Talk:Anti-BDS laws

Title

Perhaps "Anti-BDS laws and resolutions"? ImTheIP (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit to phrasing of lead section

Hey all,

I've made an edit to one of the sentences in the lead section. It originally read "Proponents of anti-BDS laws claim that they are necessary because BDS is a form of anti-Semitism," which could be read (marginally) as Wikipedia stating that BDS is a form of anti-Semitism, and proponents of the laws think that that matters, whereas opponents do not. Because whether BDS is anti-Semitic is part of what is up for debate, this violates WP:NPOV. I've changed it to "Proponents of anti-BDS laws claim that BDS is a form of anti-Semitism, and so such laws legislate against hate speech." This means a very similar thing IMO. I'm going to scan the rest of the article and see if anything else catches my attention, but that's all for now. JeanLackE (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. I've written most of this article and I've probably made more than one error. One interesting aspect of the U.S. anti-BDS laws is that while almost all their proponents claim that boycotts of Israel is either discrimination, anti-Semitism, or hate speech, the laws are formulated in such a way that they don't address the supposedly offending nature of the speech. The U.S. (in)famously doesn't have any anti-hate speech laws, so denying the Holocaust or painting swastikas is legal. Thus, as I understand it, proponents do not argue that U.S. anti-BDS laws are anti-hate speech laws. The situation is somewhat different in Europe where anti-hate speech laws are common. ImTheIP (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia censors Ben Norton

The statement "Critics decried the executive order as pro-Israel McCarthyism" was recently removed. The reason given was "insufficient sourcing for this statement cited to contributor for deprecated website (Grayzone)".

• Does Norton's connection to the The Grayzone stop us from using any of his writings?
• Salon itself is a reliable source with some reservations mentioned on the perennial source noticeboard. The suggestion there is that text from Salon be attributed, not removed.

Burrobert (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

My guess is that strong reliable sources making use of such a tiresome cliche are in short supply and it would not convince anyone who is against BDS. Many of Norton's articles on Salon, though this one appears to be an exception, are republished from Alternet, another deprecated source. Philip Cross (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the heading "Wikipedia censors Ben Norton" is appropriate. Let me know if it breaches any of Wikipedia's policies. The initial justification for the removal of the text in the article, and the comment above, both seem to support the heading. If Ben Norton is to be deprecated as a source, there is a process to follow. Burrobert (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Norton is still cited several dozen times on Wikipedia, so it is inaccurate to blame this project for supposedly censoring him. His stuff is readily accessible via Google and no one is obliged to cite any of his articles not on the Grayzone website. I think better sources for his Salon articles cited to Alternet should be found, or the passages cut if an RS substitute cannot be located. This would be entirely within this website's policies. Only publications and websites can be deprecated. Philip Cross (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Norton is still cited several dozen times on Wikipedia, so it is inaccurate to blame this project for supposedly censoring him". He is being removed as a source on this page because of who he is. That is censorship.
• "His stuff is readily accessible via Google and no one is obliged to cite any of his articles not on the Grayzone website". But he was cited here. And then removed.
• "Only publications and websites can be deprecated". I had a quick look at this in policy but couldn’t find anything definitive. If you have a reference let me know.

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• The work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work.

Burrobert (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The words "author", "writer" or "journalist" do not appear in Wikipedia:Deprecated sources which applies entirely websites like Global Times and The Grayzone. So it would seem there is no explicit policy either way. Would you cite a contributor to, say, The Daily Telegraph? By your reasoning, not doing so amounts to censorship. Philip Cross (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The question of whether an individual can be deprecated or considered “generally unreliable” as a source is an interesting one. There are two possibilities:

1. Yes an individual can be deprecated or considered “generally unreliable” as a source. In this case, there is a process to follow to reach that point.

2. No, an individual cannot be so regarded. In which case there is no basis for excluding text from a page because it was written by a particular individual.

"Would you cite a contributor to, say, The Daily Telegraph? By your reasoning, not doing so amounts to censorship". The issue here isn’t the choice of whether or not to cite a particular individual. A particular individual was already cited. The issue arose because that citation was removed because it was sourced to a particular individual. A more appropriate question would be: Would I remove a citation that was sourced to someone who wrote for The Daily Telegraph? No, I would not. Burrobert (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

So you would never remove a reliable source? Philip Cross (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I would never remove a citation to a reliable source because the writer also wrote for a source that was deprecated. Burrobert (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy that Salon has sufficient editorial oversight that this is fine as a source, although what it supports is little more than 'critics were critical' (it could be more specific). The author is pretty erratic so a bit of scrutiny makes sense. 82.19.214.50 (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Although 'The Grayzone' was (fairly or unfairly) deprecated, it's quite a stretch to insist that articles written by its contributors which have been published elsewhere, especially in publications such as Salon which have been cited reasonably regularly on Wikipedia, cannot be used as sources. It's even more of a stretch when the objecting editor (Philip Cross) has previously supported[1][2] the use of articles by authors such as the Eurabicist Bruce Bawer in magazines which, if anything, have a poorer reputation, such as 'Commentary',     ←   ZScarpia   14:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In that case Zscarpia, I urge you to start a discussion on deprecating Commentary as soon as possible. I would not add an opinion on the issue myself since I only occasionally read articles from the website, but clearly you are a subscriber and can develop an argument to demonstrate its unreliablity and convince editors generally. Philip Cross (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Awful Background

The background section is very bad. It doesn't read like an explanation of the background to anti-BDS laws, it reads like an excited advertisement for BDS itself, with an occasional conceit to the other side to create a paper-thin pretense of impartiality. How can "Since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, its government has been heavily criticized for its violation of human rights of the Palestinians and Arabs such as the allegation of engaging in apartheid which damage the Palestinian economic prosperity" ever be mistaken for the introduction to a well-balanced perspective? Aside from the bias that it oozes from every sentence, it is full of grammatical errors (For example, the puzzling phrase "The Israeli government and its supporters call the BDS movement has checked the definitions of anti-Semitism") and stylistic shortcomings. I see no redeeming qualities to this section.

I would remove it immediately, but I see that the last person who did it later reverted the change. Therefore, in the interest of editorial collaboration, I am giving a period of one week, until 2021-07-26, for anyone to speak up in defense of this section. If nobody does then I shall swiftly delete it. Gravensilv (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody has spoken up, I replaced the Background section with a boilerplate. This boilerplate reflects what I believe is relevant background to this article. In the long term it should either be removed altogether or expanded, but I caution against including too many controversial details here. Those are best left for larger and better-moderated pages, where personal bias has less sway. Gravensilv (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Because of your insufficient contribution history, you're prohibited from editing this article. Also if you are interested in making serious contribution on controversial articles, please disclose any possible conflict of interest, considering your last edit blatantly presented ONLY one side of the opinion on the subject but presented it as if a neutral POV. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware of the 500 edits rule, and so I concede this technicality. However, I do not take kindly to your insinuations that I have a conflict of interest merely because I disagree with you. The background I provided was the background to Anti-BDS laws, which are laws that necessarily against BDS; it cannot be helped that the most relevant background information to those laws are the various criticisms of the movement. Since the current background (which, looking through the edit history, was written entirely by you) is, as I pointed out above, EXTREMELY biased, and furthermore mostly irrelevant to the Anti-BDS laws themselves, I do not believe that it should be allowed to remain. I must also question the fact that despite repeated and legitimate criticism of the section by several other editors, any attempt to remove or fix it is aggressively deflected.

You are correct that I am forbidden from editing this article, and so I will cease doing so. However, I leave this message here in the hopes that a more established, more neutral editor will take notice and fix the gross POV issues in the background section. Gravensilv (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I have problem of you replacing the entire section, even for the one which states the simple fact that "the Court (of Human Rights) firmly and categorically rejected the idea that the BDS movement is discriminatory and anti-Semitic in itself" which is sourced. This removal clearly shows your intention to paint a negative light on the BDS movement without even trying to provide a sourced argument against the court ruling. If you feel that I made bad faith assumption on you for merely asking for disclosure of possible COI, you're free to file a complaint on WP:ANB. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The map is incorrect?

Not a single mention of Oregon in the article yet it's depicted as having passed anti-BDS laws, I think this must be an error? 97.115.219.196 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip

The appeals history on Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip is a bit confusing. One line says the 8th circuit decided one way, and then the next says the 8th circuit decided the exact opposite in the same case. The reason is that the original hearing was done by a three judge panel, typical for most appeals, while the later decision was issued en banc, meaning all judges from the 8th circuit participated. This however, is unclear in the article. I propose adding the following clarifications:

1. change "On June 22, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision holding that the law was constitutional and did not violate the First Amendment as it was intended to serve "purely commercial purposes"." to

"On June 22, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its en banc decision holding that the law was constitutional and did not violate the First Amendment as it was intended to serve "purely commercial purposes"."

2. Change the footnote to support the text of the article. Currently, both footnote 71 and 72 link to the first opinion of the 8th circuit. Footnote 72 follows the text describing the second opinion of the 8th circuit and should link to the correct opinion.

These are relatively straightforward changes, and I'm hoping an editor with sufficient access can make them.

The correct link is below

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/19-1378/19-1378-2022-06-22.html Jfinnell123 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)