Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

RfC

Should the article include a background section that discusses previous boycotts by Palestinians?
Here are a couple of sources that make the connection:

• [1] - "Boycotts are not a new tactic for Palestinians. As far back as the 1936–39 revolt against the British Mandate, Palestinians incorporated general strikes and boycotts into their struggle. "
• [2] gives previous boycotts as historical background.
• [3] "[Ramzi Baroud] reminds readers that Palestinian boycotts have a very long and important history—indeed, back to 1936. The current BDS campaign is an extension of earlier indigenous forms of struggle, and not merely a copy of the South African anti-apartheid movement."

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This easily verifiable information should be included per NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any book whose subject is boycotts in Palestine will of course mention both historic boycotts and the current BDS but that doesn't mean the link is strong. A link is often used by those who attack the current movement to add to their claims that BDS is related to the Jewishness of Israel rather than current Israeli policies. The difference between the reasons for the boycott and the people taking part in BDS and those who supported boycotts in the Levant many decades ago is huge, which is why it is more often compared to the boycott of Apartheid South Africa. I think a paragraph in the history section about the boycott of South Africa would be much more appropriate for this international pro-international law, human rights movement rather than linking it to a semi-localized nationalistic, racist, religious, two-way-boycott of yore. Sepsis II (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A. All the sources I provided above are pro-BDS so your claim that "a link often used by those who attack the current movement" seems somewhat a diversion. If both sides note the link then so should this article. B. How can you on the one hand admit that "Any book whose subject is boycotts in Palestine will of course mention both historic boycotts and the current BDS" and on the other say it's not relevant to this article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Because this article is not about boycotts in Palestine. The stance of the sources is questionable and irrelevant and I still don't see your sources linking any of the leaders, followers, or the reasons or goals, between these distant boycotts. Sepsis II (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll just let your last comment stand on its own. Thankfully, Wikipedia has editing policies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Though the organisers of the so-called BDS movement seek to portray it as an international reaction to what is going on in Israel, it is reliably sourced that it has been orchestrated by and coordinated from and by Palestinians (such as Omar Barghouti, who is opposed to any settlement with Israel) in the Palestinian territories. It is clear and widely understood that the campaign seeks to put economic and diplomatic pressure on Israel to achieve the goals of the organisers without the use of direct violence, which they know would draw a rapid response. These goals do not include a peace settlement of the Middle East conflict. The use of terms like Israeli occupation, colonialism, apartheid, racism and other terms are deliberate to draw the parallels with the South African apartheid regime. Enthusiast01 (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Careful, Enthusiast01, your POV is showing here... the article already lists the goals of the organisers, which are indeed not a peace settlement of the Middle East conflict, and the campaign was indeed initiated and is now led by the BDS national committee, a Palestinian group. None of that is up for debate, it's all factual, and I don't see how any of that is pertinent to the RfC. What's your argument that the historical communal boycotts (back to 1922, if you say) contribute to the understanding of this movement and deserve a place in the history section? TrickyH (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - as I said earlier, it's an example of WP:COAT to only include the 1936 mandate-era boycotts in background. We are already discussing breaking up this page with a couple of sub-pages above, so if this content is so important for context, why not propose a History of Palestinian boycotts of Israel page, which could be linked? TrickyH (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact the boycotts go back to 1922. Enthusiast01 (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. British Mandate boycotts are only mentioned to place BDS in a negative context. My explanation is already given above.

Let me now focus on the function of the background section:

- The background is meant to clarify the broader context of the subject of the article. Do the British Mandate boycotts explain the origin and nature of BDS? Clearly not. Do they have any connection? Clearly not, not even indirectly.

- The background has to reflect the content of the article as a whole. It may focus on one or two main issues that are the core of the subject and the article. It may not focus on a minor issue, as the section is the background of the article as a whole. Yet, the British Mandate boycotts are not even a minor issue of the BDS movement.

- The background should definitely be uncontroversial, without disputes. Disputes belong in the sections that cover the subject. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

None of what you say above is grounded in Wikipedia policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed events are not connected to BDS, and not a relevant part of its background. BDS relates to the occupation and settlements. The historical boycotts being proposed here predate both these issues. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If the proposed events are not connected to BDS as you say, why do the sources explicitly connect them? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a full section as undue. Accept a sentence in "Background" — The proposed section strikes me as inspired by interest in making a POV essay-like introduction to the topic. You'll note that despite the numerous parallels, there's no background section on the divestment and sanctions movement that targeted South Africa, just free-standing sentences (too many, by the way, since they are a bit redundant) that mention the topic. So, mention the earlier boycotts in a single sentence in "background," using such sources as are presented here, but don't make a larger editorial decision designed to encourage readers to believe that 1930s era efforts and those in the 21st century are driven by all the same dynamics or motivations.--Carwil (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No one claims that the "dynamics and motivations" are "the same". The claim in the sources I have read and made by editors here is that there are connections between the 3 eras of antiJewish state boycotts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Similar claims have been made re: the South Africa and Burma boycotts. (BDS is explicitly advocated as an "anti-apartheid" pressure campaign.) But that doesn't mean we need to explain those boycotts at length here.--Carwil (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly support For two reasons that I laid out above - at length and with sources. 1.) Because historical background sections are normative on wikipedia, and this background provides important context, and 2.) Because neutral, anti-BDS, and pro-BDS sources are alike in linking the Palestinian Arab boycotts of Jews the early 20th century, post-1948 boycotts of the Jewish State by Arab states, and the modern BDS movement. At Wikipedia we follow the sources in determining what to put on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Far more sources link the movement with the Anti-Apartheid Movement. Will we have as much space or more to also talk about the success of that movement and its history of boycotts as we will about boycotts of the Zionist movement before the state of Israel existed? This article is already pushing length and needs breaking down. TrickyH (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose it is going to be very difficult to write a history of Palestinian boycotts without getting sucked into POV and historical subjectivity questions. Almost anything written will, almost inevitably, miss out other stuff and other perspectives and end up with endless edit wars. Not necessary. It is obviously factual that there have been other Palestinian boycotts, so that can be stated. And I think it may well be valid to have pages discussing those historical boycotts - if sufficient WP:RS exist. But this page already has its work cut out trying to write something sensible and objective about the current BDS campaigns without trying to write a doctoral thesis about its place in the cultural history of Palestinian resistance. JMWt (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose BDS is more than previous boycotts. Associative thinking comparisons do not inform thus article in anyway.Djflem (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ctiticism section

Shouldn't the criticism section come right after the support section? That seems way more NPOV than after the reactions of such international heavyweights as Romania. I'll move it in a few days barring any policy based objections. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I object. There are above enough pending suggestions for a major rewrite. Moreover, there is a general consensus on WP to put criticism sections at the end of articles. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Kindly point me to this "general consensus".

Until that rewrite happens, if ever, I'm going to move the criticism up to where it belongs, right after the support section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been working on a draft of History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, had another page to get online first but that's been done now. That would allow us to move a lot of the examples out from the nation-by-nation breakdowns, and focus a little bigger-picture there. Likewise moving some of the congested content from the "supporters" sections to other relevant pages, and a lot of the criticism from where it is to a page of Views of the the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Have a look at discussion topic 6 above, "Too Long".

That being said, I think moving the criticism up at the moment is an attempt of poisoning the well. As it stands each national page already has a "support" and "oppose" section, so there's plenty of criticsm of the movement throughout the article. That could really stand to change anyway with the spinning out of pages, having a country-by-country breakdown seems like not the neatest structure. The lead reflects criticism of the movement, so it's not as though it's buried. It's fine where it is, pending the above edits. TrickyH (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how putting the criticism section right after the support section is "an attempt of poisoning the well". I mean, I get how to BDS supporters any mention of criticism might be viewed as something nefarious, but why do you think it makes more sense to have it at the bottom of the article rather than support/criticism sections following each other in an NPOV manner. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Criticism, which is an essay, recommends integrating criticism throughout the article, which it recommends arranging chronologically or by theme, instead of using a separate "Criticism" section. WP:NPOV, in its section on "Article structure", also advises against segregating all the criticism into its own section. I think that approach ought to be tried here but—as I've written before—I think somebody should do some research and find secondary sources about BDS and its critics. Nobody wants to read endless quotes from advocates and opponents of BDS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I regard ignoring a discussion about the reorginazation of the article and start another one a form of disruption. Joining Malik Shabazz, I think that integrating criticism into sections like Academic and Allegations of antisemitism will solve the problem. --Qualitatis (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Reading through those guidelines, it would seem we should aim to incorporate the criticism, then, rather than just move sections around. Although all the linked pages do give some relevant options where separate criticism sections or subpages are appropriate - ie relating to organisations and corporations (check) or political topics (check). A prime example being Criticism of Amnesty International.

In terms of restructuring this article to fit the integrated approach, though, then it would require some major restructuring efforts to ensure NPOV. Right now we seem to have evolved into this structure to satisfy pro- and anti-BDS editors/sources, and spinning one single part (ie supporters or criticism) off as an article probably constitutes a WP:POVFORK. I suggest that restructuring the "criticism" and "supporters" sections into topic-based sections like "Academic boycott", "Cultural boycott", "BDS within Israel", "Allegations of antisemitism" would be the most logical way to incorporate criticism throughout the article. We want to make sure that due weight is given to criticism, though.

While taking care to make sure it's not a Pov Fork, I think a restructure in that way could only really be used effectively alongside a Reception of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement page. That way we could preserve, or even expand on, the current number of supporting & critical voices about the movement in an NPOV way. As I suggested above, doing a side-by-side edit to truncate content relating to Academic boycott of Israel, Disinvestment from Israel, etc would also be beneficial, as well as moving a lot of the specifics that are listed under the countries or under specific "affairs" at the moment to a History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement page. TrickyH (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In one way or another, a lot of text should be either deleted or moved to another page to make the article shorter. --Qualitatis (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Scope

This may have been discussed before, so please point me to a previous discussion if it exists. The question is should this article include cases where BDS activists claim something was done because of BDS, but the companies or whatever actually taking the action do not say it is because of BDS or even outright deny it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the article should include anything not reported on by independent secondary sources. That means cutting out all the press releases and citations of organizations' own websites.

With respect to your specific question, if a reliable secondary source makes the connection between a claim by activists and a counterclaim by a company, I think it should be included if there's consensus to include it. It may be insignificant or obscure, despite being reported by a secondary source. On the other hand, we should absolutely not include original research such as quoting opposing press releases. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

See this article for example. I think it illustrates some of the problems. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That's why the threshold of "reported by an independent secondary source" is a bare minimum for consideration for inclusion. As I never tire of saying, the BDS movement is a decade old. It's time to stop adding every hiccup and fart to the article, and start using only quality secondary analysis, preferably by academics or other analysts. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with quality secondary analysis by academics or others is that most of it is being written by a POV source. At least we can trust news articles to report facts and not work on POV assumptions. Nonetheless, this bears looking into, if anyone has the energy. TrickyH (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I considered if we should distinct between BDS and non-BDS boycotts. I found that it would not be possible, because BDS promotes boycotts in general, so every boycott falls within the scope of the article. That is another reason why we should not mix it with pre-BDS boycotts. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Overall proposal

I propose the following overhaul of the article:

Main article:

• Focus on the BDS movement as organisation; responses in Israel; responses in Palestine. May include independent secondary sources about the movement, as proposed by Malik Shabazz.
• Summary sections on specific issues, such as Academic boycotts (with subpages if appropriate).
• Summarized criticism section

Subpages:

• BDS in the United States, chronologically in principle
• BDS in the international community, chronologically in principle (with subpages if appropriate). May include personal responses by notable individuals or organizations, not specifically representing their home country, but only if notable.

Sourced material

Sourced material is not sacred. No More Mr Nice Guy did not adress my summaries. The foolish cry about sourced content makes no sense. WP:ONUS: Sourced content that is inappropriate may be removed. --Qualitatis (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This material has been in the article for a while and you must gain consensus to remove it. Also, if you think coming back multiple times after 24 hours + 10 minutes is not a 1RR violation, next time you do that I'm going to report you and we'll see if you're right.

To the point, examples of violence that relate to a movement that claims to be non-violent are relevant. So are criticisms from opponents, despite your repeated attempts to slowly remove all criticism.

Also, kindly stop removing inline refs you don't like. There is no justification for that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I originally removed the claims of violence sources from the "methods" paragraph, not Qualitatis, although all the sources are preserved under other sections. The relevant section of WP:ONUS states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." and "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."

So there's certainly place for inclusion of sources that call BDS violent, since there's a number of them published. But the material which had been in the article for a while was the undeniably POV statement, "Although much has been said about BDS as a non-violent movement, BDS protests occasionally do turn violent, such as when police arrested 19 protesters in Australia (references, etc)". We can find a better way to integrate the movement's non-violent methods and accusations of violence within the same paragraph, with due weight, etc, than that. TrickyH (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

When something has been in the article for a while without objection, it is considered to have implicit consensus. You can't remove stuff that's been around for years and say now the ONUS is on those who want to include. Per BRD you now need to explain why it shouldn't be there. Otherwise I can just start chopping out reliably sourced stuff and demand protracted discussion over every bit. That's ridiculous.

As to your point about the violent protests, if you can find a better way to integrate it, by all means do so. Until that time removing it is a gross NPOV violation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I agree that a sentence starting with "Although much has been said about..." does not belong in the article, it's not because it's POV but because it's editorializing. But I see it's not there anymore. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling something that has been in the article for a while without objection implicit consensus is complete nonsense if it is not discussed before. The Methods-section is meant to provide oversight of the methods used by BDS in a neutral way, in accordance with WP:NPOV. NPOV requires neutral sources, not opinion pieces, like the Wiesenthal folder. Criticisms are not to be removed, but are opinions, not a neutral presentation of the used methods. --Qualitatis (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

There should be a response to what the critics say about BDS in the lead, to establish NPOV. Examples include; the fact that they support a two state solution and that the organization consists of several prominent Jewish figures and NGOs. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm reworking the final paragraph so this can be achieved without leading to sprawl, which was the situation with claim and counter-claim before the paragraph was edited down. However, the claim about the two state solution needs some supporting source; reading the BNC website it isn't clear that the two state solution is a point of unity or demand of the movement. TrickyH (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

One of their goals is to end the occupation and colonization of West Bank and Golan Heights, they don't call to "push Jews into the sea" . Makeandtoss (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

IIRC they explicitly say they don't have a position about the two state solution, or at least Omar Barghouti has. There's a Finkelstein response to that somewhere, as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That is one of their goals; the other two don't fit so neatly with a two state solution. What you're claiming is some original research, and without some suitable supporting articles, it doesn't belong on the page. TrickyH (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course it needs sourcing if we want to put it in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Norman and Rhea DuMont in Background

While the paragraphs about Julie Norman and Rhea DuMont are neutral, they are way too general and do not explain anything about the background of BDS. They would suit for an introduction in a book, but not in this encyclopedia. And BTW, the Rhea DuMont part is not derived from DuMont, but from Norman, so it is all from Norman. I propose to delete all as being too general and academical for this article. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Critic piece" - Impact of BDS

What is this a movie? Its called an opinion article, and its not allowed on wiki. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That was supposed to be "critical". Why do you think it is not allowed on wiki? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Because its an opinion piece. And in case you haven't noticed, it is very biased. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, opinion pieces are allowed on Wikipedia. They are often very biased. I find the idea that this kind of stuff is allowed to be ridiculous, but alas those are the rules. There are quite a few other opinion pieces in this article, a few added just today. Do you think they are also biased? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the article, I only looked at that section, simply because I found its title surprising. Refer me to which guideline stating that opinion pieces are allowed here. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG says opinion pieces can be used for the opinion of whoever wrote them. It stands to reason you can use opinion pieces to substantiate what critics/supporters say, although I do think it would be better to replace those with secondary sources if found. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What? I don't see any opinions here. the subsection states three facts :

1-" While the BDS movement is having very limited impact on the Israeli economy, Palestinians are being hit harder."

2- "Israeli companies employ over 110,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, many of whom make three to five times the wages than they would locally."

3- "The BDS movement has caused Palestinians to lose their jobs working for Israeli companies"

Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, you seem to have read only part of WP:NEWSORG. An opinion piece may be used as a source for its author's opinion and requires attribution. As Makeandtoss pointed out, neither was true of the paragraph in question. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not wrong to tell what source you are talking about ;-) --Qualitatis (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I see what you mean. That probably should be worded better, not referring to these things as facts but as the opinion of the author. If you would like to directly attribute instead of using "Some critics note", I wouldn't object to that either, but please also do so where it refers to "supporters" like the last line of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you suggest NMMNG? "While BDS critics view the BDS movement is having very limited impact on the Israeli economy, BDS critics note that Palestinians are being hit harder. BDS critics note that Israeli companies employ over 110,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, many of whom make three to five times the wages than they would locally, according to BDS critics. BDS critics also note that the BDS movement has caused Palestinians to lose their jobs working for Israeli companies" It won't work, the paragraph is overwhelmingly stating facts. If you want it to state an opinion, that opinion cannot make references to real figures because they come from an unreliable source, which makes their opinion baseless. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This sort of thing is fairly common and what you suggest above is similar to how it's usually tackled, I think. "X notes that the BDS movement is having very limited impact on the Israeli economy and Palestinians are being hit harder. [He/she/they] also say that Israeli companies employ over 110,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, many of whom make three to five times the wages than they would locally." etc. It can be dealt with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That is disastrous. And the opinion of one person eating up an entire section is undue. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Makeandtoss (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss:Apologies for not noticing the ping, got lost in the thickets somehow. It's true that BDS if enacted would have a notable impact on the present state of the Palestinian economy, which has been predominantly organized to serve the settlement objectives, and give Palestinians no other option than to join it. It is also true, and this should be noted here, that the World Bank estimated in 2008/2009 that the combined loss to the Palestinian economy of the Israeli occupation since 1967 through to that date was in the range of $300 billion. There is a large literature on all aspects of this entanglement, its costs, environmental, economic and otherwise, and my impression is that, rather than squabble over the minor issue of costs to BDS to Palestinians, it should be contextualized in terms of the costs of the occupation, as mentioned in BDS literature.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There is something really wrong with the way this section is written. I feel that it is somehow portraying the opinion of critics and the statements they make as, an indisputable piece of information. Example "They offer employment with high wages compared with Palestinian factories. They assert that the Palestinians are happy with their jobs and do not feel exploited.[22] Proponents of BDS say that in 2011 many Palestinians worked in settlements without permits and earn less than the Israeli minimum wage or even less than half the minimum wage" Makeandtoss (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

These are all claims, to be attributed. I haven't edited Barkan Industrial Park for a while - it was run by an obnoxious sockpuppet, and somewhat unmanageable, but the same claims are made, there attributed to settler businessmen. Israeli labour studies show it's a charade of course. But, the point is, these claims represent both spin and a legitimate if minority view. What one has to do is search for relevant material ([4]/ this, or the data base for BDS related discussions at [5], mentioned in that connection here, for example, or Ali Abunimah ,The Battle for Justice in Palestine, Haymarket Books, 2014, chapter 5)

In short, when one finds material that is sourced to what could be argued with some force to qualify as RS, rather than get tangled up in endless timeconsuming challenges and disputes, the productive thing to do is to use a half an hour every now and again to compile relevant material that builds up a file which gives the fuller picture. I'd do it myself here, but I have a large workload, privately and otherwise, at the moment. But this is the best method, study slowly, until you have sufficient material to improve an article in a comprehensive way (as you did at Karameh)Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, by the time Qualitatis is done with this article all the criticism will be removed and the rest rewritten from pro-BDS sources, many of which wouldn't be considered RS anywhere outside an SJP event. All with the appropriate editorial voice, of course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow this page much. If you see RS material removed regarding the rumoured damage BDS might effect on Palestinians, drop me a note and I'll back you. It is obligatory to have a section on that.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

My reply was to Makeandtoss. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy are you serious? We've had long arguments about structural edits to make this articlem more wieldy and Qualitatis is doing just that, in line with different discussions here on the talk page. He hasn't been removing criticism where it's well substantiated at all. TrickyH (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I really don't find this article interesting to read and I have no intentions in reading it. This section caught my eye and needs some slight modifications. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: If you "really don't find this article interesting", I wonder why you started this section. I just mentioned the anti-BDS argument that BDS would destroy employment for Palestinians and added the arguments that refute the assertion. While that section is not the place to work out those arguments in detail, you may discuss the way I formulated it. It was just a first attempt amid other edits. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead, do whatever you want. Bye. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2016

Please change:

"In March 2016 the Israeli Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Yisrael Katz argued that Israel should employ “targeted civil eliminations” against leaders of the BDS movement. The expression puns on the Hebrew word for targeted assassinations.[48]"

to:

In March 2016 the Israeli Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Yisrael Katz argued that Israel should employ “targeted civil thwarting” (Template:Hebrew) against leaders of the BDS movement. When the moderator of the conference interview asked Yisrael Katz to elaborate on the use of the words “targeted civil thwarting”, Katz goes on to say:

"I have no doubt that many of these activists act in violation of the law, including (the laws of) the countries they reside in, and they act illegally with such organizations against the State of Israel. These leaders are in contact with terror organizations who act against the state. And by that, they violate the law as far as we’re concerned. Both our laws and that of many of the countries around the world. Our role is to expose it using means of intelligence, and undermine this thing (the BDS movement)… “Targeted civil thwarting” means to expose those activities, people, system, and mechanisms, and their ties with organizations which have already crossed the line towards a militaristic a terrorist activity. And indeed by exposing that we will know how to act against them, isolate them, and transfer information (on them) to different intelligence agencies in the world."

— Yisrael Katz - "Against the Boycott" Conference in Jerusalem' (March 28th, 2016)

This should be changed because:

1. 972mag.com grossly misquoted both the source it refrences in its own article, and the minister himself by mistaking the hebrew word for “thwarting” Template:Hebrew, for the word “elimination” Template:Hebrew. Therefore the source should be removed completely and changed to the original source Ynet so to maintain the integrity of this wikipedia article.

2. The source should be changed from the 972mag.com to the actual video recording of the quote in question. Reference to quotes are not subject to interpretation when they are in their original context, and thus should be made directly to the source if available, in order avoid violating the Wikipedia.org sourcing policy.

3. The expression does not pun on the Hebrew word term for targeted assassinations as the words are unrelated. I’m being pedantic, but also this does not qualify “pun” since the word lacks a double-meaning or innuendo.

4. Added context for the full quote by Yisrael Katz, where he elaborates on his use of the term.

5. References to Yisrael Katz wiki page, so not to be confused with former Minister of Labour and Social Welfare also of the name Yisrael Katz.

NOTE: An English translation is available in the following youtube video belonging to the user "boycott apartheid" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukXAFxI8Ix4

Phibins (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote in response to the identically-phrased request from an ip above, we edit based on reliable secondary sources, not on our own interpretation of primary sources. Therefore, we use the ynet and +972 articles, and not the source which they are reporting. I have, however, listened to the entire interview with Katz as linked on the ynet article, and the passage that you quote above does not appear there. Nor is it to be found in the article itself. From where do you draw this quote? RolandR (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi RolandR (talk), thank you for your diligence in reviewing this poor edit request. I apologize for submitting it twice (I was not logged-in in the one above). Also I made very big errors in the original revision request, and an error with the actual quote. The quote can be found in the second paragraph of the YNET article, but I misquoted it as coming from Katz, thus i removed it completley. I have completely removed the other details and explained the proper reasoning for the revision. Please see my new revision request above.

Could you confirm that you are trying to remove mention of Katz alluding to Israel's targeted killing policy through his choice of words on the basis that סיכול אזרחי ממוקד is unrelated to סיכול ממוקד? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sean.hoyland - talk, i'm sorry but I am not "trying to remove mention of Katz". I think that is a strange question to ask since I've added even more detail about Katz than the original entry. This correction is necessary and should be applied since the statement from 972mag is very blatantly misquoted or potentially mistranslated, but in either case is wrong (you can verify this online or with a dictionary).
As RolandR (talk) pointed out, we do not add "our own interpretation of primary sources". If you look at this correction, it is an unedited and unaltered full quote that includes context and the correct translations (see point #1). There is zero self interpretation or assumed context. Just a pure full quote void of all bias. We need to maintain this standard in this article if we want to maintain its integrity.
If the reader decides to interpret this as Katz alluding to Israel's targeted killing policy, then he is free to do so, but the article will maintain its integrity as being void of bias or self interpretation. Although if the reader chooses to follow the reference, he will see that Katz denies this explicitly (at 5:26 in the Youtube video):
- Moderator: The Minister of Interior mentioned Omar Barghouti, from the Head of BDS. Is he a target according to Israel and the Intelligence Ministry that you are heading?
- Katz: Is he what?
- Moderator: Is he a target according to Israel or the Intelligence Ministry?
- Katz: Again, we are not talking about a military struggle (operation) here.
- Moderator: No, you said a “targeted civil thwarting”.
- Katz: Targeted civil thwarting means “to expose”. Those activities, those people, the system, the mechanisms, and their ties with……

So... if the reader decides to investigate the references (as he should) he would also see that this "alluding to killing" that you implied was in fact explicitly denied. I really don't understand why there is such a resistance to accept a full unedited quote. Phibins (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It was intended as straightforward question with a yes/no answer. I didn't ask whether you are "trying to remove mention of Katz", I asked whether you are trying to remove mention of Katz alluding to Israel's targeted killing policy through his choice of words on the basis that סיכול אזרחי ממוקד is unrelated to סיכול ממוקד. I said "alluding to Israel's targeted killing policy" because, apart from the obvious reason that סיכול אזרחי ממוקד is derived from and references סיכול ממוקד, that is how it was reported by secondary sources like Amnesty[6], 972mag and perhaps others. If secondary sources regarded it as noteworthy then it is not something that Wikipedia editors can simply dismiss. While I agree that the readers should be provided with sufficient context, that should be done via secondary source coverage rather than editor sampling of primary sources to tell the story they think should be told. Perhaps the Ynet coverage here would be suitable for that, but readers should also be informed about how other secondary sources reported and reacted to the statements because balanced coverage is a mandatory requirement of the WP:NPOV policy and the only way to achieve neutrality in Wikipedia's terms. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, can someone please have a look at a section I'm trying to add to Yisrael Katz's own page but it keeps getting removed?