Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

"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 ([1]/ this, or the data base for BDS related discussions at [2], 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)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• [3] - "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. "
• [4] gives previous boycotts as historical background.
• [5] "[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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Academic Boycott

I just cut all of the fat in the Academic Boycott section. I figured it wasn't necessary to have every single little organization mentioned by name and date. I put the most relevant references at the end of the last sentence in the first paragraph. I kept the ASA paragraph because it received significant news coverage. If anybody disagrees with what I did, feel free to discuss. --GHcool (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I also trimmed the fat in the Criticism section. If anybody disagrees with what I did, feel free to discuss. --GHcool (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Peter Beinart's views don't belong in this article

In the opening paragraph the sentence "BDS supporters counter accusations of anti-semitism by noting the many Jewish and Israeli supporters of the movement." is backed up be Peter Beinart's article. In this article he writes:

"In response, many Palestinians and their supporters have initiated a global campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (B.D.S.), which calls not only for boycotting all Israeli products and ending the occupation of the West Bank but also demands the right of millions of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes — an agenda that, if fulfilled, could dismantle Israel as a Jewish state.

The Israeli government and the B.D.S. movement are promoting radically different one-state visions, but together, they are sweeping the two-state solution into history’s dustbin.

It’s time for a counteroffensive — a campaign to fortify the boundary that keeps alive the hope of a Jewish democratic state alongside a Palestinian one. And that counteroffensive must begin with language".

Does this sound like someone who supports BDS movement? Of course not. He puts it together with the Israeli government and suggests a "counteroffensive". Therefore I propose removing Reference 15.

Furthermore. Considering Beinart is openly opposing the BDS movement, doesn't support any divestment nor sanctions on Israel, and is advocating Boycott only on post 1967 settlements, i would recommend removing his views from the "supporters" section altogether. He is clearly at odds with the movement.

With regards,

13:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

Good point. I removed it. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing the content rather than just the source moves the lead away from WP:NPOV compliance. That should never happen. Rather than removing the balance with an edit like this on the basis that someone apparently cited the wrong source (bearing in mind as well that sources are not required for the lead), what should be done per WP:LEAD is the retention or inclusion or text that summarizes Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Replies_to_allegations. Will you do that to move that lead back towards NPOV compliance? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

He had to have known the sentence he removed was true, but he also knows no one will block his account. Sepsis II (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

In a case like this where the lead is just a summary of the article body, I think the only thing an editor needs to know is whether an edit increases or decreases policy compliance. In this case, I think it's obvious that the edit moved the lead away from NPOV and that this should be obvious irrespective of an editors personal views about BDS. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You can't correct a wrong with a bigger wrong. Why did Beinart's article, which opposes BDS movement and goals, got restored with the sentence?

While i agree that erasing the whole sentence was harsh, at the time of action it didn't have matching references. If it's a correct sentence, it should have an official paper or interview from figures in the movement backing it up. Mateo (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why the Beinart citation was retained in the lead but I've removed it. The lead doesn't need sources although they don't hurt when content is challenged/shredded over time. The lead is just a summary of the article body and the article body must have sources for everything. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I thank you for this correction, and i completely agree with you on the lead's role. As a summery it should grasp the essence of the article and nothing more.

As you can see, the still needs some work and the lead suffers from it aswell. The best example is in the core definition of the B.D.S movement. While it's quite clear for it's name that it's a full movement, the lead refers to it as "a campaign". This term not only misrepresent the name of the movement, but also the fact that it's not a one-time fundraiser event but an organized effort that exists for 10 years. The term "campaign" is also vague from a professional perspective. Political science has a clear definition for A social movement, while no researcher i know defines political group action as "a campaign".

Therefore I urge to correct the definition of the "B.D.S Movement" and insert it to the List of social movements. I belive this change will also help in clearing what belongs and what doesn't in this article.

I gladfully thank you 13:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

Reactions

I made a very rough summary of the reactions section and created a new page with exactly what was there before. Please please please add what you think is necessary, but I'm at work and I did this sort of quickly. My work is not intended as a "final product." --GHcool (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Christ, you're a saint. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:21, 20 May 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” (” סיכול אזרחי ממוקד “‎) against leaders of the BDS movement. The expression is a play on the Hebrew term for targeted assassinations. 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:

"“Targeted civil thwarting” means to expose those activities, people, systems, and mechanisms, and their ties with organizations which have already crossed the line towards militaristic 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)

References

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” ” סיכול “‎, for the word “elimination” ” חיסול “‎. 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. Changed "puns on the Hebrew word" to "play on the Hebrew term...".

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.

6. Added link to Youtube video of interview containing english transcription.

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 (since English sources are preferred), but readers should also be informed about how other secondary sources reported and reacted to the statements and Omar Barghouti's response should also be covered[[7]. 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 17:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sean.hoyland - talk, I did answer your question above with a 'No'. But now that you mention it, I agree with you. I think adding the context regarding the similarity in the hebrew term of סיכול אזרחי ממוקד is important for context. I have added back that context in the edit request and added the link back regarding targeted assassinations, but removed some minor mistakes (e.g. referring to the term as "word", and changed "pun" to "play on the term"). But as you can see from the quote, Katz explicitly said that he is not alluding to "killing" when asked to elaborate, but we can let the quote speak for itself. Thank you for your input. Do you have any other suggestions for the edit?

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. You are not allowed to edit that article. IPs and accounts that don't meet the 500/30 requirements are not allowed to edit any page "that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", which includes talk pages, but editors may show tolerance as long as there is no evidence of WP:NOTADVOCATE violations. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, What consensus are you referring to? This is an unaltered direct quote with no self interpretation. Including links to the video of the statement in question. Phibins (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus from others that the edit that you requested at 15:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC) should be carried out on the article. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

We have two other users that have established a consensus, providing a comment below that the edit should be accepted.Phibins (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly NO consensus on this. Two editors (one of whom is not permitted under ARBPIA to edit the article) favour the edit, while two oppose. Under these circumstances, such a contentious edit may not be made. RolandR (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe I addressed Sean.hoyland and your ( RolandR) comments and made some of the changes you and he had suggested. If you still have an objection to the edit could you be more specific? I don't think it's intellectually honest to keep such an obvious quote-mined entry on this page as it is deliberately framed in a falsely inflammatory context, and thus goes against Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I am still unclear why you would object to the edit, there is no real change other than correcting the incorrect hebrew translation (easily verifiable on any online translator/dictionary) and including the continuation of the quote to provide much needed context. There is no room here for self interpretations or personal views. Unless you have some other agenda in not wanting to include the full quote? Phibins (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You too are not permitted to edit the article, and strictly you should not be editing this page either. There is no consensus for this edit, and your assertion of one is of no import. Any further insistence by you on this edit could be considered, and lead to sanctions. RolandR (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Accept the edit if reliable sources are provided. It provides an important context to the initial quotes. Without the context, this is likely to be highly inflammatory that deviates from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Tale.Spin (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Accept The proposed wording is more clear and informative and more in line with NPoV, but I think the source provided for the quote is in Hebrew so couldn't verify it. It's a quote from a living person so we need a better quality source, at least an English source. I assume it's translated by the OP, we could use a verified translation from a RS in english. Darwinian Ape ^talk 04:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Darwinian Ape, I have added a link to a youtube video that was transcribed by a youtube channel also belonging to the BDS movement. I can confirm that their transcription is complete and accurate. Phibins (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

A youtube video, while acceptable for Minister's own words, is not a reliable source for the translation. I don't doubt your confirmation that the translation is accurate, but it's more preferable to have a translation form a secondary reliable source. The content has verifiability in Hebrew and as such acceptable per WP:RSUE but finding an english source for the quotation is preferred and less painful in case of a dispute. Darwinian Ape ^talk 23:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This request has been open for almost 40 days, and idle for 2 weeks. The request seems to have a very rough consensus of being added if a reliable English-language source is provided. Until it is given, I'm toggling this for now. Re-open with appropriate updates, of course. Thanks. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Critism by Public Figures

The first two lines under the heading "Criticism by public figures" state: "According to the Canadian academics Abigail Bakan and Yasmeen Abu-Laban, the BDS campaign has been important in contesting what they describe as "the hegemonic framing of Israel as a victim state in the face of Palestinian 'terrorism'." This, to me, does not belong in the criticism section, as it is mentioning sources that support, rather that oppose BDS without any direct reference to a particular criticism. Fold 1997 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Fold 1997; it's not criticism of the BDS movement. I've moved it to the "Canada"/"Support" subsection of Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Malik Shabazz.

Fold 1997 (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2016

Please change Background section that currently reads:

On 9 July 2005, the first anniversary of the advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice in which the West Bank barrier was declared a violation of international law, a large number of organizations representing Palestinians in Israel, Palestine and abroad called upon the international community for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel until it complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights.[25] At the first Palestinian BDS Conference, held in Ramallah in November 2007, the "BDS National Committee" (BNC) was established as the Palestinian coordinating body for the BDS campaign worldwide.[25] The movement's great example and source of inspiration is the 20th century boycott of South Africa by the Anti-Apartheid Movement.[26]

into

On 9 July 2005, the first anniversary of the advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice in which the West Bank barrier was declared a violation of international law, a large number of organizations representing Palestinians in Israel, Palestine and abroad called upon the international community for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel until it complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights.[25]

new piece added: There exists some dispute over the origins of the Palestinian call. On 25th May 2016 at an event run by One Democratic State in Palestine, held in the University of Wesminster, Illan Pappe, a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter and a major proponent of BDS, claimed that the suggestion the Palestinians called for BDS was 'not true'. He also suggested that it was promoted as such because it was important for 'historical records'. see here

On At the first Palestinian BDS Conference, held in Ramallah in November 2007, the "BDS National Committee" (BNC) was established as the Palestinian coordinating body for the BDS campaign worldwide.[25] The movement's great example and source of inspiration is the 20th century boycott of South Africa by the Anti-Apartheid Movement.[26]

Mishtal (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done. We are certainly not going to make a highly contentious edit on the basis of a tendentious interpretation of a mumbled aside in a one-minute extract from an unidentified longer video on a clearly non-reliable source. RolandR (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Relevance inline

The first paragraph of the Background section was tagged with a Relevance inline tag. I think the paragraph is relevant and the tag should be removed. The reason is that it shows a background of Arab initiative to boycott Israel as a precursor to the BDS movement they initiated later. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion, Debresser. I should have done so after I added the tag.

The question of whether to include the Arab League boycott of Israel in this article has been discussed before, and the material was removed because reliable sources don't make a connection between BDS and the earlier boycott.

In the present instance, the source doesn't mention BDS at all. How does that make it "background" and not original research? Why not include the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses, or other boycotts we "think" are relevant but can't provide sources that support the relevance? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If it is the same group of people, the relevance follows from that fact alone, and I don't think we need more than that to make the point that there is a connection. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser, even more, critics of BDS like Marc Greendorfer claims that the BDS itself originates from the Arab league boycott [8] The same view is shared by Philip Mendes, Nick Dyrenfurth in their book Boycotting Israel is Wrong: The progressive path to peace between Palestinians and Israelis In the chapter named "The historical context of movements boycotting Jews and Israel, the authors claim a direct ideological links between the two boycott movements. An article published by bdsmovement.net written by Wassim Al-Adel, also links the two boycotts, claiming that the weakening of Arab boycott could become a direct threat to BDS [9] Tritomex (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for providing those sources, Tritomex. I'm editing on my cellphone right now, but when I get to my computer I'll review them. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Tritomex, I didn't realize that Greendorfer's paper was nearly 130 pages. I'm afraid it's going to take me a few days to find some time to read it. The relevant section of the Mendes/Dyrenfurth book doesn't appear to be available online, so I'll have to read it some other time. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I remember there being considerable debate about the relevance of the Arab League boycott in the background section. If memory serves, at least half of the editors in the discussion (myself included) thought the Arab League boycott was relevant information.

What is certainly irrelevant is the paragraph on the Six Day War and Oslo. Why not included the 1948 war? Or the 1936 riots? Or any other socio-economic factors in the conflict from the past 100 years? --GHcool (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

In answer to your first point, feel free to re-read the most recent discussion and the closer's comments. Regarding your second point, it's because no reliable sources make any connection between those events—with the likely exception of the 1948 war—and the BDS movement. The same cannot be said of the 1967 war or the Oslo Accords. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest adding the views of Greendorfer, Mendes and Dyrenfurth about the origin of BDS in one short sentence. If there are opposite opinions on this subject, I propose to summarize them in to another sentence,right after Greendorfer.Tritomex (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

CSN Québec

There is no official translation of the name "Confédération des syndicats nationaux". If someone (with an account) could please update the name in the "Supporters" (?) section with this internal link, the article would benefit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.113.230.154 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for bringing the error to our attention. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Rand Corporation

The articer says:

In June 2015, the Rand Corporation reported that a successful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel, if it could be maintained for 10 years, could potentially cost the Israeli economy $47 billion - this figure, which was not published in the report,

Something is clearly wrong here: either it reported or not. Please make you your mind. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed myself. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Supporters - Opposition

Having one heading "Supporters" without a heading "Opposition" is POV-pushing. KamelTebaast 20:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I think its ok because there's a heading called "Criticism," which is essentially the same as opposition. --GHcool (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It is very different. This article straddles two things: the BDS Movement (the organization) and what has become BDS the global campaign. Because the article is mostly about the campaign, and listing supporters, to make it neutral, it must also list those who are opposed, in the same format as supporters. KamelTebaast 22:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Without taking sides on the question if it is POV pushing or not if there is no "opposition" section, but surely all can agree that both can exist in this artcle. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Just rename "Supporters" into "Support" . "Support/Opposition" is a valid apposition. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

US Green Party

The US Green Party needs to be added to section "9.1 Political Organizations": "The Green Party of the United States has endorsed a statement calling for a comprehensive strategy of boycott and divestment that would pressure the government of Israel to guarantee human rights for Palestinians." The position is supported by its leadership: "Jill2016: Statement on US Foreign Policy, Palestine-Israel, and BDS." Could an experienced editor do this please? Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Bloat and fluff

I've tagged this article in the past for being a quote-farm, and I will continue to be aggressive in cutting back bloat and fluff. What do I mean?

• Every statement or law supporting or opposing BDS doesn't have to be quoted. Summarize it or, better yet, just add the name of the person or group involved to a list of people or groups who have done the same thing before.
• Every politician makes a bold statement when she or he signs a law. We don't have to quote them.
• If a person has no Wikipedia article, they're not notable. If they've done something unremarkable, like support or oppose BDS, don't add them to the article. (If they've done something exceptional, like jump off a bridge to protest BDS, by all means include them.)
• Groups and people who have Wikipedia articles don't need sentences identifying them as the "largest labor union" or the "richest man" or the "most beautiful woman". Cut the fluff and just Wikilink their name; if the reader wants to know who the United Auto Workers are, they can click through to their article.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I agree. I'm just wondering, since you're such a neutral editor, why you didn't cut any "bloat and fluff" in the Support section? KamelTebaast 03:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Listing supporters of partial boycotts as supporters of BDS

It seems to me that these are very things, yet the article lists supporters of partial boycotts (such as boycotts of settlements) in the "support" section. That's even the case for folks (like Peter Beinart) who, in the same article we reference, explicitly calls for investment in Israel.

How to deal with this? One option is to remove these types of folks from the support section. Another is to set up another section that's about targeted boycotts. [[PPX]] (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with this. We need to remove people who don't support the basic BDS platform of boycotting all of Israel. --GHcool (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• I am for the first option (with some clarification). Supports of various kinds of boycotts belong to article Boycotts of Israel. This article must stick to its subject: the "Support" section must be based on refs which explicitly speak about full or partial (@GHcool:) support of BDS. Otherwise it will be WP:SYNTH. I can easily imagine some movement which is for 100% obliteration of both Israel and America with all its BDS. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• I think the opening statement may be missing the word "different", but I basically agree. Somebody who supports a boycott of products made by Israeli settlements in the West Bank, or wine produced in the Golan, is not necessarily endorsing BDS, and we shouldn't say they are. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• This is about BDS. All or nothing. KamelTebaast 00:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/0da4ba56ade85249852574190058d462!OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316214911/http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/03/04/353181/norway-youth-group-boycotts-israel/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/03/04/353181/norway-youth-group-boycotts-israel/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404201114/http://minivannews.com/politics/maldives-to-boycott-israeli-products-annul-bilateral-agreements-88735 to http://minivannews.com/politics/maldives-to-boycott-israeli-products-annul-bilateral-agreements-88735
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505132151/http://www.bdsmovement.net:80/?q=node/52 to http://www.bdsmovement.net/?q=node/52
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bdsisrael.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

US Republican Party

The US Republican Party should to be added to section "10.1 Political Organizations": [10] [11] "We condemn the campus-based BDS (Boycott, Divestment,and Sanctions) campaign against Israel. It is anti-Semitism and should be denounced by advocates of academic freedom." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarlettNumber (talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. --GHcool (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Spanish city council

A Spanish city council supported the BDS: [12] 92.59.212.16 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Is that noteworthy? If we are going to list every city, state and country that supports or specifically rejects BDS, we should create a separate article for that. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2017 - Update for the United States

United States

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed into law his state's anti-BDS legislation on January 10, 2017, making Michigan the first state to pass anti-BDS legislation that year.

As of January 10 2017, the number of states that have passed anti-BDS legislation rose to 17. Sarvathi (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Updated to reflect 17 states. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Could all of the U.S. states in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions article which passed anti-BDS legislation be listed? They currently number 17 and are not many, so I think they can all be listed for now, until the number increases to 20 or 25 states sometime in the future, as there are anti-BDS drafts pending. Thank you. Sarvathi (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That's unnecessary, and the article is already too long. I think a statement of the number of states is sufficient. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Please add the following two Supportive of BDS links, https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/boycott-divestment-and-sanctions/jvp-supports-the-bds-movement/ http://www.ijan.org/tag/bds/ because many Jews have supported BDS from the beginning. It is important to show that it is a Jewish issue as well. Larryzweig (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And where would you like these two links added? Debresser (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2017 (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.

For balance there should be a proportionate section on the Anti-BDS Movement. A quick Google shows that this is a notable phenomenon, with numerous organisations and websites. Keith McClary (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree, but no more than a section, because this article is about the BDS, not the anti-BDS. Debresser (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I frankly do not see how the 2 are separable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose pending explication. This proposed overhaul is so vague, that I fail to understand how anyone can endorse, oppose or tweak it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per E.M. Gregory. --GHcool (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Explanation My agreement is with the proposal to add a section about the anti-BSD movement to this article. I have no idea what the proposing editor meant by "subpages", but if he meant "sections", then he is simply proposing to add some structure to this article, and that is fine with me. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm old enough to remember when these 3 words were applied exclusively to South Africa. This article should be about the general BDS strategy, with the current organization (founded 2005 and using those words in its name) as only one part, or as a separate article. Recently, boycotts have been used against FOX News advertisers with threats of seeking divestitures and sanctions. Such actions as these should be mentioned in an article on BDS. Kolyvansky (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Antisemitism Category

Can someone tell me why there is no Antisemitism category tag on this article, being that Wikipedia is unbiased and Neutral? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Antisemitism VQuakr Igor Berger (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

IMHO - Categories are supposed to be uncontroversial. As discussed in the article text, allegations that this subject is antisemitic are the subject of mainstream discussion and debate, so such a category would not be appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:CAT#Articles. Adding this article to Category:Antisemitism would be neither verifiable nor in accordance with NPOV. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Since there is a Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Allegations_of_antisemitism, the Category:Antisemitism is relevant. Adding it would not mean an endorsement of BDS as antisemitism, rather that this article contains information that is antisemitism-related, which in view of that section is completely correct. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you're mistaken. Please read the guideline I linked to above, which says (in part): "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." The article is in Category:Boycotts of Israel. Virtually every boycott in that category has been alleged to be an antisemitic boycott, but the category, and the boycotts, aren't in Category:Antisemitism. Neither should this article be. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The sentence "if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate" refers to something else, nl. to preferring an article with a list of subjects over the creation of a category.

What is perhaps more relevant in this case is "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". That may not be applicable in this case. Although the connection between BDS and antisemitism is indeed often made in sources, sources do not agree that it is a defining characteristic.

By the way, I saw the more general discussion at WT:JUDAISM, but made only this one edit, because in cases where the antisemitism category is a parent category, obviously here is no need to add it.

Let's discuss this some more, and perhaps I can be convinced that the category is not appropriate. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. Conversion of the Jews, Down and Out in Paris and London, Jewish lobby, and other articles categorized under Category:Antisemitism have discussion within the article on the appropriateness of labeling the concept as antisemitic. Reasonable people can disagree on those three and reasonable people can disagree about BDS, where there is extensive discussion about its antisemitic character (or lack thereof). --GHcool (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz The consensus is 3:1 that this category belongs here. I noticed that you warned GHcool on his talkpage not to edit before consensus is establish, per WP:ARBPIA, but I think he did so and that consensus has now been established, in favor of adding the category. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: Consensus is not a vote. I would have posted sooner, but when I saw you'd posted the relevant guideline link I honestly quit reading - it hadn't occurred to me that you'd promptly jump to this conclusion after reading the guideline and posting your 4/23 comment, and Igorberger and I had been sparring enough that I thought my [further] posting here could be distracting. Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles is very clear:

Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.

Prior to adding such a controversial category, the onus is on the editors supporting addition to demonstrate that both of these stringent requirements have been met, and the category is both neutral and defining. That demonstration most definitely has not happened, and your claim of "consensus" here is premature. VQuakr (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I did post earlier, so your assessment of 3:1 was also inaccurate. The way it is threaded it is easy to miss though; I glossed over it just before now, too. VQuakr (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, first, I count 3-2, not 3-1, but regardless, consensus is not a matter of counting heads. See WP:What is consensus? If we're not able to reach consensus among such a small group of editors, an RfC to solicit a broader range of opinions may be appropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@VQuakr I missed your opinion above. Sorry. So I admit 3:2, and that is not yet a consensus, IMHO.

@All I know that consensus is not a vote, and the fact that two editors find it necessary to point that out to an editor with almost 9 years of active editing experience is a bit offending. And a bit shortsighted as well, because please agree with me that if had not made a mistake in counting, 3:1 is pretty convincing and the chances of the 1 editor having the convincing argument are slim. Simply put, editors shouldn't use a mantra to try and win an lost argument. There is a fine line between applying policies and guidelines and becoming disruptive, and an editor saying that the edit he is opposed to can not be implemented, when the consensus is as clear as 3:1 against him, is likely to find himself in trouble. Again, that is if the vote were indeed 3:1. Please forgive me for writing this short essay about WP:NOTAVOTE. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, I'm sorry if my message offended you; that was not my intention. My suggestion still stands: Articles related to Israel and Palestine draw comments from a relatively small group of editors. We may wish to publicize this question and bring in some new thoughts via an RfC. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I have seen so many Rfc's lately. Every small disagreement is reason to open an Rfc. You could start with publicizing this discussion at WP:ISRAEL and see if that draws some editors. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I would most certainly add the antisemitism category. Many RS have stated that BDS is antisemitic. Even if not, the category is apropos because this article also details allegations of antisemitism, which certainly fits in with the antisemitism category. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, are you sure about that? Have reliable sources said BDS is antisemitic, or have experts expressed their opinion that BDS is antisemitic? Except in the most extreme cases, I'm not aware that reliable sources state authoritatively that something is or is not antisemitic (or racist). — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The German CDU party did, [13], the ADL said BDS often utilizes antisemitism, [14], the Brandeis Center, [15] there are obviously others, but I just posted RS and non extreme viewpoints. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And as I suspected, none of those is a reliable source declaring BDS to be antisemitic. They are expressing their opinions. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm convinced that the category belongs. So far no arguments in favor of the category not belonging have failed to convince the consensus. I will not speculate about Mshabazz's intentions, but the result has been an effective veto on editing the article according to the consensus view of both Wikipedia editors and reliable sources. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's amazing! No argument has shaken your pre-conceived notion. What next, a message to announce that water is wet? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Obstruction and sarcasm is not the way that I would proceed. Either put forward an argument that would convince the consensus to change its mind or step aside and let the consensus add the category that is in line with the article's content and the reliable sources. --GHcool (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ahem, please read the rest of this section. There is no consensus and there are no reliable sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, this shouldn't be a vote, this should go with what reliable sources say. I have seen nothing to convince me that such a label is merited, Huldra (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There is just a whole section about it, with sources. If you want to state your well-know POV yet once more, at least don't pretend you are basing yourself on objective observations. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Yeah, I of course have a "well-know POV", while you, of course do not. Got it. Huldra (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You too, Malik. Don't pretend as though this article doesn't have a whole section about BDS and anti-semitism, with lots of good sources. What more would one need? Debresser (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me the reasoning for adding the sources as WP:RS for the article content, but not WP:RS for the category? My understanding is categories reflect article content which is determined by WP:RS. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

So far the "best" arguments from those who do not support the inclusion of the category take the form of denialism. The consensus in favor of the category are waiting for a non-obstructionist argument to appear from those who do not. --GHcool (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I recommend that editors read WP:RSOPINION. Almost every source in this article is reliable only with respect to the opinion of its author, not to any facts. There has been not a single reliable source cited that "establishes" that BDS is antisemitic, only that some people believe it is antisemitic. So please, let's stop the name-calling and the finger-pointing and approach this based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I am rather surprised at the level of support for this categorization. The article content makes it pretty clear that many RS's draw the conclusion that the subject is antisemitic and many RS's draw the conclusion it is not, which explicitly results in exclusion of the category per the relevant guideline quoted above. None of the "include" opinions above appear to have even attempted to address this issue or the resulting WP:CONLIMITED implications; what am I missing? Put another way, "include" !voters: Why do you find this category uncontroversial? Why do you find this category defining? VQuakr (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I have never understood the category system on Wikipedia; since there are no citations on categories. Some people state in the discussion above that merely because anti-Semitism has been discussed in the context of BDS, having the category is fine. My own viewpoint is that the category is unsuitable. Here's the operative part from the policy: A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having.... Reliable sources must agree that a defining characteristic of BDS is anti-Semitism. They must commonly and consistently define BDS as anti-Semitic. Failing this (and nobody has provided any evidence to the contrary; a few opinions do not establish the much stronger requirement), it shouldn't be present.

As for this discussion, after some point, more discussion is futile. I think the point might well have been reached now. Just opening an RfC would perhaps be better. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As several editors have noted above, the guidelines are quite clear on this: "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial", "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article". Since this is clearly controversial, and since there is certainly no consensus - not among editors, and not among experts - that antisemitism is a "defining characteristic" of BDS, the category should not be added.

Further, the category page itself says right at the top "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-semitic." There is extensive discussion on the category talk page about precisely this issue, including an RFC. If editors here insist on this categorisation, they will be opening a can of worms. RolandR (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers to my question, I also oppose inclusion per RolandR and Kingsindian Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@RolandR "should generally be uncontroversial" The anti-Semitism category is often controversial. Some categories just are. This is an example of the exception to that rule. Debresser (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Just as antisemitism is not "categorically" directed against the policies of the state of Israel, just as my being a naturalized Israeli citizen who holds objections to some Israeli governmental policies - am not properly "labeled" anti-Israel (nor a self-hating Jew or anti-Zionist - being a Zionist myself!) - I oppose placing the BDS page in the Category:Antisemitism. The existing proper Category:Boycotts of Israel - says exactly what it is: inherently against Israel and-now-read-the-article. Israel's president Reuven Rivlin said just the other evening at the opening state ceremony for Yom HaShoah: "Seeing Every Criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism Is 'Fundamentally Wrong, Dangerous'." Click here for full transcript in English And the great statesman and honorary citizen of Israel, the late Władysław Bartoszewski - resistance fighter, Polish Righteous Among the Nations and former Foreign Minister of Poland, told the staff of the Ghetto Fighters' House some years ago: "Of course we criticize our country - because we care for her so very much." -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? In this article it lays out why BDS is not just critical of Israel, but is antisemitic.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Because the definition of antisemitism that would include BDS is not widely accepted or mainstream yet, I think. (I haven't read the article, but I assume this is the definition that includes things like: criticisms of Israel are antisemitic when they "have a double standard" etc.) - to reason by analogy, it is widely accepted that the Nuremberg laws were antisemitic, and that they singled out a class of persons on the basis of race. This is pretty strong evidence to include Nazi ideology as being antisemitic (not that evidence is really needed, because it is not controversial by any stretch of the imagination - but in case you are interested in that kind of thing.) Allegations based on a different definition of anti-semitism that doesn't have wide acceptance and is extremely controversial does not meet that standard. We are not here to resolve an ongoing debate one way or another. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Seraphim System, for providing a valid argument for the present moment. For what its worth, despite the fact that BDS is inherently antisemitic, I've decided to back down from the argument that this article belongs in Category:Antisemitism. There will come a time, probably within our lifetimes, when the overwhelming majority of academic scholarship will see BDS for what its is, but that time has not arrived yet. --GHcool (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

See these: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Supreme courts of several major countries ruled that BSD's activity is a form of discrimination and/or hate crime. Some of the rulings specifically mention antisemitism. Now this is not a universally accepted view, but it is definitely not fringe, so BDS is definitely relevant to the antisemitism category. “WarKosign” 09:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

And you can find several opinions that Zionism is a form of racism. Should it be put in that category as well? Not trying to be WP:OTHER, but just pointing out that the rules are there for a very good reason. // Liftarn (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It depends on who holds these opinions. If it was many major scholars, it wouldn't be a matter of opinion. Here these opinions are held by supreme court judges of major countries, it does not automatically make these opinions an objective fact but it does make them notable enough not to be dismissed. “WarKosign” 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what the bunch of links is supposed to show. I looked at a couple of them. The Spain one is simply saying that court ruled that a boycott at the local level is illegal because it will affect Spain's foreign policy; it does not say anything about BDS itself being anti-Semitic. The Electronic Intifada link actually says that a "boycott ban" instituted by the Tory govt. was successfully challenged in court, which is the opposite of the supposed point; and I don't see any court determination that BDS is anti-Semitic.

I repeat my point from above: BDS has to be consistently, and as a defining characteristic, be described as anti-Semitic in sources. A few opinions one way or another are not sufficient to meet this much stronger requirement. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)