriously. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Their website is enough to write "BDS describes itself as ...", not to repeat something they claim as a fact. “WarKosign” 14:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to appropriately quote parts of the book that you like. Just be aware that I might feel it necessary to quote the parts I like too. --GHcool (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, when you (1) attribute the views to their author rather than the campaign like you did, and (2) accurately reproduce the views themselves (because your last attempt was quite dishonest), and (3) give them their due weight by placing them in the body of the article, and not the lede section. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all three points (except, of course, the dishonesty part). Hopefully you do too. --GHcool (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added three reliable sources (The Guardian, The Independent and The Times of Israel) which describe BDS as Palestinian-led. The ToI ascribes this description to the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry. And there are very many more such sources, they weren't hard to find. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Germany

I reverted the edits by Attack Ramon as they were repetitive (three additions all basically saying the same thing with the same cite) and WP:NPOV problems as they didn't mention that Israeli academics criticized the motion. Nblund fixed one of the additions. The other two should be removed. O3000 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

what repetition do you see in the current version? Attack Ramon (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Nblund fixed it. O3000 (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

A letter of criticism sent to a newspaper by private individuals who work as academics in Israel does not belong to the section about government responses - it's not a government reaction; it may or may not be notable, but it has no relation to the governments. It could fit in another part of the article though in relation to private support of BDS - for now I've moved it to the "Political support section".Avaya1 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I can see a case for putting the Israeli gov. response to BDS in the lead, by would a symbolic vote in Germany warrant the same level of significance? It seems odd to say that we would only add criticism of the resolution in an entirely different section, and the other articles all include some mentions of criticism even if they don't include this exact one. I don't have a strong feeling on which one gets included, but it seems pretty plainly non-neutral to leave all of it out. Nblund ^talk 00:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A statement by the German parliament is surely highly notable, as a statement by the legislative body of a country, and it is the most notable governmental statement about the subject of the article so far. However, we could do a request for comment about having it in the lede or not?Avaya1 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need an RfC if your only justification is a bare assertion of notability. The section on reactions from other governments shows a bunch of responses. Why are they less notable? And why wouldn't we just integrate the criticism of the resolution in to the section mentioning the resolution? In this edit, we're having to explain the resolution a third time just so we can mention the Israeli academic letter. This is just poor writing. There's no reason that we can't mention a government statement and its response in the same section. Nblund ^talk 00:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't imagine why we would include this up top. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think Avaya1 tried to help those with limited imaginations: it would go in the lead as a statement by the legislative body of a country, which is the most notable governmental statement about the subject of the article so far. Attack Ramon (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. The U.S. Congress votes almost every week to rename post offices. They, too, are "statements by the legislative body of a country" but hardly "the most notable governmental statements". The U.S. Congress also periodically passes sense of the House or Senate resolutions on various subjects. This nonbinding statement by the German parliament is equivalent to such a resolution. The article should certainly not be saying that the German government designated or declared BDS an antisemitic movement, because it hasn't. Maybe some editors need to learn more about what a nonbinding resolution is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

And if we have any articles about such US Post offices, thise US congress motions renaming them would belong on those articles, as well. Here on wikipedia, when reliable sources like the BBC say "Germany labels Israel boycott movement BDS anti-Semitic", we follow what they say. Attack Ramon (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't get mad with me. I'm not the editor who said that a nonbinding resolution was "the most notable governmental statement". That was you. The truth is, it's a meaningless piece of paper, it carries no force, cannot be cited for any purpose, and doesn't represent the views of the German government (the Chancellor would have ti issue that), so we shouldn't treat it like it's something it's not. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You're mistaking disagreement for anger. You're entitled to your opinion that this is meaningless, but around here, we assign notability not by personal opinion, but according to coverage in reliable sources, of which there is plenty. You might also want to read this to improve your understanding of what "government" is - you seem to be under the impression that it is synonymous with the executive branch..Attack Ramon (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

There may be one, but I've never heard of a government in which the legislative branch sets foreign policy. That's typically the exclusive domain of the executive. And you still don't seem to understand what nonbinding resolutions are, or how unimportant they are. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Declaring a group to be antisemitic is not foreign policy, unless BDS has become a state actor while no one was looking. Again, while you are entitled to the opinion that parliamentary resolutions are not important, on Wikipedia we determine notability by coverage in reliable sources, not the personal opinions of Mr. Shabazz. Attack Ramon (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to keep bloviating. The New York Times keeps referring to the resolution as "non-binding". But you're right. It's "the most notable governmental statement". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Non-binding does not mean not notable or unimportant. Again, on Wikipedia we determine notability by coverage in reliable sources, not the personal opinions of Mr. Shabazz. There is plenty of significant coverage of this in reliable sources, so it belongs in the article. Attack Ramon (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that you will find making personal attacks is a poor method of gaining consensus. O3000 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it's more notable than all other critics of BDS combined. Or at least that's the impression one would get from the fact that Germany's non-binding resolution is mentioned before the sentence "Critics have also argued that the BDS movement is antisemitic" in the opening paragraph. We don't actually determine notability according to who can say "it's notable" the most. Nblund ^talk 01:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course. We determine notability according to coverage by reliable sources. For this one, we have, less than a day after the event - [15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20] - and that's just the first page of the Google results. So yeah, it's probably fair to say it's more notable than all other critics of BDS combined. Attack Ramon (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

So you see nothing odd with the fact that the structuring a paragraph so that we say "BDS is designated as an antisemitic movement by the governments of Israel and Germany" in the first sentence of a paragraph, and then "Critics have also argued that the BDS movement is antisemitic" in the last sentence? Nblund ^talk 01:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not wedded to the particular wording currently in the article. I would be fine with something along the lines of "BDS is designated as an antisemitic movement by the governments of Israel and Germany,[9][10] the German Bundestag declaring in 2019 that the movement is "reminiscent of the most terrible chapter in Germany history".[11] Critics of BDS reject its charge that Israel is an apartheid state, asserting that in Israel (outside of the West Bank) "Jews and Arabs mix freely and increasingly live in the same neighborhoods...there is no imposed segregation."[12] Critics have also argued that the BDS movement's call for a boycott of Jewish Businesses is analogous to to the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses[17][18][19] and accuse it of promoting the delegitimization of Israel.[20][21]". I am open to hear your suggestions, as well. Attack Ramon (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly the same wording already in the article? I'm suggesting that it should be removed entirely. But you could at least make a defensible version by moving the first sentence to the end of the paragraph and saying that it was a May 2019 non-binding resolution, and adding a brief mention of BDS's response. Nblund ^talk 02:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not the same - I removed the repeated mention that critics accuse it of antisemitism from the end of the paragraph. As the most notable criticism to date (witness the extensive coverage I referenced above), I would not support removing it entirely, as that would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Attack Ramon (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so you removed the last sentence, but you still include "Critics have also argued that the BDS movement's call for a boycott of Jewish Businesses is analogous to to the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses and accuse it of promoting the delegitimization of Israel." This is exactly what the German resolution says. Why are we putting a specific example of a criticism before a general statement about criticisms?

It's not a "gross violation of NPOV". Lots of stuff gets left out of the lead. Here's ten stories on Madonna's decision to reject calls to boycott Eurovision. WaPo, Reuters, AP News, BBC, CNN, Haaretz, Jpost, AFP, The Independent, Yahoo News. I think you would be hard-pressed to add more than a sentence about this to the main body of the article, it would be silly to say that it's a "gross violation" of NPOV to keep it out of the lead just because it has a few mentions.Nblund ^talk 02:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The German resolution is the general criticism ("BDS is anti semitic"), while the sentence at the end is specific examples- calls for boycotts are reminiscent of Nazi boycotts, etc.., so I think the order is correct. The main body actually has a full paragraph about this so I don't think a one sentence mention in the lead is undue. Coverage has been quite a bit more than "a few mentions" - please don;t make me link to 3 pages' worth of Google links to major outlets like the BBC, the New York times and Reuters, from this day alone. . Attack Ramon (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You think that a sentence about a German government resolution is the overall subject of the paragraph about criticisms of BDS? That might make sense if the subsequent sentences were also about the resolution, but they aren't.This is poor writing. "Madonna Eurovision" turns up 4 pages of hits in google news, many from those same top sources. And we have an entire section on government level responses to BDS. We don't include a sentence for every paragraph in the lead. Nblund ^talk 03:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No you misunderstood. I think a sentence about the German parliament resolution is a good summary of the paragraph about the same solution included later in the body. And I think a motion by that parliament is the strongest, most notable criticism of BDS, to date, so it belongs in the lead. And I certainly think that Madonna's actions deserve mention in the "Opposition by artists" section. I will add that. Attack Ramon (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I dont see why a non-binding parliamentary motion would be included in the article much less the lead. I am removing it per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. nableezy - 03:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

And to that end I restored the original lead. nableezy - 03:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the responses from the Jewish and Israeli academics back to the Germany section. I'm open to being convinced here, but I don't see a compelling case for segregating mentions of a government action from criticisms of those actions. Nblund ^talk 16:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate revert

This edit was inappropriate. The reason given for it was a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. I plan to restore the properly cited information within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, MEMRI is not a reliable source and as such it should not be cited for its "studies". nableezy - 19:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

GHcool: if you just restore it without any explanation, it will probably just get reverted again. It's clearly WP:PRIMARY, and it's not clear to me whether or not your edit accurately characterized the study: The study covers "posts by members of the Facebook groups" [emphasis added] who espoused neo-Nazi sentiments. They don't say that these are "the most prominent" pro-BDS groups, and they aren't just looking at posts from the groups themselves. They don't even analyze the official BDS facebook page. Reliable secondary sources would probably be able to give us some guidance regarding how seriously we should take these claims, but I haven't found any. Have you? Nblund ^talk 23:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I found this one in Mosaic (magazine). --GHcool (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a blurb from a content aggregator that added 3 sentences of summary to a lengthy quote from the primary source, I don't think this is an analysis from a reliable source. The author also describes this as a study of "regular and frequent contributors" to "anti-Israel facebook groups", which really isn't the same as saying that "prominent BDS groups" are hosting a bunch of neo-Nazi content. Nblund ^talk 00:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see your point and accept it. --GHcool (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Another inappropriate revert

This edit was inappropriate. The reason for the revert suggests that the editor who reverted did not listen to the podcast cited. I'm happy to add more context if that is deemed appropriate, but simply removing material cited to a reliable source in a huff doesn't seem like the most productive way to make Wikipedia a better place. I plan to restore the properly cited information within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you would need to provide quotations or time stamps. The summary explains that Kontorovich was involved in drafting some of the state level legislation, so he's probably a biased source. It might be reasonable to cite him with in text attribution, but we probably would also need to cite a counterargument from opponents of those laws. The ACLU has disputed the claim that these laws are similar to anti-discrimination laws. Nblund ^talk 16:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It isnt reasonable to cite him, he has no expertise on this topic. He is an expert in maritime law, and he is not an established expert on BDS or American laws related to it, so including his self-published views is not acceptable here. Besides that, as Malik noted, he is just wrong. The laws in question govern what individuals do, not just companies that a state contracts with. nableezy - 17:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Time stamps and quotes provided here:

• "26 American states [at the time of the recording] have executive orders or laws that govern the regulations of states contracting with private companies. Anyone is free to criticize or even boycott Israel, but if a company does choose to boycott Israel then this law [the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019] makes clear that the discriminating company is not entitled to contract with the state government." (00:00:53-00:01:16)

• "[T]hese laws are ... based on existing precedents. States have other laws that provide that the state will not contract with people who engage in forms of what the state considers discriminatory conduct .... [A]bout the same number of states have laws or executive orders that say you can boycott gays. No one's going to make you hire gays if you have an ideological opposition to homosexuality. You can refuse to do business with LGBT people, but the state considers this to be a form of discrimination, and thus, [the state doesn't] want to subsidize your discriminatory conduct with with our taxpayer dollars. You are free to ... engage in this discrimination, but you are not free to get government contracts while you do it." (00:05:09-00:05:57)

1. The claim that Kontorovich is a biased source because he was involved in drafting some of the legislation cannot be taken seriously. Surely Nblund would not say, for example, that the National Council on Disability is a biased source on the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because it was involved in drafting the legislation. In fact, someone who was involved in drafting the legislation is an even more valuable source to Wikipedia so that the law's purpose can be evaluated. Indeed, people like me who disagree with the legislation should want the best argument on the opposing side available so that their disagreement is more informed, not less.
2. I'm happy to cite both Kontorovich with in text attribution and a critic of the law with a good counter argument from a reliable source with in text attribution. The ACLU is a perfectly acceptable example of such a critique (and one that I personally find more compelling than Kontorovich's argument). However, I'd suggest it be cited to a better source than a post on the ACLU's blog. Perhaps this letter would suffice. --GHcool (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely would say that the NCD is a biased source for contested claims about the enactment of the ADA. "Biased" doesn't mean useless or unusable, it just means that we should take some extra precautions to avoid giving undue weight to one side of a debate. It's implausible to think that Kontorovich is just a wholly disinterested legal analyst when he's considered a primary advocate of the laws. Putting his arguments in Wikipedia's voice (without in-text attribution) would effectively be taking sides on a hotly contested legal dispute.

I don't have a strong preference regarding the sourcing other than to say that, ideally, we should try to find secondary sources for both sides of this issue, and we should try to avoid being overly detailed. Nblund ^talk 18:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Unless there is some evidence that Kontorovich has been academically published on this topic he should not be cited. The ACLU? The ADL? And some random lawyer who decided to become a settler? One of these things is not like the other. Kontorovich can be cited on the topics of universal jurisdiction and maritime law. Because that is where he has recognized expertise in. On BDS? He is one of any number of people who have strongly held views and no recognized expertise on the topic. WP:RS does not allow for any random person who supports ones position to be cited. nableezy - 21:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As has already been stated, and agreed to by Nblund, Kontorovich is not just a random person. He is someone who, in Nblund's words, "was involved in drafting some of the state level legislation." --GHcool (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, but that does not make him a reliable source. Still a random person with strongly held views and no recognized expertise. nableezy - 21:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but your reasoning is unconvincing. --GHcool (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

My reasoning is WP:RS. Nothing in there allows for an individual that has no academic expertise on a topic speaking on a podcast to be cited as a source. nableezy - 22:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Kontorovich is quite incapable of producing any work that would in any way impinge negatively on Israel.For example his effort last year, briefing congress on the legitimacy of Israeli claims to the Golan. He makes no attempt to hide his bias. I would certainly object on POV grounds to citing him for anything even tangentially related to Israel unless made clear that is just his opinion and nothing more.Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Kontorovich may or may not have helped draft some of the state laws, but he's either lying or dissembling when he describes them. The existing precedents to which anti-"boycott" laws are similar were all overturned in the U.S. half a century ago or more because they were unconstitutional. All states and, of course, the federal government have civil rights laws that require public accommodations to provide equal access to all members of the public and not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion, and—in some locations or in some situations—marital status, pregnancy status, sexual orientation, veteran status, national origin, etc. But there is no state or federal law that requires a teacher to sign a statement that she will not discriminate against protected classes of students. Violators of civil rights laws are sued by their victims. The anti-"boycott" laws, on the other hand, require signed statements that state employees and contractors will not participate in or, depending on the state, support a boycott of Israel. Nobody is sued for the boycott. They lose their job (or are not hired) for refusing to sign. The Supreme Court ruled that these sorts of loyalty oaths were unconstitutional in the 1960s when state universities tried to make professors sign that they were not communists. The U.S. Constitution hasn't changed in the past 50 years, and there's no reason to think that anti-"boycott" laws won't continue to be thrown out as they're implemented and challenged. Quoting somebody who says that the laws are similar to something to which they obviously bear no resemblance is insulting to both the truth and to the intelligence of our readers. If you must include such rot, attribute it to the idiots who are spouting it. You cannot state obvious untruths in Wikipedia's voice as if they were true. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)