Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

bds supporter's comments about max brenner not having israel connection

roland - I am really surprised by your revert. a) you said that my edit is not what the source said. it is a quote by that person, so it is exactly what the source said. unless I am really missing something, I don't understand how you can say that; and b) why are you looking for the original video? even if you found it, it would be OR. and hence, that is why we rely on reliable sources - I am sure you are not suggesting that the Australian is not reliable, right? so please explain. Soosim (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is the BLP component of course. The filmmaker is probably Jeremy Moses and the short film is probably Chocolate Wars. Patrick Harrison is interviewed at ~4:30. Comparing the secondary and primary sources is interesting. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

sean - thanks. but what is "interesting"? the RS got it exactly right, no? Soosim (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What is interesting is the difference. But 1) I don't have access to the entire article so I don't know what else they said and 2) define "exactly right". If you mean is the statement caught on camera admitting "there isn't really any connection" between Australian Max Brenner chocolate shops and Israel an accurate summary of what Patrick Harrison said between ~4:30 and ~6:20 in the film, then, no, clearly not. If you mean was that string of words used, then yes. As to whether it should be used I would say take it to BLP/N. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that the link Soosim posted is not to "the entire article"? Well, we can only go by the source s/he linked, not another one that s/he may have had in mind. And this article states, in full: "A KEY supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement has been caught on camera admitting "there isn't really any connection" between Australian Max Brenner chocolate shops and Israel. Palestine Action Group spokesman Patrick Harrison made the admission in a video of a BDS protest last November at the Max Brenner outlet in Parramatta, in Sydney's west, posted recently on YouTube by a graduate filmmaker." That brief article does not report accurately what Harrison says in the interview (thanks for finding that, Sean), which was "Financially speaking, there isn't really any connection between this particular Max Brenner store and Israel". The article also quotes Harrison out of context, ignoring his remarks about the symbolic role of Max Brenner shops; and it says misleadingly that he was "caught on camera... admitting" this, which implies undercover work catching a hidden agenda, rather than a clear statement in a recorded interview. So yes, I would argue that, in this case, where we are able to compare the report with the interview it is reporting, the Australian is demonstrably not a reliable source.

Additionally, Soosim's edit to this article does not accurately quote what the article states. The Australian states that the comments were made in November 2012; Soosim writes that they were made in April 2013. The Australian describes Harrison as a "key" supporter of the BDS movement; Soosim describes him, in Wikipedia's voice and without any evidence, as a "significant" supporter, which is not the same thing. Soosim's quote from Harrison, "there isn't really any connection between this Max Brenner store in particular and Israel", is actually taken, without attribution, from the YouTube video, not from the Australian article to which s/he credits it; and it omits the crucial phrase "financially speaking", which rather alters the import of the statement.

So I would argue that what we see here is an out-of-context inaccurate quote from a YouTube video, misleadingly sourced to a newspaper report which itself also distorted and misreported the original. Very sloppy, and in my estimation completely unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. RolandR (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, yes, I'm referring to the article "Protests lack link to Israel: BDS fan". I assume it isn't the entire article because it says "To continue reading sign up for a digital pass now". Sean.hoyland - talk 03:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

what? no ease of access is an issue? not according to wikipedia. anyway, from the entire article, here is the relevant part: But Mr Harrison appears in the video saying: "Max Brenner itself is a franchise. So financially speaking there isn't really any connection between this Max Brenner store in particular and Israel. It's become really a kind of cultural ambassador for Israel, this store. Why do we say that it's a cultural ambassador for Israel? "Well, all of the Zionists in the Australian parliament -- Kevin Rudd, Michael Danby -- various figures who want to say they want to support Israel come down to Max Brenner to show their support and to actually stand to the other side of us, to actually stand against Palestine, and to show that Israel is in their DNA." so, roland, it seems that it is all there, and accurate. and instead of deleting an edit, try massaging it if you think there is more to add to it. cooperation always works better than cutting and slicing, imho. Soosim (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

To read the full article from the Australian, simply copy and repaste the first line back into google search then click the link again and you get around the paywall. Silly thing... Anyway, on the matters of substance, I think this particular incident and the associated protest at UNSW both bear including, they are an example of reactions to BDS protests in Australia and provide the context for Julia Gillard's quote included below it. I'm happy for things to be reworded but there should be some inclusion in the article.TrickyH (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2013

tricky - max Brenner is not a franchise. it is wholly-owned by Australians. Soosim (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not correct. Several sources substantiate this, including the annual report of the Strauss Group 2012, which doesn't list Max Brenner Australia (ie it's not a subsidiary) but does mention "In the USA, Australia and Singapore, the Group operates chocolate bars" ie indicating franchise relationship. The key is in this article the Australian itself ran after last year's protests: http://iajv99.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/the-australians-faux-outrage-over-the-bds-campaign-and-student-protests-against-max-brenner/ - in which the author states: "They have targeted Max Brenner because the brand is owned by Israeli conglomerate The Strauss Group, which produces so-called "care packages" for the Israel Defence Forces." Yael Kaminsky states ""We only have the franchise rights in Australia and we report to the office of Max Brenner International that is based in New York" - which, if you look at the Strauss Group annual report, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Max Brenner USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Strauss Group. So it's totally correct to describe Max Brenner Australia as a franchise of Strauss. Of course, last year Strauss acquired two brands of dips on the Australian market as well, which you could argue are more directly connected; but claiming Max Brenner isn't connected to Strauss because it's an Australian company is as untenable as claiming McDonalds Australia is "independant" of McDonald's Corporation because most of the restaurants are locally owned franchises.

TrickyH (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2013

tricky - you are using a blog post as RS, which is not allowed. please find RS which show your point, and then we can include it in the article. Soosim (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, the blog post contains links to both things I mentioned above. Here is the article with Yael Kaminsky in the Australian: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/yael-kaminski-upbeat-about-australians-love-of-max-brenner-chocolate/story-fn91v9q3-1226543363497 - and here is the 2012 Annual Report of Strauss Group: http://www.strauss-group.com/PageFiles/47611/Annual_Report_Final_2012_Eng.pdf. I have referenced the Strauss Group's annual report in follow-up to the Australian article, which I think is necessary to somewhat resolve the question of accuracy raised by the Australian article's distortion of the original quote by the activist from the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrickyH (talk • contribs) 12:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

tricky 1rr

tricky - your revert and subsequent editing after my revert might be a violation of the 1RR rule. you had previously reverted/reintroduced material within 24 hours. Soosim (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

soosim - the material I introduced was different to what had already existed, then I reverted your edit to remove it all. That shouldn't under 1RR as the topic had previously been included in a somewhat different format and without some of the sources I've included (ie the annual report). The further edits I made were trying to build upon the talk discussion we were having - in fact amending the sections in question based on the issues highlighted in the talk page. Including the annual report in the first edit in the Australia section deals with your comment that the first edit doesn't match up with the source, while the rest were reformatting to remove the blog post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrickyH (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

soosim - to clarify: "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting")." - which my follow-up edits to the two paragraphs of the "Australia" section would have to be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrickyH (talk • contribs) 22:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian trade unions

A naked quote cited to an editorial published in Electronic Intifada reads, "All Palestinian trade unions support the boycott." I propose removing the quote for the following reasons:

1. The claim is almost certainly false. Hundreds (thousands?) of Palestinian employees work for Israeli employers. Presumably, many of them belong to trade unions. The unions won't inform their members to go on strike against themselves thereby causing the Palestinian economy to crumble.
2. The source cited is not reliable: it is an editorial published by a partisan source.
3. The source gives no specifics. It just claims that all trade unions support the boycott.
4. After performing a Google search, I can find no corroborating evidence for the claim from any reliable, non-partisan source.
5. Wikipedia standard protocol is not to insert naked quotes into articles without attribution.

Unless a better or more complete source is found, I intend to remove the naked quote within the next couple of days. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement is certainly true. I have seen the document signed by ALL Palestinian trade unions, calling on unions around the world to support the BDS campaign. Electronic Intifada has been accepted as a reliable source, but I will seek other evidence to add to this. GHCool's speculation about why the statement might be false is purely uncorroborated original research, and demonstrably false. They are not calling on "their members to go on strike against themselves", but on unions around the world to support the call, from scores of Palestinian bodies, to support a campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against the state of Israel. And this call from the unions has found considerable support among unions around the world, who are perfectly aware that this is a genuine appeal from their Palestinian brothers and sisters. RolandR (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are just some of the sites publishing this important statement: RMT union in Britain;[1] Pambazuka News;[2] Monthly Review magazine;[3] and of course the BDS movement itself.[4] To continue to pretend that this is false, not verified by a reliable source or otherwise ineligible for inclusion would be to stick one's head in the sand and ignore reality. RolandR (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, until a non-partisan source is found that says all Palestinian trade unions support the boycott, the statement is dubious at best. I would not mind if specific unions were mentioned, but to claim that all (meaning every single Palestinian trade union that exists) support BDS is a stretch. I look forward to a time when the naked quote can be amended or perfected for accuracy, NPOV, and style. Otherwise, I will remove the statement within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that you would rather state that "the boycott is supported by the Palestinian Trade Union Coalition for BDS, which comprises the General Union of Palestinian Workers, Federation of Independent Trade Unions (IFU), General Union of Palestinian Women, Union of Palestinian Professional Associations (comprising the professional syndicates of Engineers, Physicians, Pharmacists, Agricultural Engineers, Lawyers, Dentists and Veterinarians), General Union of Palestinian Teachers, General Union of Palestinian Peasants and Co-ops, General Union of Palestinian Writers, Union of Palestinian Farmers, Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE), Union of Public Employees in Palestine-Civil Sector; and all of the trade union blocks that make up the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU): Central Office for the Workers Movement, Progressive Labor Union Front, Workers Unity Block, Progressive Workers Block, Workers Solidarity Organization, Workers Struggle Block, Workers Resistance Block, Workers Liberation Front, Union of Palestinian Workers Struggle Committees, National Initiative (al-Mubadara) Block"? RolandR (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Assuming a reliable source can be found for the claim, how about this: "the boycott is supported by the Palestinian Trade Union Coalition for BDS." Keep it simple, right? --GHcool (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

ghcool - correct. Soosim (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

is bds antisemtic?

the category tag for "antisemitic boycotts" keeps getting removed as a "highly POV and defamatory statement". why? here are a series of RS saying that bds is antisemitic: http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/03/19/simon-wiesenthal-center-report-bds-a-thinly-veiled-anti-israel-and-anti-semitic-poison-pill/ ; http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/103596/bds-vehicle-destroy-israel-says-new-study ; http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/australian-mps-pick-up-torch-in-fight-against-global-anti-semitism.premium-1.525198 ; http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_leadership_in_boycott_and_divestment_campaigns#antisemitic ; http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/66534/protesting-against-israel-valid-or-anti-semitic-as-bds-season-opens-at-cal-/ ; and there are many more equating the two. it might not be what everyone says, but it surely is what some are saying and has RS to back it up. Soosim (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason why a category stating that it is an antisemitic boycott in Wikipedia's unattributed neutral voice is inappropriate is that it is not a defining characteristic of BDS. It is not a fact (or as close to a fact as is possible in cases like this i.e. the presence of an absolutely overwhelming undisputed consensus that it is the case) that BDS is an antisemitic boycott. It's quite difficult for me to understand why an editor would add such a category or even suggest adding such a category because it is so obviously wrong in so many ways. I can think of several explanations.

• The editor doesn't understand categorization, which is a competence issue. Editors who don't understand categorization shouldn't be adding categories, especially in ARBPIA.
• The editor understands categorization but they believe it is an undisputed fact that BDS is an antisemitic boycott. This indicates that the editor is misinformed and adding inaccurate information to the encyclopedia which is a violation of Wikimedia's Terms of Use. Careless editors like this shouldn't be editing in ARBPIA. They degrade content and often cause conflict.
• The editor understands categorization and they are aware that it is not an undisputed fact that BDS is an antisemitic boycott, but their personal opinion is that it is an antisemitic boycott and/or they believe it is important to label BDS this way because it helps to achieve a political objective that they support. They understand that it is wrong in terms of policy and ethically but they do it anyway because they believe that the end justifies the means. In this case the editor violates policy by imposing their personal views on an encyclopedia and violating WP:NOTADVOCATE. That kind of behavior requires the kind of arrogance and lack of ethics that, if it persistent, should be handled at AE and result in a topic ban because it is indefensible.

Sean.hoyland - talk 10:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I accept Sean's argument that it might not be appropriate as a category, but I still think this edit is worth keeping. I shall reinstate it within the next couple of days unless I hear a compelling reason why I should not. --GHcool (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not sufficient simply to state that an edit is "worth keeping"; it is necessary to explain why, and you have not done so. All I see is an unsourced, unencyclopaedic and highly POV claim tagged on to an arguably irrelevant "See Also". I could easily find reliable sources disputing the claim, and if you insist on re-inserting the claim I will add a counterclaim. But really, this is not the correct way forward. If you believe that this issue needs to be addressed in the article, then you should add a short section presenting, in a non-POV manner, the claim and counterclaim: I will not stand in your way. But adding this POV claim as a rider to a "See Also" link is impermissible. RolandR (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RolandR speaks of a counter-claim, but does not specify what such a claim would be. The connection that some journalists, scholars, historians, commentators, rabbis, or other people of good faith make between BDS and anti-Semitic boycotts seems obvious (and can easily be sourced), so I won't go into it for the moment. The threat to argue against such an obvious connection does not constitute an argument itself. I am receptive to arguments that oppose the "See also" inclusion of this related topic, but remain skeptical that a cogent one can be made. --GHcool (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

The "see also anti-Semitic boycotts" thing (reverted here) is warranted because although not all BDS supporters are necessarily anti-Semitic, the historical reality of anti-Semitic boycotts informs the reaction to BDS. I intend on restoring the edit once everyone has a chance to accept the self-evident rationale behind the edit. --GHcool (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This is very far from "self-evident": and in any case, that would not be a sufficient rationale for such a contentious edit. It is not enough to assert that the boycott campaign is "informed" (whatever that means here) by "the historical reality of antisemitic boycotts"; an editor wishing to make such a link needs a strong reliable source for this. None has been provided, and this edit, which is clearly intended to attack boycott supporters, is not acceptable. RolandR (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfc: Antisemitic boycotts category

Two editors (one now under scrutiny for potential conflict of interest and sockpuppetry^[5][6][7]) have repeatedly added the new, and contentious, Category:Antisemitic boycotts link on this article and several others. The claimed rationale is "although not all BDS supporters are necessarily anti-Semitic, the historical reality of anti-Semitic boycotts informs the reaction to BDS". Although there is no reliable citation offered for this apparently meaningless phrase, it seems to suggest that the category should be added, even though this is explicitly not an "antisemitic boycott". The repeated addition ofn this category seems to be ann attempt to smear supporters, and other editors.

Should this category be added to the article? RolandR (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose/Question. Violation of WP:WEIGHT and/or WP:NPOV. Does anyone know of any policy regarding categories created in order to introduce POV. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Question What does User:Soosim have to do with the other editor—User:Telaviv1—who created the category and added this article to it in the first place? Presumably nothing. So why does the supposedly neutral statement of the RfC start by introducing the issue of Soosim's troubles? I request that a truly neutral statement be made, as WP:RfC requires, along the lines of "Does this article belong in the category Category:Antisemitic boycotts?" — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support Every Good Jew(tm) knows anything remote critical of Israel, including Israeli political policies, is anti-Semitic. I'm sure there are plenty of reliable sources to back this claim up. It is an opinionated category by its very nature, and have no doubt many people hold this view, and noting the fact that this opinion is held does not contravene WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV. The only thing that would contravene those policies is stating such as fact, when it is only a (political/religious) opinion, or by saying it is not anti-Semitic. IOW saying it is not linked to antisemitism violates WP:NPOV. Removing all trace that this is related to antisemitism is not going to magically change this. Just because you don't think it is anti-Semitic does not mean others do not, and is no reason to act as WP:CENSOR. Unless there is some WP norm regarding removing all these anti-Semitic links, I think it should stay. IMO it actually informs on multiple debates. Int21h (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to read Wikipedia:Cat#Articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I probably added it. I didn't really expect it to remain but think the issue needs to be out there, because I think it is a genuine issue. The boycott has its origins in a period when boycotts were an antisemetic tactic and many of its supporters are openly antisemitic. Note that it is perfectly possible for the boycott to be antisemitic and to have legitimate moral justifications. Its a very grey area. L'Oreal were involved with a case where they had a history of pro-Nazi activity in the war and then moved on to following Arab boycott instructions. The boycott almost exclusively targets Jews or Jewish owned businesses so it qualifies for the label. You need to explain this issue sensitively so that readers understand the problematics involved and not sweep it under the carpet. I ahve no idea who the other editor is, but it is not surprising that someone took me up. As Malik knows I ahve been fasely accused of sock puppetry in the past and Soosim has nothing to do with me. Focus on the content and not on the person. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

End of RfC

This is absurd. I did not add Category:Antisemitic boycotts. I added it under "see also." I will not participate. Please do not comment on the Rfc above because it is based on a false allegation. Shame on RolandR for starting a fight. I invite any well meaning Wikipedia editor to give a clear, concise, and cogent reason why this edit to the "See also" section should not stand. --GHcool (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It contains unreferenced editorial commentary. I would also say that it would fall afoul of WP:WEASEL: ""Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made."Dlv999 (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide a source for the claim. I don't know what weasel words I was using. I intended nothing more than the literal meaning of the sentence. No hidden implications here. I'm willing to work with others about how I can make it less weasely (if this is a serious allegation), but unwilling to be WP:CENSORed. --GHcool (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

While I normally find the use of bold type quite persuasive, I have to admit that "Though not all BDS supporters are necessarily anti-Semitic, the historical reality of anti-Semitic boycotts informs the reaction to BDS" can reasonably be described as "unreferenced editorial commentary of an inflammatory nature". It's kind of like saying "Though not all US soldiers who served in Vietnam are necessarily war criminals, the historical reality of the Vietnam war informs the reaction to Vietnam vets." That statement might look alright to many in Hanoi, less so in Ho Chi Minh city but it's essentially inflammatory, unfair and misleading, although I'm sure I could find a source for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sean, go ahead and find a reliable source that compares Vietnam vets to war criminals and feel free to add it to the See also section of the Vietnam veteran article, if that is your choice. Meanwhile, I'll find reliable sources that compares BDS to anti-Semitic boycotts. --GHcool (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No chance. I don't do things that I think are wrong and inconsistent with policy. Also, I have strongly held personal opinions about that topic, so I avoid it so that my bias doesn't compromise and degrade content. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sure you will find such sources. But if you look at a broad range of sources on the topic you will also find viewpoints published in RS that say the conflation of BDS with anti-Semitism is a "cynical smear" used by supporters of Israel to shut down critisim of the Israeli government (see e.g. [8], [9] [10]). So the question for us is how do we represent those different views in RS on the issue in a neutral manner. Your suggestion is so far off the mark it doesn't even merit discussion (in my opinion). Imagine I suggested the following:

• Criticism of the Israeli government-—Though not all those who oppose BDS are necessarily motivated by shutting down criticism of the Israeli government, the reality of Israeli Hasbara informs the reaction to criticism of BDS. (note I am not seriously suggesting this I am using it to show the problems with your suggestion)

The best way to cover this issue would be to look at the different views in RS and try to represent those views in a neutral manner. Not trying to get the article to adopt one particular viewpoint by adding controversial categories and commentaries. Dlv999 (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually accept and support including Criticism of the Israeli government under the see also section. How about if we just not include the "reason" or change the reason to something more neutral? Sound fair? --GHcool (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've come to the opinion that ya'll are right. No need for the piddling little "See also" thing. Better that Wikipedia shine a full light on BDS's anti-Semitism (neutrally worded, of course). --GHcool (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Please GHcool, there are many other forums for you to direct your passion and I am sure the corresponding communities would greatly benefit from your participation. Alas, Wikipedia is not one of those communities, as it is simply an Internet-based forum for the display of verifiable and encyclopaedic content that the global community can contribute to. For future reference, words like "piddling" and "ya'll" do nothing to galvanize your integrity. Also, it is important to maintain a healthy detachment with all things in life and Wikipedia is yet another one of those things. All the best sir/madam.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Israeli public diplomacy

Here is the list of sources being used for the Allegations of antisemitism section:

• JCPA article - Israeli public diplomacy organisation [11]
• NGO Monitor website link - (pro-Israel) Advocacy group [12]
• SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER publication - (pro-Israel) Advocacy group [13]
• Guardian article about Hawking boycott - repeated information. Article already cited and discussed previously in the page
• Noam Chomsky you tube video - Repeated information. Already cited and discussed previously in the page
• JC article - Third party RS [14]
• ADL documents - (pro-Israel) Advocacy group [15][16]

The section and sources read like an exercise in Israeli public diplomacy, not an encyclopaedic coverage of the topic from a neutral perspective. I don't have any objection to covering the claims of anti-semitism in the article. But it should be done from a neutral perspective in line with the purposes and policies of the encyclopaedia. The section as it stands is so far off the mark I think deleting and starting from scratch is the best way forward. Dlv999 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope. If Wikipedia did not quote pro-Israel sources on the issue of anti-Israel campaigns, the integrity of the encyclopedia would be severely compromised. Pro-Israel organizations are at least as reliable as the BDS organizations, and they are quoted all over this article. I intend on removing the POV tag within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you point at some examples of content where BDS organizations "are quoted all over this article" ? Information sourced directly from BDS organizations needs to be removed. Removing a POV tag in the face of objections that haven't been addressed would be wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the situation is quite analogous anyway. WP:SELFPUB gives some leeway to use self-published sources about themselves: "self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". Using activist sources as RS in an article about a third party to make claims about a third party is something else entirely. Dlv999 (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed but without evidence that a statement matters to anyone but the organization I'm not sure I see why it should be included or how we could select information based on anything other than subjective sampling of a primary source. I assume there are hundreds of organizations under the BDS umbrella opposed to the Israeli occupation that have issued statements. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I don't think it will be possible to make the article comply with policy and I don't think it will be possible to resolve content disputes through discussion. It's one of the articles I think Wikipedia shouldn't try to host at the moment because of the poor state of editing in the ARBPIA topic area. I think the article should just be left to those who feel compelled to exploit Wikipedia for advocacy and eventually perhaps it could be moved to a new title like Criticism of BDS. If people want information about BDS itself, it's better for them to go elsewhere. If they want to know about criticism of BDS they can come to Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is described in our intro as "...a global campaign which builds economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with the stated goals of the movement: The end of Israeli occupation and colonisation of Arab land, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and respect for the right of return of Palestinian refugees."[17] Is there universal acceptance of the premises of that campaign? Obviously not, therefore I think that our article should be selectively presenting examples of the rejection of the premises of that campaign. I think WP:NPOV supports this approach. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to find high quality sources that cover the topic and accurately reflect what they say in the article. I would say the primary concern at the moment is to gut the glut of advocacy sources that have recently been added to the article as inappropriate citations for claims against third parties. Dlv999 (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• The Simon Wiesenthal Center has been discussed before at WP:RSN regarding claims of anti-semitism against opponents of the Israeli government. It is not regarded as RS by the community for this kind of thing and should be withdrawn. Third party, secondary sources are required to support the inclusion of their opinion. The same principle applies to the other Israeli advocacy/public diplomacy sources particularly as the material is making claims about third parties so needs to be well sourced. Dlv999 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, the SWC is an excellent source on what the SWC considers anti-Semitic. I'm removing the tags. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

mary robinson's quote

try this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/forum/1673034.stm Soosim (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, but the article doesn't say anything about BDS or even Boycotts so it would be WP:SYNTH to include the quote with that source. Dlv999 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism by artists and public figures

That an organisation chooses not to join the boycott is not in itself evidence of criticism. Example:

• "In October 2010, the Cape Town Opera (CTO) declined an appeal by Desmond Tutu to cancel a tour of Israel.[87] The CTO stated that the company was "reluctant to adopt the essentially political position of disengagement from cultural ties with Israel or with Palestine"[87] and that they had been in negotiations for four years and would respect the contract.[88]"

I see no evidence of any criticism in this statement. The OTC chose not to join the boycott and gave a reason - that is not criticism. Including this in the "criticism" section is editorial WP:SYNTHESIS Dlv999 (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-violent resistance to occupation in Palestine

Section was deleted by Ghcool with the claim that "section that does not directly relate to BDS". However if you read the cited sources for the section they clearly relate the discussion of non-violent resistance to the topic of this article, the BDS movement:-

• The first citation discussing civil society to occupation: "Many local campaigns were directly or indirectly supported by civil society organisations, which helped local communities initiate legal cases, facilitated research and documentation, and organized trainings, conferences, and workshops to disseminate non-violent strategies. Other NGOs community based organisations encouraged international outreach and solidarity, especially in the form of boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns..."[18]

• The second citation discussing non-violent resistance: "To be sure, at the local, non-violent methods, whether employed through direct actions, community organisations, media outlets, or sumoud, allowed for individuals from many different backgrounds to participate in the struggle. Regionally, non-violent actions allowed for joint efforts between Palestinian and Israeli activists, organisations, and human rights groups. Internationally, non-violent campaigns allowed for the direct participation of international activists and also created new spaces for indirect participation of international activists support networks and solidarity groups to form and act in their own countries and communities. Furthermore, the non-violent campaigns launched during the intifada are continuing to expand in the post-intifada context, with continual village demonstrations, growing BDS campaigns, additional legal cases, and increasing global awareness."[19]

I also should say this latest deletion is part of a problematic pattern of editing from GHcool on this page characterised by repeated deletion of material sourced to academic sources while at the same time adding material based on inappropriate use of activist sources. Dlv999 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You created this section today [20], see WP:BRD. You've also violated 1RR, you might want to revert your edit before someone takes you to an admin. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The actual content looks pretty irrelevant. The fact that it's sourced to things making a passing mention of the article topic is an unconvincing reason for inclusion. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Academic sources describe BDS as a "peaceful" or "non-violent" means of supporting the Palestinian cause. Academic sources discuss the progression of non-violent means since the start of the second intifada leading to the initiation, development and growth of BDS campaigns. Could you please explain your rationale as to why this is not relevant to an encyclopaedic article on the topic of BDS and specifically the background section of an encyclopaedia article on BDS?

Regarding 1rr, I believe this is my first revert in 24 hrs. If you can point to another one I will happily revert. Dlv999 (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That might be a fine topic. A whole section? Unlikely, especially if it's filled with ramblings like

Thus activists are presented with a more difficult task than the removal of a dictator or political party from government as they must find opportunities for resisting the occupying force while simultaneously convincing the Israeli population and government of the requirement for change

Smacks of WP:SYNTH and WP:COAT. If you want a few sentences along the lines of "X says the BSD is part of non-violent resistance to the occupation", I don't see anyone having a problem with that. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well it's odd that editors have built an entire section on claims of anti-Semitism based almost entirely on activist sources, but discussion of the specific challenges of non-violent resistance in Palestine which led to development of the BDS campaign (sourced entirely to academic sources) is entirely removed. Dlv999 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out the sources you find contentious? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion "Israeli public diplomacy" further up the page. Dlv999 (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose to do about the "Non-violent resistance to occupation in the Palestinian territories" section. Can you pair it down to a relevant set of sentences? I don't know enough about the topic to do it myself. TippyGoomba (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone else gets there first I will have another look at the sources and the section tomorrow and try to address the concerns that have been raised. Dlv999 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or as academic source

A paper by Bat Ye'or was recently added to the article as a "scholarly source". Our article on Ye'or describes her as a "conspiracy theorist". Now I know Wikipedia is not an RS, but reading the paper it does seem to appear that way:

"Europe does not yet dare use armed force against Israel, whose existence it claims to defend, while advising it to commit suicide. Europe fights Israel with the infamous Nazi weapons of delegitimization, defamation, propaganda, hatred, and attempts to destroy its economy through boycotts, disinvestment, and sanctions (BDS).Toward this goal it encourages an international campaign of incitement to hatred by financing anti-Israel NGOs and lobbies. Europe claims that Jewish existence in its ancestral homeland, Judea, and in Samaria is an “occupation,” a colonization. Israel has in this way become a state that is occupying its own historical homeland; in Orwellian language, propagandists speak of “the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land” that is called Judea, and not of the ethnic and religious cleansing of Jews from their homeland through wars, expulsions, dispossession, and the dehumanizing ruling of dhimmitude. Euro-jihadists invoke “Palestinian resistance”—not a terrorism that has spread throughout the planet. The European Union has used every stratagem to force Israel to selfdestruct in the name of Palestine, which would lead to an era of “justice and peace” in the world in the same way the charnel houses of Auschwitz weremeant to purify humanity from Jews." Dlv999 (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The author is less relevant in the journal in this case. It's from the The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism. Claims to be unaffiliated with any academic institution and I'm not sure if it's even peer reviewed. I don't think this counts as scholarship. I suggest the source be removed unless the journal can be established as a reliable source. TippyGoomba (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the JSA is pro-Israel just as the esteemed Journal of Palestine Studies is pro-Palestinian. The JPS has published peer-reviewed articles by conspiracy theorists in the past, but I would never dream of questioning the reliability of JPS. I expect and insist on the same standard applied to JSA. --GHcool (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Journal of Palestine Studies" doesn't look particularly reliable either. Can you make a better argument for the reliability of "The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism"? If not, I'll check at WP:RSN, I don't know how to measure journal quality in the social sciences. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Palestine Studies is a peer-reviewed journal published by the University of California. It is undeniably a reliable source. I have no knowledge of the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism. nableezy - 18:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"I have no knowledge of the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism." (nableezy) See http://www.google.com/search?q=Journal+for+the+Study+of+Antisemitism http://www.jsantisemitism.org/ http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/12/the-journal-for-the-study-of-antisemitism-has-an-islamophobia-problem/ http://antonylerman.com/2012/11/29/another-faulty-pseudo-academic-antisemitism-initiative/ Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Nableezy is right. I am one of the most pro-Israel editors on Wikipedia (see my user page) and I am happy to stipulate that JPS is perhaps the single most reliable academic journal in the English-speaking world on the Palestinian perspective. JSA is also reliable from the opposite perspective. --GHcool (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or is of course not a scholarly source and the equivalent of what she writes is more at the level of the Arab supporters of Garaudy and negationnism than the scholars who wrote in the Journal of Palestine Studies.

Regarding JSA : an association that offers a "Jabotinsky Award" that promote those who stand up in defense of the rights of the Jewish people" doesn't sound very academic. Anyway there is not a single hit in google scholar. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what Pluto2012 is talking about. The link Pluto2012 provides shows that the Jabotinsky Foundation, NOT the JSA sponsors the Jabotinsky Award. There are several dozen hits in Google Scholar. --GHcool (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

From the citations of the articles in that google scholar search, it's pretty convincing that this journal has no impact on the academic community. I can't figure out anything about their "Executive Committee", other than the chair is a lawyer (is this a legal journal?) They state they are not affiliated with any academic institution. Their submission guidelines says The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism (JSA) is the peer-reviewed work of a select group of independent scholars who examine antisemitism in traditional and emerging forms. I'm not sure what that says about their peer-review but it can't be good. GHcool, are you able to say anything to establish their relevance? TippyGoomba (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"[...] level of the Arab supporters of Garaudy and negationnism" (Pluto2012) The article itself say that "Eurabian networks pretend that this whole issue is another conspirational theory" Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Anyway there is not a single hit in google scholar." (Pluto2012) See also http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22The+Journal+for+the+Study+of+Antisemitism%22 . Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Upon reading the links provited by Visite, I think I'm going to have to change my mind and agree with the anti-Bat Ye'or folks that the JSA is not currently a reliable source in and of itself. The journal had a lot of interesting articles (such as the Ye'or article), but the reliability of the author trumps the reliability of the journal in this case and neither Ye'or nor the JSA have enough reliability to "make it stick" on Wikipedia. Oh well. There are plenty of other sources attesting to BDS's anti-Semitic bona fides. --GHcool (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Achievements and Failures

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

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

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

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