Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Reut

Regarding this addition of material (and it's subsequent removal), how is Reut a "leading policy group" and why should WP care what they say per WP:DUE ? If this material is to be included there should be a reliable secondary source that has reported their views. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

...and I would suggest that the article Want to delegitimize Israel? Be careful who you mess with in Haaretz would be a suitable source to provide an overview of the "Delegitimization" narrative and its relevance to BDS. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I would cite the original article from The Forward instead of the reprint in Haaretz. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

But doesn't Nathan Guttman work for Haaretz as well ? Confused. I don't suppose it matters because the editor I intendedto see this is ignoring it... :) Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

can someone link to the article in Hebrew?

I don't know how..here's the link: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.53 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

done, also corrected link on he.wiki--Misarxist 07:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Denniss This is not a spam link..*BDSISRAEL Canadian Anti-BDS Association - Countering BDS Movement

The Coverage of this new site has been profiled in Jerusalem Post Article - 12/22/2010 BDS 2010: Fighting back I disagree with your analysis that this link is SPAM. (Spam sites don't get profiled on major international newspapers) - This site is as legitimate expression countering the more established bdsmovement.net. Since all links from Wikipedia are nofollowed, my goal is to represent the other side- not some pathetic attempt to get link love.

Searchengineman (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Read the top of the page. This article is under 1RR and discretionary sanctions. Edit warring over a link isn't a good idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard if you really feel strongly about it, but please abide by 1RR.--Misarxist 17:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think a brief mention in JPost that says "A new BDSIsrael site (www.bdsisrael.com) builds on successful counter-boycott programs (called Buycotts) which have become widely popular in North America." means that it qualifies under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. There are tonnes of organizations that actively oppose BDS. Even the very diplomatic New Israel Fund are strongly opposed to it. We can't list all of the orgs that oppose it. What's special about this one ? Also, ask yourself whether this org would qualify for its own wikipedia article under the WP:N requirements. If not, it's not a notable org as far as wikipedia is concerned. The other thing to bear in mind is that there are also many organizations that support the BDS campaign and we can live without links to their sites too. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks for clarifying your position Sean.hoyland - talk,

Yes BDSIsrael.com is a small site for now. But Canada has played a massive role in the Israeli Apartheid Debate - The movements roots were started at the University of Toronto, that group and its founders are extremely vocal and loud. They have drowned out the debate, usually employing tactics which bring in the police, (Yes Canada!). For example Jenny Peto one such protagonist is one of the principles of the Israel Apartheid Group. She recently penned her controversial doctorate article, which has been critiqued as shoddy and vile scholarship, even by a member of Canadian Parliament.Canada is an important player. BDSIsrael.com is the limited Canadian response for an issue which is tearing universities apart. BDSmovement.net started as an obscure site, which now has authority. You are correct that another WIKI article should be penned for the other side of the debate, to sort the SPAM from chaffe. It is this authors intention to get that ball rolling so the other side can be properly identified and categorized.

Searchengineman (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Sean's right, the website doesn't seem important enough as no-one's really noticed it and it doesn't contain much information, more polemic. And speaking of polemic, this article is about the BDS campaign which was started in Palestine, not the apartheid argument, so the relevance of that argument in Canada isn't particularly clear.--Misarxist 10:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

JCPA document: "Mapping the Organizational Sources of the Global Delegitimization Campaign against Israel in the UK"

This 56-page document has 1-1/2 pages about the BDS campaign. Why does it merit a paragraph (or any link) in the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope of this article

It seems to me that this article is about two conflated article subjects. The first one is the movement (or organization) known as "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions", and the second is "boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel since 2005". Now, they might both be subjects that are notable enough for separate articles, but I object to the article describing byocotts and sanctions as inspired or led by the movement when the sources don't support that.Sjö (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the article the campaign was started in January 2005 or July 2005 or according to the Jerusalem Post source in 2000. That's another sign that the subject is poorly defined.Sjö (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Globalize

Tag "/UK" was added June 2008 (Will change the date in the article now). Claim should be substantiated or dropped, by now. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Israeli Law

Has the proposed Israeli Bill mentioned in the last paragraph been voted on? Is it still before the Knesset? The article should be updated to reflect its fate. 131.111.185.34 (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

it passed the first reading necessary, but has not been put up for a vote for the 2nd and 3rd readings. it is still technically active, and perhaps some member of knesset will bring it up again at some point. Soosim (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It passed on July 11, though it does not have all the features listed in this article. I will revise it. Zero^talk 19:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

BDS Sewer System acceptable?

Is it acceptable to link to "BDS Sewer system" and have this distasteful image in this article? I question whether or not it meets standards expected by Wikipedia - EverettColdwell(talk) June 16, 2011

Is it "acceptable"? Sure, it's a "free" image. Should it be there? Frankly, I don't think so. It doesn't add any value to the article. (Plus, the text is so small, the labels are illegible.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would add that the image is (i) more suited to a tabloid than an encyclopedia, and (ii) obviously leading in relation to the subject matter. I'd say it's best to remove it. CJCurrie (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that text is too small in image. Also it is unclear what the image depicts. I'd agree with image removal. What about the NGO/BDS paragraph though? If that is kept, why would it not be moved to an External Links section? --Everett (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving it to the External Links section would be more acceptable than the status quo, indeed. CJCurrie (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

the image is acceptable and apparently if malik and cj don't like it, there must be a good reason....in any case, i am restoring it. it is mentioned in the text, sourced, and not supposed to be readable, per se. it is an image of the concept. please leave it alone. thank you. Soosim (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What information does it add to the article though ? For me, looking at the full size version, the message seems to be that all of components produce shit....interestingly one is "international law". Isn't it a bit like someone putting a Latuff cartoon like this in the IDF article ? They're propaganda images which is fine but in both cases I don't think they belong in the articles because they don't add value or really comply with Wikipedia:Image#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

NGO Monitor is a not inconsequential organization. We have at this article an External links section further subdivided into "Supportive" and "Critical" sections. There are already more links provided under the "Supportive" heading. I would suggest adding this link and this link to the "Critical" section. Bus stop (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If the image is to be included it needs a more neutral explanation of its origin and purpose. NGO Monitor would appear from the text to be neutral or authoritative when it is just another lobby group with a political position on the BDS. To describe NGO Monitor as a pro-Israel, anti-BDS lobby group would be a fair representation of its position and of its motivation for promulgating the sewer diagram. Chrismaltby (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This link, at NGO Monitor, explicitly states that "BDS is antisemitic" and I am suggesting placement in the section for external links that are "Critical of BDS" so I think there is little room for ambiguity. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Including NGO Monitor among the external links is a good idea. The second link you propose is featured prominently on the first page, though, and there's no good reason to have two ELs to NGO Monitor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

NGO Monitor does have a website, but is not a RS. -DePiep (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

well, they are RS for some things, ask malik. he approved it himself not long ago, saying if the original is available, why use a third party reference. but, there are plenty of RS's for this as well: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/09/ngo-monitor-launches-%E2%80%98bds-sewer-system%E2%80%99-to-combat-%E2%80%98israel-apartheid-week%E2%80%99/, http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=211155, and even EI: http://electronicintifada.net/blog/benjamin-doherty/ngo-monitor-smear-video-comes-straight-sewer - so it is pretty clear that 2-3 editors want it removed because it is so critical of the bds movement. but, as said above, we have sections for pro and con, and therefore, it fits. Soosim (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, the only thing they are a reliable source for is their own opinion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks malik - since they are only reliable for their own opinion, and since the section is for criticism based on people/organization's own opinons, then it fits right in. will re-add shortly. Soosim (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, you are not representing this discussion correctly. You have not addressed the arguments mentioned here, and now you are even wordpicking to get your point. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, trying again: there are plenty of RS's for this as well: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/09/ngo-monitor-launches-%E2%80%98bds-sewer-system%E2%80%99-to-combat-%E2%80%98israel-apartheid-week%E2%80%99/, http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=211155, and even EI: http://electronicintifada.net/blog/benjamin-doherty/ngo-monitor-smear-video-comes-straight-sewer

Soosim, the article already says:

NGO Monitor has produced "the “BDS Sewer System” which provides detailed information, in graphic form, on the sources of delegitimization campaigns against Israel."[1]

The issue at hand is whether the image belongs in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

reorganizing article to separate events and impact from reaction

Right now, most of this article is in the form of a "Reaction" section, which mixes an account of what BDS has done and is doing with reactions to these specific efforts and general support or criticism of the movement. Would it be better to organize this article by creating a section called "Key events" (or something to that effect) and move a discussion of what the movement has actually done - and a summary of what people perceive the movement's impact as - to that section?

For instance, it seems like there are two pieces to Norman Finkelstein's criticism of the BDS movement: (1) disingenuousness and (2) limited impact. An Op-Ed in Haaretz yesterday also addressed the question of how much of an impact the movement is having: [2]. I think a reader of this article would find it more useful to see what the organization believes, what they've accomplished or tried to accomplish, a summary of what their impact has been (using Finkelstein, the Haaretz article and other sources) and then various supportive and critical statements. I think that would be clearer than the current organizational structure. I don't want to make any major structural changes without discussion. GabrielF (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

GF - good idea. maybe start with creating the section you talk about, and then add it in, before removing anything else. Soosim (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is also that the proponents of the BDS movement get sub heading while the opponeents get minort mention. there is no mention that this is considered by many to be racist against Israelis and Jews. Solarcloth (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC) (edited into readibility as intentded, I assume -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC))

Eh, "proponents" vs "opponeents", and you introducing "considered by many to be racist" -- are you planning your own coatrack WP:OR plan? -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is one of many quote about the BDS being anti-semetic http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/bds-supporters/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarcloth (talk • contribs) 11:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

deligitimization vs criticism

anyone care about the section edit? Soosim (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it made the section title less POV. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

On Ilan Pappe

Soosim, you are right in that YouTube is not always a RS. However, if you had clicked on the link to see what the source was before hastily undoing the edit, you would have noticed that the video is a recording of a discussion that took place. Furthermore, at around 5 minutes in the video, you can see the exact words from the quoted excerpt come out of Ilan Pappe's mouth. I believe that to be a RS. Furthermore, since I have not included any interpretation of his words, this cannot be a POV issue. Kazemzad (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Kazemzad

kazemzad - a) youtube is not RS. sorry. it has to be picked up by a third party RS for it to be both RS and notable. b) some examples of your POV words: renowned, ardently, asserted. c) are you aware of the WP:1RR rules that govern many of the pages you are editing? be careful.... i won't revert you now, but will ask other editors to give their thoughts here about your addition and subsequent rv. Soosim (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

oh, and ilan is a former israeli - he hasn't lived in israel for more than 5 years. so, please, k, i have explained the rules, please do a self-revert. thanks. Soosim (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the article at points where you are right. That addresses your point "b)". The paragraph now reads:

Israeli historian Ilan Pappe has voiced his support of the BDS campaign. During an Israel Society forum at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, Pappe stated,

“Anybody who has been active for the cause of Palestine in England knows that the major avenue for both displaying your support for the Palestine cause, and protesting against the oppressive policies on the ground, and in making a difference, is the BDS. Whether one likes it or not, one has to admit that there is no other possible way today for any person in this country who wants to show solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine, than the BDS."

He further stated, "It is the failure of the peace process, and I would say it is the abuse of the peace process . . . that led people to support pressure from the outside."

Now for your first point, "a). youtube is not RS. sorry. it has to be picked up by a third party RS for it to be both RS and notable." I appreciate your apology, but the reliable source example page instructs, " In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed." Furthermore, the No original research page states, "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

The quote comes from a 'video clip published on YouTube.' It is a primary source. Primary sources may be used on Wikipedia to make 'straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.' The above paragraph simply introduces Pappe as a historian, conveys his association with the BDS campaign in order to establish relevancy to the article under discussion, then states the quote. Anybody can click on the source. And once they click on the link, assuming that they have functional eyes and ears, they can verify that these were Pappe's exact words.

And now for your point that Ilan is a former Israeli because he has not lived there for more than 5 years. That is a preposterous claim. I understand that you are not fond of Ilan Pappe. But your dislike for another person cannot renounce their citizenship. Sorry. Do you have any sources that prove that his citizenship have been revoked? If yes, correct me. If not, please find another forum (such as a personal blog) to publish as many libels against Ilan Pappe as you want. VivaWikipedia (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Irrelevant Information

The following tag about excessive, poor, and irrelevant information was placed on the page last month but it seems the page has not yet been edited to address it: "This article may contain excessive, poor or irrelevant examples. You can improve the article by adding more descriptive text and removing less pertinent examples. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for further suggestions. (April 2012)"

I'm creating this section so we as editors can discuss how to better this page in that respect.

Grammatical errors aside, the following edit seems to fill both the "excessive" and "irrelevant" criteria, especially since it does not meet mention BDS in particular and instead introduces new, irrelevant players such as "Shop-a-Fada" and Tal Brody, but I just wanted to hear a couple other thoughts before removing it.

"A group of Israeli businesmen have started a sales website called "Shop-a-Fada" in order to promote Israeli products. Tal Brody is the honorary chairman of the initiatve, and said the purpose is to "fight back against those who think that they’ll be able to destroy Israel by waging economic warfare."[28]" VivaWikipedia (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Viva. 130.88.189.146 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I also agree, --Owaisr (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC), I attempted to make changes to this section being a newbie and not understanding the protocol (apologies if I misstep, learning how to be a part of the wiki community)Is there any agreement on removing some of this?

In addition, I found much of the details around the Max Benner protests in Australia was already in the wiki page associated to him or could be moved there as it does not directly relate to the topic.

Is this still and issue and specifically with what? Reading through now but wondering about status and example farm tag. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ilan Pappe

Just curious, what does "formerly of Israel" mean in practice ? Is he no longer Israeli in some sense, and if so, in what sense specifically ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it means Soosim would like to disown him. There's no rational explanation for the phrase. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I wondered if perhaps citizenship expires for people outside the country who have dual nationality after a certain time unless they renew something... Sean.hoyland - talk 23:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The main question how does WP:RS describe him?--Shrike (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Finding an answer to that question may depend on the answer to the question 'what does "formerly of Israel" mean in practice'. If his status changed at some point, we need to restrict the RS sample to those that were published after the change. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, good. what i meant was....he no longer lives in israel, and hasn't for 5+ years. so, how about either leave the "israel" piece off, or maybe something like: "Exeter University historian Ilan Pappe, an Israeli who hasn't lived in Israel for more than 5 years, says....." Soosim (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind what happens. If he is still Israeli I'd suggest going with Shrike's source survey as a reality check. I was interested in DePiep's removal here because it's unclear who is being slurred, Pappe or Israel. I'm just grateful you stayed away from the Gilad Shalit article while he was being held against his will. Imagine that, 5+ years of being kidnapped, you're released, check your Wikipedia article and it says "formerly of Israel"...seems harsh. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 11:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that we're even having this discussion is absurd. Soosim is trying to disown him, and there is no other explanation. I quote Soosim from above: "oh, and ilan is a former israeli - he hasn't lived in israel for more than 5 years." My cousin was born in France but hasn't been living there for a few years. Soosim, should I go let him know that he's no longer French??!!

Sean Hoyland brought up a good point, and following that line of reasoning, I asked Soosim 2 weeks ago, "Do you have any sources that prove that his citizenship have been revoked? If yes, correct me." His only response was to obstinately revert any edits that put "Israeli" and "Ilan Pappe" in the same sentence.

Opinions aside, Pappe is Israeli, and his nationality is highly relevant to the BDS page, as Namibia has already pointed out, because this article is about boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel. If you really want to talk about relevancy, let's talk about the degree of pertinence of Shop-a-Fada and Hollywood actors visiting "an Israeli Air Force Base as part of a special celebrity mission in May 2012" on a page with a tag that asks editors to "remove less pertinent examples." VivaWikipedia (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point about Shalit :). What do you mean by doing a source survey?VivaWikipedia (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Pappe has been published on the topic. His chapter in The Case for Sanctions Against Israel (Verso Books, May 2012) [3] is entitled "The boycott will work, an Israeli perspective". An extract of Pappe's contribution to the book can be read here. [4]. Dlv999 (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

pretty sure you can try to equate being forcibly removed by a terrorist organization to voluntary leaving because of employment issues, but also pretty sure it won't hold too much water. but go ahead, cute. and, if pappe's nationality is important then so is the fact that he has chosen not to live in his national homeland. you can't have it both ways. if you call him israeli, because it is 'important', then so is the other side of the coin. Soosim (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, I was kidding about Shalit, let's not lose our sense of humor, also the weather is better in Gaza than Exeter. VivaWikipedia, by source survey I just meant do some google searchs to see how a variety of reliable sources describe him in various contexts. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure that having to leave your country because of death threats against you and your sons and having your face in the center of a target published in your country's bestselling newspaper doesn't constitute voluntary leaving. But alas, that's not the point. A viable argument against Pappe's Israeli nationality has not been presented, so I expect any edits describing Pappe as Israeli not to be reverted.VivaWikipedia (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

i love how you twist my words. i did not say he was not israeli. i have agreed to that, but said that if that fact is important to the sentence, then so is the fact that he doesn't live in israel. you can't mislead the public... right? Soosim (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I quoted you: "oh, and ilan is a former israeli." Please check the evidence before you make accusations. I wonder if the public thinks "Ilan Pappe, formerly of Israel" is misleading. VivaWikipedia (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that it would be separately noteworthy if he is an Israeli citizen but is living elsewhere due to his apprehension of violence against himself or his family should he reside in Israel. Chrismaltby (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

you quoted the old me. as you can see above, i said that we need to say something like 'who no longer lives in israel'. Soosim (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, Shrike reasonably requested a source that described him being Israeli in relation to his views on BDS, which was supplied. I think it is reasonable if you want to add some sort of language to the effect that he currently lives and works outside of Israel to the article, you should provide a source that has discussed this as relevant in relation to his views on BDS.Dlv999 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

i thought i had in the original entry in the article. anyway, here are two of many. one from 2007 explaining his move to england, and one from 2012 saying why he is still living there. http://cbgonzo.blogspot.co.il/2007/04/ilan-pappe-to-quit-israel-for-uk.html and http://rabble.ca/news/2012/04/revisiting-palestine-question-interview-ilan-pappe - these are not great sources, but there are plenty examples of them. let me know... Soosim (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

viva's extensive edits

thank you for working on this article. you have added some good material, but there are a few items in question. one thing in particular is the use of 'ceasefire magazine' as an RS. i think it is not and all of those entries will have to be removed. Soosim (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I explained with every removal what the problem with the text is. You restored everything without addressing any of the concerns. I'll go over the problems here one more time and then I'm going to remove the problematic text again. Please address the problems before restoring the text, and also please read WP:BRD.

• The BDS web site is not an appropriate source for what a 3rd party said or did. See WP:SPS.
• No source connected the liquidation of Agrexco to BDS. See WP:OR.
• No source connected Veolia losing contracts to BDS. See WP:OR.
• The Co-operative Group specifically said what it's doing is not a boycott of Israel. See WP:V.
• The Swedish Dockworkers Union did not say their week long boycott of Israeli ships was part of BDS, they gave a different reason. See WP:V.
• No source connected Danske Bank divestment from some Israeli companies to BDS. See WP.OR.
• No source connected PKA Ltd to BDS. See WP:OR.
• Hampshire collage specifically said their divestment was not part of BDS. See WP:V.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's ironic that you're trying to introduce me to WP:BRD as I'm the one who asked for discussion on the talk page. Let me address your concerns in detail here:

• The BDS web site is not an appropriate source for what a 3rd party said or did.

Not a problem. The two statements sourcing the site are now tagged with

• No source connected the liquidation of Agrexco to BDS.

I have now provided a source from the online outlet to Yediot Ahronot, which states, "Agrexco, Israel’s leading flower exporter, has recently declared bankruptcy, partially due to the global boycott of its produce, according to some reports" and edited the article to reflect this.

• No source connected Veolia losing contracts to BDS.

The source states, "In Stockholm, a civil society campaign led to Veolia losing out on a €3.5 billion contract for the operation of the city’s metro system. The . . . campaign against Veolia has led to its loss of contracts totalling more than €5 billion in France, England, Wales, Ireland, and Australia combined."

• The Co-operative Group specifically said what it's doing is not a boycott of Israel.

Per the source, the Co-operative says it is indeed not doing a boycott of Israel as a whole, but of Israeli settlement goods. The section now clearly makes that distinction: "The Co-operative stated that it is not an Israeli boycott and that it will continue to “use other suppliers in the country that do not source from illegal settlements.” [8]"

• The Swedish Dockworkers Union did not say their week long boycott of Israeli ships was part of BDS, they gave a different reason.

Boycotts of Israel fall under the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement.

• No source connected Danske Bank divestment from some Israeli companies to BDS. No source connected PKA Ltd to BDS.

In reference to Danske Bank's and PKA Ltd's divestments from Elbit Systems, the source states, "The decision came after human rights groups and boycott campaigns declared . . . " The source doesn't connect the bank's divestment from Africa Israel and Danya Cebus, so I have removed that; thanks for pointing this out.

• Hampshire collage specifically said their divestment was not part of BDS

To reflect this the section now reads, "In February 2009, Hampshire College decided to divest from companies that conduct business with Israel when the board of trustees sold holdings in a fund that invested in more than 200 such companies after 800 students, professors, and alumni signed a petition calling for the divestment. However, university officials said that the decision to divest from the fund was made “without reference to any country or political movement,” but was motivated by a board decision that the fund held stocks in companies engaged in business practices that violated the college’s policy on socially responsible investments. [17] "

This reflects the college's BDS efforts as well as the college's statements. VivaWikipedia (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the journalistic standards of the guy who wrote the Ynet column have been questioned, and Ynet has terminated their relationship with him. See [5]. I don't think we can use this.
• You've added a source (Lim 2012) to support some of the statements made in the article. First of all, you didn't include page numbers. Second, Lim is the editor, and the book appears to be a collection of essays. Could you please post here the name of the author of the essay you're using, and a short quote?
• If the Co-operative Group, or the Swedish dockworkers, or Hampshire collage, or whoever, do something and specifically say it's not part of a boycott of Israel, how exactly does it belong in this article? Not every boycott or divestment or sanction is part of BDS. See WP:SYNTH. You must have a reliable source that specifically connects it to the topic of this article. Protip: If you can't find the term BDS in the source, it most likely doesn't belong here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

viva - it has to say explicity that it is BDS related. otherwise, we run into OR and other issues. we have had many of these discussions already on this page and other related pages (both pros and cons). for example, including a politician who makes a visit to israel and then saying that s/he is anti-bds. just doesn't cut it.... Soosim (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because somebody or some organization decides to boycott Israel or Israelis in some way, it doesn't automatically mean that they took this action because of the BDS movement, or that BDS movement can take credit for it. Please keep in mind that this article is not a compendium of boycotts of Israel (I suppose if this article was entitled "Boycotts of Israel and Israelis" (or something like that), then Viva's additions might be allowed, but that's a different issue).Rather, this article is about the BDS movement, which means that its content must reflect this as such.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

Please read WP:BRD: "the BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble." You wrote on the talk page at 22:20 on June 5, and proceeded to make radical changes to the article by 18:37 the next day. I do and try to keep a life outside of Wikipedia, so please do not construe my not responding within 20 hours as an act of “collaboration” or “consensus.” I would like to collaborate in order to create a fair, representative article on the movement but so far you have raged and reverted. If you would like to collaborate, please indicate so in your actions. If not, please kindly move your efforts to another area; I hear the lightsaber, Ron Jeremy, and Brangelina articles needs some work.

“It has to say explicitly that it is BDS related. Otherwise, we run into OR and other issues. We have had many of these discussions already on this page and other related pages (both pros and cons). For example, including a politician who makes a visit to Israel and then saying that she is anti-bds. Just doesn’t cut it.” Soosim

Soosim, the hypocrisy with which you edit is astounding. You may recall this [6] conversation, in which I asked you why you insisted on writing about a Hollywood celebrity mission to Israel on the BDS page (mind you, at one point you even insisted on not only listing the celebrities but the TV shows they starred in as well). You responded, verbatim, “they are all celebs who did not boycott israel. they showed that they could come, unlike those mentioned elsewhere who showed that they did not come.” As far as “It has to say explicitly that it is BDS related,” any mention of BDS is conspicuously lacking in either of the two sources that you cited—the Israel Air Force Website and the Facebook page (oh yeah, did I mention that you tried citing Facebook as a reliable source?)

Or how about this edit [7] here that [conveniently] slipped under your radars, which goes on a rant about Madonna with absolutely no mention of boycotts, divestments, or sanctions in either the edit or the referenced article?

“Agreed, just because somebody or some organization decides to boycott Israel or Israelis in some way, it doesn’t automatically mean that they took this action because of the BDS movement, or that BDS movement can take credit for it. Please keep in mind this article is not a compendium of boycotts of Israel (I suppose if this article was entitle “Boycotts of Israel and Israelis” then Viva’s additions might be allowed, but that’s a different issue. Rather, this article is about the BDS movement, which means that its conflict must reflect this as such.” Hyperionsteel

Dear Hyperionsteel, if you believe that this article is not a compendium of boycotts of Israel, then why do you treat it as if it is? [8] Aside from the blatant hypocrisy in your actions, are you aware that you have cited a blog here?

Hyperionsteel, Soosim, and Non-Nice guy, how is it that you have no issue with these edits? There is a startling trend here, that anytime an edit is put in that criticizes boycotts or divestment from Israel, it goes unquestioned, regardless of its relevancy or its sources' reliability.Please, if you’re going to have standards, have one set of them, not two.

Furthermore, the organizations I have listed in the edits you are contesting are not just random organizations that have decided to boycott Israel for random reasons. Sure, if these organizations decided to boycott Israel because they didn’t like the shade of blue of Israel’s flag, they would have no relevancy on this page and I would be the first to revert them. But each of the boycotts and divestments that I have introduced into the article fall directly under the BDS movement and its goals. Danske Bank, for example, has divested from certain companies because of their involvement in the settlements (which ties directly into goal 1 of the BDS movement); this also applies to Veolia, CUT, PKA, among others.

Furthermore, it appears you misunderstand the BDS movement. The BDS movement is a movement (as Soosim has kindly already pointed out). It is not a brand; you don’t say, “hey, I’m wearing BDS today” or “hey, I’m with BDS today.” It is a movement that encompasses boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel in order to meet its three goals (which you can conveniently find by scrolling up, to the left, and clicking ‘article’). And to tie up loose ends, secondary sources such as articles, Lim’s book and the BDS movement itself associates each of the boycotts and sanctions introduced to the article with the BDS movement.

As far as your objections to the Ynet article: "Unfortunately, the journalistic standards of the guy who wrote the Ynet column have been questioned, and Ynet has terminated their relationship with him. See [5]. I don't think we can use this." My condolences for the guy who got fired. But if Ynet felt that this particular article contained inappropriate content, it would have removed it from its website. But since the author was fired on grounds of ethics (as opposed to publishing fictitious content, etc.) and above all because Ynet has kept the article and assumes responsibility for its contents, we can still use it. If you have objections to the contents of the article, you may take it up with Ynet.

VivaWikipedia (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll do you a favor and ignore the multiple personal attacks you're making in the above wall of text. This is a one time courtesy. I suggest you read the bit on the top of this page titled "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES". Next time I'll seek admin intervention.

Read the text you quoted from BRD again. The second R it says it doesn't contain after the D is you restoring information that was contested.

The BDS movement can claim that someone did something because of them. That doesn't make it so. I can claim it rained today because of the rain dance I did yesterday. Wikipedia policy requires a reliable secondary source to make the connection. That's going to be quite difficult to find when the people taking the action specifically say it's not part of a political movement.

As for the Ynet article, I didn't remove it. I don't think we should be using it, but I don't have the time or inclination to go through the bureaucratic process needed to establish that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a bit on "rv. as mentioned in talk, hind awwad is not a realibe source. take it to rs/n if you like". Isn't she the national coordinator of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee ? BNC, IDF, what's the difference ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that an essay by an activist published in a collection of essays by activist by Verso Books is a reliable source? Not sure what this has to do with Ballet Nouveau Colorado or International Diabetes Federation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I said "Could you elaborate a bit" and "BNC, IDF, what's the difference ?" I couldn't find where Hind Awwad as a source was discussed on the talk page but I guess it may be the "BDS movement can claim..." part above. We routinely include attributed claims by the IDF about third parties. Why can't we include attributed claims by the BNC of a similar nature ? I'm not saying we should. I'm just saying I honestly can't see the difference. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you could more easily see the difference if we were talking about, say, NGO Monitor, but since you're not saying this should be included, I think we're done. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really, they seem the same to me. NGO Monitor (see usage) and CAMERA (see usage) are good examples That's kind of my point. Should we also not include the attributed claims they make about third parties (that haven't been picked up by other sources) ? If I had to explain to VivaWikipedia why NGO Monitor/CAMERA qualify and the BNC doesn't, I wouldn't be able to do it because I don't understand it. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, for starters, NGO Monitor is regularly picked up by reliable sources while Ms. Awwad gets exactly zero hits on google news. But seriously, if you're not arguing this should be included, what's the point? An argument for the sake of arguing? I'm not interested. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should be so dismissive about it. The point is that I think you may be an editor that can help make the topic area better and help to clarify and resolve inconsistencies that are a source of instability and confusion. My position is that if a claim matters it will have been reported somewhere. Others might argue that this is a claim by the national coordinator of the Palestinian BDS National Committee, an organization that claims to be "by far the largest coalition of Palestinian civil society groups"[9] and is therefore worthy of inclusion. Hind Awwad may not be individually notable[10] but the organization's claims are etc etc. I'll give you a very specific example where I think there are close parallels between this case and another. See HaMoked#Funding, it's a statement about HaMoked's funding sourced directly from NGO Monitor and attributed to them. It's a non-polemical statement of fact about a third party by NGO Monitor. I haven't removed this information because I think it is probably true and the way it's presented is okay, but policy-wise it's unclear, at least to me, whether it should be there. It strikes me as being the same as including a claim by BNC about third parties in this article. Do you think that information should remain or be removed and if so why ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a problem at another article, one which as far as I remember I have never edited, you can take that to RS/N as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The only prior discussion of the book was "You've added a source (Lim 2012) to support some of the statements made in the article. First of all, you didn't include page numbers. Second, Lim is the editor, and the book appears to be a collection of essays. Could you please post here the name of the author of the essay you're using, and a short quote?" on the talk page above, and "Also, a more specific source is needed for Veolia Environnement - a simple reference to a book (no page number is provided) is insufficent" claim in the edit summary. I addressed both of these concerns. I added the specific author as well as the page numbers. Please do not cite "per talk" misleadingly and/or change your argument at the last minute. Since you so ardently insist that this is a non-RS you may take it up with RS/N, and you're going to have to come up with a much better argument than 'Activists aren't reliable sources.' VivaWikipedia (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the WP:ONUS is on you to take it to RS/N. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

proposed name change for article

as hyper notes right above, this article is about the BDS movement. i propose that we rename the article Boycott, Divestement and Sanctions (movement) or some such animal, since it is not a generic item. this is in line with other articles like Madonna (entertainer)- comments? Soosim (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The only reason for the modifier "(entertainer)" is to distinguish Madonna the entertainer from the mother of Jesus, the various paintings named Madonna, and other uses of the word Madonna. Since this is the only article about Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and there is no other meaning of the phrase in English, there is no need for a modifier. See WP:PRECISE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Canada (Carleton U)

The rabble website is not a WP:RS and also the information was inaccurate. Saying that graduate students "overwhelmingly" sided with the Palestinian people to divest from Israel is absolutely inappropriate because: 1) the resolution mentioned neither Israel nor Palestinians 2) turnout was 8% (a few hundred students out of 3000+), hardly "overwhelming" here is a source for more complete info [11] if someone feels it belongs in the article please find a way that complies with wiki policies 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing Irrelevant and unsourced material and claims

I'm in the process of removing irrelevant examples. As previously discussed, this article is about the BDS movement, and is not a compendium of boycotts of Israel. Just because someone boycotts, or claims to boycott, Israel (or Israelis) in some way, shape or form, it doesn't mean they are members of the BDS movement or that they were motivated by it, or that BDS can automatically claim credit for it. Claiming that a specific person or group's boycott of Israel was inspired by the BDS movement without a proper source is original research, which is not allowed (and also may violate the BLPs of the specific people cited). The BDS movement can claim that every boycott of Israel was inspired by them, but this article should not be treated as a list of BDS claims that are presented as facts.

As usual, I welcome any comments, suggestions or concerns.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

my suggestion was to include the fact that it is a specific movement and not a 'concept'. malik, however, felt otherwise. anyone? Soosim (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Your wording was practically silly. What next? "Israel is the name of a specific country"? "George W. Bush is the name of a specific person"? The article says BDS is a campaign. That means it's a specific campaign. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out (correctly, I believe) that not every protest, boycott, or claim of boycott can be attributed to, or credited to, the BDS movement. Claiming that anyone or any person who boycotts Israel in some way, shape or form is automatically a member of the BDS movement (or that the BDS movement can take credit for it), is a huge stretch, and in any even, violates the rule on Original research. If the source article specifically states that a person is connected to, or motivatied by, the BDS movement, then feel free to include it.

And for the record, there are other pages, such as Boycotts of Israel, Disinvestment from Israel, and Academic boycotts of Israel that are more inclusive of boycotts of Israel - if you want to include boycotts which are not connected or motivated by the BDS movement, feel free to add them there.

However, this page deals specifically with the BDS movement, not boycotts of Israel in general. The BDS movement can claim that every boycott of Israel is motivated by them, but Wikipedia isn't the place to list BDS claims that can't be verified by reliable third party sources. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC))

editor LiamFitzGilbert

i left the following note on this editor's talk page regarding the editor's recent edits on this page:

a) i appreciate your advice about spending a moment or two googling the information. believe it or not, i did. i even went to the review of the article you use as a source, and, even more unbelievable, i actually went to the article itself. i kept looking for keywords, like 'boycott', 'jewish products', '1945', 'december' and others, but alas, none of those words were in the article or the review. so, again, if you have a specific page and paragraph for the source, please share. and a link to it would be nice too.

b) you may not be aware that the bds page is subject to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Other_revert_rules - one revert rule per 24 hours. so, i think it would be good if you self-reverted your recent 'undo'. an ambitious editor like yourself shouldn't find herself/himself "in trouble" so early in one's career (it appears you only started on wikipedia within the last few weeks). so again, please self revert. thanks. Soosim (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And I replied with the following..... :-)

"the nascent Arab League proclaimed (on December 2, 1945) "an official boycott of "Jewish products and manufactured goods." - http://www.meforum.org/3299/war-against-jews

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Arab_boycott.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League_boycott_of_Israel

LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding pre-1948 boycotts

There have been efforts in recent days to add information about Arab boycotts that pre-date the State of Israel, let alone the BDS campaign. Unless the sources link those boycotts with the BDS campaign, their inclusion here is impermissible original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No formal opinion on this (yet - maybe if I follow up here and get convinced I'll join), but I noticed there was already a thread right above about this, and since you already objected to the material, and it was simply reinserted in a condensed format, I decided to revert it until consensus is reached here. Hope that's OK. --Jethro B 00:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jethro. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, now this is really weird. You want an article about efforts to boycott Israel via the recent BDS movement, without any of the other contemporaneous boycotts (the current AL boycott still in force) or previous boycott efforts. If that's not ahistorical, I don't know what is. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Some discussion of previous boycott efforts seems appropriate, particularly if it discusses how the BDS movement contrasts to those efforts. Some of the detail in the 3000+ byte edit reverted by Malik strikes me as excessive and irrelevant (threats of violence against people who violated the boycott during the Mandate for instance - how is that relevant?). Please understand that the issue here is that we want sources that link the Arab League boycott or other boycotts with the BDS movement. GabrielF (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

@LiamFitzGilbert yep, the content of this article is focused solely on the subject of the article and not extraneous material that we think we want to talk about too. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Liam has a legitimate argument to present for including it, but so far I have not seen any argument made or a willingness to discuss this on the talk page. Instead, I've just seen reverting on the article itself. This type of behavior will only have negative consequences, and Liam should be aware of this and decide how to act further. --Jethro B 04:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

As'ad AbuKhalil

I was going to write that the 'source' for his 'call for the destruction of the Jewish state' was on his Wikipedia page (which I linked to), but I see someone already addressed that. Kudos.

See WP:SOAP. This isn't a forum to discuss personal views. --Jethro B 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anyway, this man (the professor in question) is a piece of shit if he really believes in the things he says.69.248.98.23 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I hatted the comments above, as they constitute WP:SOAP and WP:BLP violations. Wikipedia isn't a forum to discuss personal views on talk pages, regardless of whether or not I agree with it. Thanks. --Jethro B 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is BDS campaign working?

Source: Is the BDS campaign working? published by Ynet, which describes some of the successes of the boycott campaign. Material related to this article has been deleted with the claim that " the ynet article never mentions the bds campaign".

I would be interested to hear an explanation as to how the article titled, Is the BDS campaign working, does not mention the bds campaign. Dlv999 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

the article is written by the reporter. the headline by someone else. as we have seen in recent days (with the haaretz apartheid headline, which they had to retract), headlines are not RS for information inside an article. and this page is about the BDS movement. not random b's or d's and s's..... Soosim (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for your assertions or are they just unsupported speculation? It seems to me the source is presenting the boycott's as relevant to the BDS movement. Let's see if any consensus develops around either of our opinions. Dlv999 (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is called 'Is BDS campaign working?', and the content, companies targeted by the BDS campaign (see this for example), is presented in that context, the BDS campaign. I don't think it's an article about a random things happening. I also don't think the copy editor argument about headlines is a valid argument. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to you voicing this position regarding the accuracy of Levy's article. Ankh.Morpork 18:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that I haven't read Levy's article or any of the articles/commentary/op-eds etc about the poll and have no plans to do so because public opinion doesn't really interest me, that is not likely to happen. But to address the question of accuracy, the media get things wrong everyday, and any sentence published by an RS, whether it's written by the copy editor, article author, anyone involved, could prove to be inaccurate at anytime. A specific headline in an RS may or may not be reliable for the contents of the article or anything at all and any sentence in an article published by an RS may or may not be reliable. What I know is that we base our content on what RS publish. In this 'Is BDS campaign working?' case, I don't have any reason to believe that the copy editor argument applies. In fact, I have more confidence that headline reliably reflects the contents (because I can see for myself) than I have about the reliability of the content itself (which I can't easily check). The headline is a question and the article answers the question. If it turns out that the copy editor got it wrong and the article isn't about whether the BDS campaign is working, they will presumably publish a clarification. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sean that rejecting the article on the basis that the term BDS is only mentioned in the headline is parsing a bit too excessively. We can always clear up the issue of whether all of these boycotts belong to BDS by saying something along the lines of: "In an assessment of recent boycott efforts, Italian journalist Giulio Meotti wrote...". The article does strike me as sensational. We know now that the Park Slope Food Coop boycott, which Meotti predicted, never came to pass. I don't know much about the European efforts. Since there are clearly differing opinions on the BDS movements effectiveness, why not move this article from the "Achievements" section to a new section called "Effectiveness" or something similar and present both viewpoints there? GabrielF (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

we tried to close the generalizations a while back - that anything that remotely mentioned B's or S's of D's would not be included. if the items listed in this article are notable, then surely they were covered elsewhere. not always a good arguement, but since this RS is questionable, i think it might be good to look around. also, the headline writer can easily lump anything B or D or S into BDS without realizing that BDS is a proper movement/organization, and may not be responsible for some, any or all of what the reporter reported.

and now we have the question of BDS failures. if remotely reference successes get in, the surely remotely referenced failures can get in, no? (with RS and all that). Soosim (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it relevant that Ynet severed ties with Meotti for plagiarism? And that apparently he was never a Ynet employee? See here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Background Section

I have a suggested change, to the first paragraph of the "Background" section, both quotes are incorrect as they refer to a citation to an outdated forum at the University of Dayton (http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/WCAR2001/NGOFORUM/Palestinans.htm) that incorrectly defines an article of the Durban conference and thus is not a reliable source.

Rather, the following; "the end of violence and the swift resumption of negotiations, respect for international human rights and humanitarian law, respect for the principle of self-determination and the end of all suffering, thus allowing Israel and the Palestinians to resume the peace process, and to develop and prosper in security and freedom (article 151)" taken directly from the UN website and Durban report is a real article from the conference and a more accurate statement UN Report

The second quote attributed to Mary Robinson does not coincide with the background of the BDS movement. Also there was no citation for it, the one I found was; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/forum/1673034.stm but the context of this was within certain NGOs during the process of the conference and again not part of the end product of the report.

Again new editor, so please feel free to leave comments here or on my talk board with suggestions/comments, regards, --Owaisr (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

as the one who put it in, i think, it is indeed relevant, based on the articles and news items themselves. Soosim (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Soosim, thanks for responding. Let me apologize, and say I had no intention to challenge the relevance of your work, rather to my first point I noted that the source was not reliable/verifiable. Would you agree that using the official Durban report from the UN website would be a more accurate source than the forum page currently quoted? And in doing so we should correct the quote itself and the article# referenced.

To the second point, relating Mary Robinsons' statements. It is difficult to directly link her statements to the BDS movement - perhaps this would be better suited to go on the page for the Durban report.

Look forward to your input and from others as well, Thank you, --Owaisr (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism by artists and public figures

Most of the information in this section does not directly relate to the BDS topic.

For Example the text; "Creative Community for Peace, founded in late 2011, is an anti-BDS organization made up of music executives and music representatives including Aerosmith, Celine Dion, Lady Gaga, Jennifer Lopez and Justin Timberlake.[94]"

The listed artists do not "make up" the representatives of the organization above - rather the article that is linked here makes a weak correlation of artists who have performed in Israel as defacto anti-BDS proponents, this I believe violates the tenant of neutrality.

Similarly, the next example; "Hollywood celebrities Zach Roerig, Paget Brewster, Holt McCallany, Omar Epps, Holly Robinson Peete, Mekhi Phifer, AnnaLynne McCord, Paul Johansson, Dominic Purcell all visited an Israeli Air Force Base as part of a special celebrity mission in May 2012.[95][96]" also makes a similar claim as it relates the act of celebrities visiting Israel as tantamount to being critical of BDS, neither citation is verifiable to this point

There are others in this section, but I am wondering as a new user how one should go about clarifying the need to edit/clean this section to correctly reflect those items that are relevant to BDS.

Thanks, --Owaisr (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Australia

I attempted to revise this section yesterday and it was undone so I intend to provide more clarification around the need for these edits and look forward to feedback.

The key edits in this section were regarding details around the Max Brenner boycott, in trying to focus on the facts as they relate to the BDS movement and removing details which are already present in the Max Brenner page or if not can be added there. First, it's important to state why the protesters chose Max Brenner as a target for the BDS campaign, i.e. support of the IDF

Second, it could be more balanced (and thus neutral) if the statements by the Jewish News of the not peaceful nature of the protesters, also included with them the latest ruling by the Australian magistrate Simon Garnett who says "their gathering and expression of beliefs did not threaten public order or breach the peace and they had a lawful right to enter the area and demonstrate" (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victory-for-max-brenner-protesters-20120723-22kps.html#ixzz2CJqMaL00)

Thanks, --Owaisr (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Prominent American academics Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein mixed support

I attempted to revise this section a week ago was undone so I here I will provide more clarification around why these edits are needed and look forward to feedback.

They have Chomsky and Finkelstein expressed mixed support, and this is clearly shown in their statements quoted in the article: both support the tactic of BDS against Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and they have made clear that they would support the BDS if changes were made. Thus they are both supporters and critics and thus they do not below in the criticism section.

I think that simplifying their comments into either whole-hearted support, or whole-hearted opposition seriously misrepresents their public positions on this.

It seems to me (and would be good to see what others think) that creating a whole new section called "mixed support" for just these two people's statements would be excessive. I also see that there is a section called "Reaction" (and not "Support") so I think these mixed reactions from Chomsky and Finkelstein would fit in there.

Thanks --Paul Duffill (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Restored RS sources for BDS achievements

I restored records of achievements for BDS. These contain detailed information on particular BDS achievements. These are [[12]]: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." All of the additional sources do this.

Most of these sources also contain their own references (most of the existing references in the other parts of the entry do not). Check the sources used elsewhere in the article. The majority of sources in the article come are explicitly from particular perspectives and non-news, and non-scholarly organisations. If these existing sources are sufficiently RS then clearly these new sources in this "achievements" section are RS.

Sources elsewhere in this article come from Facebook, the Jewish Journal, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, The Australian Jewish News, Green Left Weekly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), The Jewish Daily Forward, Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, University of Dayton, Occupied Palestine and Syrian Golan Heights Advocacy Initiative, Palestinian BDS National Committee, Greens New South Wales (Australia), Coalition Contreagrexco (coalition against Agrexco), Association France Palestine Solidarité, Australians for Palestine, King's College Student Union, MyShtetl.co.za Proudly Jewish South African, World Socialist Website, Anti-Defamation League, National Postgraduate Committee, The Jewish Daily Forward, The Jewish Chronicle Online, The Reut Institute, The Jewish Week, Israeli Air Force, The Jewish Exponent, Friends of Sabeel--North America Voice of the Palestinian Christians, and The New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel.

That is a long list of sources explicitly from particular perspectives and non-news, and non-scholarly organisations. Editors have treated those sources as RS and NPV up to this point. If it is appropriate for editors to set this standard of source RS, NPV and OR as appropriate for the article than please respect this standard set for the article and allow for internal consistency in term of RS, NPV and OR. Having a variable standard of RS/NPV/OR within the same article is a violation of article balance and not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Paul Duffill (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

paul - a) just because other sources are used doesn't mean you can use x or y or z. if there are bad sources up there (like facebook), then let's remove it. b) the lists you present are not NPOV and not all BDS related. (see prior discussions regarding what is BDS and what is not). the only list i could potentially see is one from the BDS movement itself. c) are you aware that the 1RR applies to this page? i would consider doing a self-revert to avoid any issues. Soosim (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Soosim. Thank you for reminding me about 1RR. Looked to do self-revert however unfortunately the text has already been edited by another editor and undoing this editor's revisions would be another revision I think I should leave it as it for the time being. I also notice that you have made more than 1RR so would like to refer you back to the same policy.

You are applying a definition of BDS which is not supported by correspondence on this talk page. If there is an actual definition of BDS on this talk page which has been commonly agreed upon by numerous edits and which falls outside the sources I added, you need to list it here. The sources I added specifically mention the declared objectives of the BDS referred to in the article as the goals of the BDS. BDS actions do not need to specifically mention the BDS in order to respresent successes in in the advancement of its states goals. And also I would like to know why you have chosen to remove the BDS achievements sources but have left other similar sources I listed above untouched.Paul Duffill (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources added were not WP:RS. Ankh.Morpork 15:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

paul - can you point out my 1rr violation? i will immediately apologize and correct it. sorry. as for definition, see #17 above and others. Soosim (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

1RR

I have been reminded of the 1RR however unfortunately the text I added has already been edited by another editor. As undoing this editor's revisions would be yet another revision with the restricted time period I think I should leave it as it for the time being. But happy to revert the original non1RR edit if various editors ask. Apologies for the lapse.Paul Duffill (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits on February 6, 2013

Some of today's edits are not supported by the sources, and others are problematic.

• However ... the 2012 Methodist General Conference ... voted to call on its members to explicitly boycott products of all Israeli companies operating in occupied Palestinian territories.[13]
• The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) ... defeated a comparable divestment motion by a narrow margin of only two votes (333 to 331). However, the same assembly then passed a resolution by a 71% majority calling for a boycott of "all Israeli products coming from Occupied Palestinian territories,"[14]
• with several other mainstream denominations, called on the US government to cease unconditional military aid to Israel.[15]

Here are the problems:

• According to the first source, The New York Times, the Methodists called for "all nations to prohibit the import of products made by companies in Israeli settlements on Palestinian land." That is not the same as "call[ing] on its members to explicitly boycott products of all Israeli companies operating in occupied Palestinian territories", a claim that does not appear in the article. Also, the use of "However" is inappropriate editorial commentary.
• The second source, Haaretz, mentions the 333-331 vote, and that the assembly voted for a boycott of products made by Israeli companies in the Occupied Territories. But it doesn't mention 71%. Again, the use of "However" is inappropriate editorial commentary.
• The third source is a press release from the Presbyterian Church. I'm not sure whether it's a reliable source. I also don't think US military aid to Israel has anything to do with BDS.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference 72 ("Hope of Palestine state fading")

The link no longer works, and no working link can be found online. However, in an easily accessible article from the same paper, published the day before the article that was originally linked, one finds the same quote referred to. I think we should update it. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a Google Cache link to the footnote's news article. The two articles appear to be virtually the same. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems with this article

I'm already years behind all the articles I'd rather be working on, but I wander by articles as POV/unbalanced as this and just get ticked off. (This time two AfDs on related articles kept bringing me back here.) Reading through, it's pretty bad. So will just list my areas of discontent and, if I can't control myself, perhaps come back again.

• The lead sentence isn't ref'd and its relation to other events in Background area is not clear;
• Background section: a) the Arab League boycott of Israel obviously relevant but not the "main article"; b) the massive amount of info at BDSMovement.Net which can be used to some extent, and as a guide to search terms for more info, is barely mentioned or ref'd at all.
• Achievements section: doesn't even mention the bdsmovement.net/victories page.
• "Reaction" section: a) title is confusing. It should be "Campaigns and actions" with "reaction" just part of that. (Link to achievements pages could be an intro paragraph.) b) Predictable negative reactions from the zillions of Jewish/Israeli media sources should be kept to one or two short mentions. (Per the section of Wikipedia:Systemic bias that yet has to be written.) And I'm sure even some of those sources have neutral or positive information or reactions noted that were left out of the article.
• United States section: a) barely mentions the many campaigns (including the US "Christmas campaigns" section stuck in as a later section; Brit and US campaigns should be under own country sections); b) there's nothing really on the various student campaigns, just the rejection of them; c) I'm sure there's lots more missing. (Like Richard Falk's support for BDS and doubtless other notables).
• Criticism section: a) I thought we are now changing "criticism" to "reception" sections, as User:Jayjg recently reminded me on another article. Per criticism section problem - see Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_note-1 and its linked WP:Criticism essay; b) Chomsky/Finkelstein Criticism/reception should be in a separate Palestine supporters/Israel critics subsection and not stuck in US. These individuals are known worldwide as commentators on the subject, just like Dershowitz is from his POV; c) Artists who merely appear in Israel cannot be listed unless WP:RS say they have ignored a boycott. Haven't looked at those refs yet.
• "References" section: lists two books that are not even used as references. Material from them should be used and listed like the notes are - and notes should be called references.

Well, that's just comments from a first pass. CarolMooreDC🗽 04:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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;[16] Pambazuka News;[17] Monthly Review magazine;[18] and of course the BDS movement itself.[19] 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^[20][21][22]) 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. [23], [24] [25]). 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)

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)