Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Dead Link?

The link allegedly supporting the claim that "BDS protests occasionally do turn violent" does not seem to work. Could someone from the community please replace it with a legitimate source or consider removing it along with the unsubstantiated claim? I'm not doing it myself for fear of getting into conflict. Thanks. 80.246.133.222 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Another dead link can be found under the supportive links section, "Australians for Palestine (Australian organization supporting BDS)." This website no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:418:7701:C0D0:8687:D28A:E294 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Another dead link ends the introduction section: "a comparison that the critics categorically reject on the grounds of dissimilarity of the regimes in almost every aspect.[8]" Which links to a StandWithUs page that no longer exists. I'd also recommend changing the wording as "critics" is too vague to be meaningful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saraabi (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Are claims by BDS advocates RS?

"In May 2014, co-founder of Microsoft Bill Gates sold a large stake of his shares in G4S... Advocates of the BDS subsequently claimed that this Gates' decision was the result... The Gates Foundation subsequently declined to comment..."

Can Advocates of the BDS be considered a RS? The fact other RS quote them, doesn't mean the original claim has any base. I would argue, unless the body who made the decision make a statement or maybe a market analyst, it be trusted. Especially not 'Advocates', who obviously want to declare victories and move more people act since they have more proof it works. There nothing stopping advocates from declaring any deal that fell through as their success. Ashtul (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Almost every statement by BDS exponents claim that the movement originated in a July 9, 2005, “call… by Palestinian civil society organizations for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel and for academic and cultural boycott of Israel.” This is portrayed as a response to Israel’s unwillingness to submit to a “ruling” of the International Court of Justice condemning Israel’s security barrier. (Of course, the “ruling” was an advisory opinion, and Israel was under no obligation to abide by it, but that’s another story.)

This is not the truth. The BDS campaign is a product of the NGO Forum held in parallel to the UN World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, in August and September 2001. The NGO Forum was marked by repeated expressions of naked anti-Semitism by non-governmental organization (NGO) activists and condemned as such by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson who chaired the Conference.

The Forum’s final declaration described Israel as a “racist, apartheid state” that was guilty of “racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.” The declaration established an action plan – the “Durban Strategy” – promoting “a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state…the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel” (para. 424).

Therefore, this Wikipedia entry misrepresents the BDS history and should be corrected.

Sources: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_forum_at_durban_conference_ http://spme.org/boycotts-divestments-sanctions-bds/boycott-industry-background-information-analysis-bds-campaigns/16877/ (There are too many sources to list -- there is extensive mention of BDS before 2005 referencing the 2001 Durban Forum strategy.)LindaBG (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about all previous boycotts of Israel, which are discussed in the article, but about thhe global movement that has arisen in response to the 2005 call. And neither NGO Monitor nor Scholars for Peace in the Middle East can be considered as reliable sources in an article about a body against which they polemicise. RolandR (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this page needs to be reorganized? Plus Palestinian/Arab opposition to the BDS movement.

To me, this page is a complete mess. Support, opposition, reactions, criticism, replies to criticism, etc are all over the place. I think this page needs to be reorganized to make it seem more streamlined and logical. Also, since there is a "special" section for Jewish/Israeli support for it, I think there should be a section for Palestinian/Arab opposition to it.

Just to start it off, we can add these:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/12/abbas-attacks-bds.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0130/Palestinian-workers-back-Scarlett-Johansson-s-opposition-to-SodaStream-boycott-video

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/world/middleeast/palestinians-divided-over-boycott-of-israeli-universities.html?_r=0

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jakewallissimons/100275416/israels-enemies-are-dealt-a-heavy-blow-by-the-palestinian-authority/ Knightmare72589 (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism - South Africa section

Gouncbeatduke (talk) arbitrarily removed a paragraph that I contributed in the South Africa section. I have also added the following to this editor's talk page:
I would appreciate it if you refrain from deleting my recent contribution (complete with citations) to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions page for no valid reason. Furthermore I do not appreciate your false allegation that my contribution is vandalism, nor do I appreciate your unwarranted name calling. I am neither banned nor a sockpuppet. Any further revisions of the paragraph by yourself will be referred to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Clivel 0 (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion on the part of both Gouncbeatduke (talk) and myself. It was not clear to me from the comment that accompanied Gouncbeatduke's reversion that the "banned sockpuppet" referred to was a User:I invented "it's not you, it's me", as the reversion was applied to my changes, I assumed that the reference was to me.

However from the history of the page it can be seen that not only did I not revert the changes that Gouncbeatduke objected to by I invented "it's not you, it's me" but these took place 10 days prior to my edit and also included intervening edits. I believe that the correct course of action would have been for Gouncbeatduke to just re-insert the deleted paragraph to the current version rather than reverting to some versions back; this is something that I would have no objection to. Clivel 0 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Boycott Our Enemies, Not Israel Act"

This new legislation will provide list of companies doing biz with .il. I afraid it will be rather 'certifaied' list of BDS targtets. http://lamborn.house.gov/2015-press-releases/congressmen-lamborn-and-desantis-introduce-legislation-to-prevent-boycotts-of-israel/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.5.99 (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Copy/paste error

The sections Cultural and Cultural boycott are nearly identical. Can someone please delete one? 217.37.166.142 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. --GHcool (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding to failures

Hi, I cant seem to edit the page, but if someone can edit the failures that can ...I think it would be good to note in failures quotes from these sources:

"a wave of anti-BDS legislation is sweeping the U.S. The most high-profile so far are the bipartisan amendments to congressional bills for Trade Promotion Authority. They establish the “discourage[ing]” of boycotts as one of the U.S.’s many goals in trade negotiations with European countries." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/18/illinois-passes-historic-anti-bds-bill-as-congress-mulls-similar-moves/

"The US Congress is preparing a counter offensive to the tsunami of boycotts against Israel" http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4648715,00.html

"...the Maryland legislation now condemns the BDS movement as “a discriminatory and racist movement,”" - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/maryland-financial-penalties#sthash.foQMQhxy.dpuf

"Far from being isolated, Israel's exports are reaching record highs and it attracts billions of dollars in foreign investment. In the weeks that Israel was supposedly under a boycott siege, Japan's Rakuten agreed to buy the start-up Viber for $900 million and Ireland's Covidien sealed a deal to buy Given Imaging for $860 million. China's Bright Food was in talks to buy control of Israel's biggest food maker Tnuva, and IBM, Lockheed-Martin and ERM all announced plans to open research and development centers in Israel. The Jewish state became the first non-European member of the nuclear research consortium CERN and was admitted as an observer to the Pacific Alliance, a free-trade bloc of five Latin American countries." http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303426304579402771597851680

These all seem to be included in the set of failures of the BDS movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.187.17 (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Olympia co-op case

The Olympia co-op case is listed in the achievements section. Today the court ruled that the SLAPP ruling was unconstitutional and the case will go back to a lower court - [1]. Not sure what to do with the text. Leave it in place and add this? Move it to the failure section (if the court ruling in their favor was an achievement, this is a failure) or what. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but if it was up to me, I'd suggest deleting the whole thing altogether. It isn't very notable. --GHcool (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Despite student governments voting to divest from Israel, no university has actually done so

So my question is, should this fact be put into the failure section, the section that lists the universities that have voted on it (such as saying "Despite student governments voting to divest from Israel, no university has actually done so as the resolutions are all non-binding." as an example), should it be put in both sections? What are your thoughts. I really believe that this distinction should be highlighted. Not doing so makes it seem like the "achievements" of student governments voting to divest has an economic impact, which so far, it has not. As for sources:

In the United States, Israel's closest ally, the decade-old boycott-divestment-sanctions movement, or BDS, is making its strongest inroads on college campuses. No U.S. school has sold off stock and none is expected to do so anytime soon. - http://news.yahoo.com/anti-israel-divestment-push-gains-traction-us-colleges-050637043.html

No university administration or endowment investment committee has agreed to withdraw funds from companies whose products are used in connection with the occupation. Divestment resolutions “have no practical outcomes in terms of university investment policies,” said Oren Segal, director of the ADL’s Center on Extremism. - http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.652673 Knightmare72589 (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This suggestion seems reasonable to me. --GHcool (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This argument seems rather to miss the point. Students do not run the universities, only their own affairs; so a student body vote for BDS is a vote to take what actions they can to achieve this, and to argue as representatives wherever they can for the universities to follow suit. Every student body which votes in favour of BDS is a victory, not a failure, for the BDS campaign. The fact that they have not yet managed to go beyond this, and to persuade the universities themselves to adopt BDS, is not in itself a failure. Some form of wording could be added to the article, to reflect this, and to make it plain that student votes do not determine the actions and policies of the academic institutions; but to put this in a "Failure" section would be very wrong-headed, and arguably a POV distortion of the reality. RolandR (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that whether or not something is a "success" or a "failure" often depends on one's point of view. It really makes me wonder if this is the best way to structure this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC))

Perhaps a "History" section in which both "successes" and "failures" would be presented in chronological order and without judgement about whether they were successes or failures would be a better idea. How do other people feel about that? --GHcool (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This whole article needs to be reworked. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A "History" section seems like a good idea. Another option is to try and separate them by location (which has already been done to some extent in this article).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC))

I like the idea of incorporating them into the location sections that already exist. --GHcool (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2015

Can someone please make the following edit for me? In the first section, the last sentence states "The effectiveness of the movement has been questioned. Reports from both in and outside of Israel has indicated that the movement has had very little impact on the Israeli economy, and won't for the foreseeable future." However, this is untrue. please delete this sentence and add "Amb Freddy Eytan writes 'Israel is rightly alarmed at the escalating scale of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign. BDS constitutes a concrete threat to the future of Israel’s economic, academic, cultural, sports and political standing.' - See more at: http://jcpa.org/anti-semitism-is-the-motivation-for-the-bds/#sthash.3086XngF.dpuf ". Thank you! Yk1948 (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The current sentence is supported by several references, including some reports (ref 13). Stickee (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Nazi boycott image

Really? I mean seriously wtf. Can somebody please explain to me how that image is appropriate in this article? nableezy - 04:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It is in the section "alleged antisemitism" and the caption states "The Simon Wiesenthal Center has alleged that the BDS movement may resemble the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses during the 1930s".

Whether we agree or not with the statement, it was stated... Pluto2012 (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine, its in a section on antisemitism. I however find the use of such an image gratuitously out of place. nableezy - 05:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So what? It doesn't have to be illustrated with a picture of Nazi storm-troopers and a two-sentence caption. That's excessive and gives undue weight to the two sources, which both originate from the same source, the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Besides, see Godwin's law. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There was an op-ed recently in Haaretz by Daniel Blatman, the Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University, discussing BDS and holocaust analogies.[2] Blatman, a liberal Zionist and an opponent of BDS, argues that "the boycott imposed on Jews by antisemitism and the boycott of Israel today have nothing in common... The antisemitic boycott movement was directed against the authorities who had not acted against those who were not considered to belong to the nation, and even deemed the nation’s enemy. The Israeli equivalent of the boycott movement can be found in right-wing circles, who have called for a boycott of Arab produce... What Yemini and others refuse to understand is that the BDS movement today is far more similar to the anti-German boycott movement which Jews tried to organise in the 30s, than any anti-Jewish boycott movement initiated by antisemites in the past in every corner of Europe". Given Blatman's academic expertise, and his own political views, these are remarkable conclusions. The article has not been published in the English Haaretz, but an English translation has been posted on Facebook by Australian/Israeli activist Sol Salbe.[3] Would Blatman's assessment be appropriate for inclusion in this article, and if it is, can I cite Salbe's translation, or should I refer to the original and translate the relevant parts myself? RolandR (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a great find! Thank you, @RolandR, definitely worth including Blatman's piece! I think the best is if you refer to the original article and translate the relevant parts yourself Engelo (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I added this under Replies to allegations of anti-Semitism! Thank you so much Engelo (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no doubt that many people equate BDS to Nazi-led boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses. However, including a picture of Nazi boycotters in this article really isn't appropriate and would set a rather troubling precedent. To put this in perspective: Some individuals (wrongly, in my opinion) compare the Palestinian Naqba to the Holocaust - I guarantee that if somebody tried to insert a picture of Holocaust victims in the Naqba article to support a comparison between the two, it would result in almost universal vituperation from Wikipedia's editors. Likewise, if someone tried to insert pictures of South African checkpoints or barriers during the Apartheid era into the Israel and the apartheid analogy article, it would be considered unacceptable by most Wikipedia editors.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC))

@Hyperion : whereas what means this cartoon is ? Pluto2012 (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it is not acceptable. While we can and should report claims of this nature, we shouldn't support them with scary images. Zero^talk 01:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the reactions here above. If somebody claims that "boycott of Israel equates Nazi boycott of Jews" it is normal to illustrate this by a picture of Nazi boycott of Jews. That's an image summarizing what is written.

The issue is rather if the claim has a due:weight or if the source is wp:rs.

We have to stay consistent : are Wiesenthal center allegations and analysis worth mentionning in wikipedia or not ? Is Foxman worth mentionning in wikipedia or not ? ...

Pluto2012 (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit) it took me 1 minute to find this : [4]. The image is the same. Is Horowitz's mind worth mentioning in wikipedia or not ? Are Frontpage political views wpr:s ? Can we ban these from wikipedia ?

(edit) Is Jewishpress.com wp:rs or not : [5] ?

(edit) And how to manage this : [6] ? That's the same picture, that was published and that is reported on a pro-Palestinian site (whose wp:rs is currently under discussion) Pluto2012 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Pluto2012 - With respect, I think you may have missed the point. There is no doubt that many individuals/organizations compare BDS to Nazi-led boycotts of Jewish businesses; We can certainly mention this in the article (I believe it is already cited in the criticism section - I suppose you could expand it if you deem this necessary). The issue is whether or not pictures of Nazi-led boycotts should be added to support this comparison. As explained above, allowing this would likely trigger similar actions in articles such as Israel and the apartheid analogy and the Naqba, as well any other articles where a comparison is made with a another historical event(s). Therefore, it is best if we limit such comparisons to words to avoid this scenario.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC))

And why not to illustrate what is written by pictures depicting what is written ?

Even more given others do so with exactly the same pictures.

As I said : If somebody claims that "boycott of Israel equates Nazi boycott of Jews" it is normal to illustrate this by a picture of Nazi boycott of Jews. If not, why ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because other authors and websites engage in a certain tactic, it doesn't mean that its acceptable in Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that there is already a link in this article to Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses which will easily allow a reader to view pictures, as well as the history, of Nazi boycotts. Using a wikilink in the manner is common practice throughout Wikipedia (as opposed to using images from the other article to support the comparison).

At the risk of starting an excrement-storm, I suppose you could show a picture of BDS supporters boycotting a Israeli-owned business and compare it to Nazi boycotts of Jewish businesses in the 1930s in the caption (I'm only floating this idea because a similar image and caption are present in the Israel and the apartheid analogy article). However, I doubt such an image and caption would be warmly received by the other editors so I'd discuss it on the talk page first. Even so, since this article is entitled "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions," and not "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses analogy," including something like this (let alone an actual picture of Nazi boycotts) is very likely WP:UNDUE.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC))

You don't answer to the points.

Different sources state "something". We have an image of "something". We have sources that use the same imge to illustrate "something".

It is not because "[there is] doubt such an image and caption would be warmly received by the other editors" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) that we should not use this.

The only criteria of decision is :

• whether "something" is not relevant and the sources are not reliable and the whole stuff about "something" must be removed
• or "something" is sourced and is worth mentioning and therefore we can illustrate what "something" means if we have images that do so (and we have such, given the sources use these images in the "something" affair.

Here, we just censor an image because it illustrates something disgusting but we leave this disgusting stuff written. That's not the way wp works.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I've laid out my reasoning as best I can, but it's clear I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise, Pluto2012, as you obviously feel very strongly about this issue (and I do believe you are acting in good faith). If you believe that I'm misinterpreting Wikipedia's guidelines, then you can try and convince the other editors to allow the use of imagery to support this comparison, but based on the their above comments, I don't think they are going to be very receptive your point of view. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC))

I have noticed that "other editors (...) [were] not (...) very receptive [to my] point of view".

This could be the conclusion of the discussion. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

the Nazi comparison should be in the headline comparison. There is too much comparison to South Africa when the Nazi closing of Jewish stores is far more accurate.Eclpise the left (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources don't support "anti-Israel" in the first sentence

The sources added by Hyperionsteel don't support the inclusion of the word "anti-Israel" in the first sentence. (Neither does NPOV, but that's beside the point.) Here's my analysis of the three footnotes:

1. The Anti-Defamation League describes BDS campaigns as "anti-Israel activity". Let's attribute their opinion the way WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says to: "described as anti-Israel by the ADL".

2. In her review of The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel from Inside Higher Ed, Elizabeth Redden writes that Kenneth L. Marcus's contribution to the book "situates the BDS movement within the history of prior anti-Israel and anti-Jewish boycotts". That doesn't provide support for this article to describe BDS as anti-Israel.

3. USA Today writes that the BDS movement is an "outgrowth of the Arab League anti-Israel boycott that began in the 1940s'. This, too, falls short of describing BDS as anti-Israel.

Unless objective reliable sources can be found that say explicitly that BDS is anti-Israel, I think it needs to be removed from the first sentence of this article. Also, in the absence of such sources it should not be stated as a fact, but rather attributed as the opinion of BDS critics. 66.87.114.158 (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on "anti-Israel" in the first sentence, but I think the ADL is a reliable source. Furthermore, is there anybody who doubts that BDS is anti-Israel? What is BDS if it isn't a campaign against Israel? Even BDS supporters would stipulate this. --GHcool (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that the ADL is a reliable source for its opinions, and those opinions should be attributed, not stated as facts. See, for example, the last sentence of the opening paragraph of Nation of Islam ("Critics have labeled the organization as being black supremacist[4] and antisemitic,[5][6][7] and NOI is tracked as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[8]").

I, for one, question whether BDS is anti-Israel. I don't want to get off on a tangent, but it isn't clear to me that wanting to pressure the Israeli government to change its policies towards Palestinians and the Occupied Territories is necessarily 'anti-Israel". One might be a supporter of Israel who believes that 50 years of being an occupying force has made a mockery of the values on which the State was established. But if, as you suggest, BDS supporters and organizations say they are anti-Israel, surely there must be better sources than the trash that's in the article now. 66.87.115.14 (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you really trying to argue that calling for a boycott of Israel is not anti-Israel and that all of the BDS supporters carrying defaced Israeli flags actually support Israel? You may question if BDS is anti-Israel, but given the behavior of BDS protesters, the descriptions of BDS in the sourced cited, and the reality that if Israel ceded to all of BDS' demands, it would cease to be a Jewish state and become the 23rd member of the Arab League, you're argument is rather difficult to take seriously. BDS may not outright describe itself as "anti-Israel", but as given the evidence present in the article and the sources cited, this is simply semantics. Also, your dismissal of all of the sources cited here as "trash" suggests that you haven't read this article carefully enough, or that you don't understand what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

Anyway, the current wording of the article describing BDS as a campaign "targeting Israel" is more POV (I would argue that the alternate wording describing BDS as a campaign "against Israel" is more appropriate).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

"Anti-Israel" is POV, but saying that the boycotts, divestments, and sanctions are "against Israel" appears in the global BDS call ([7]). Also there's no need to repeat Israel twice in the opening sentence. Right now we have:

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement) is a global campaign targeting Israel,[1][2][3][4] attempting to increase economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with the stated goals of the movement…

I propose:

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement) is a global campaign to increase economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with the stated goals of the movement…

or:

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement) is a global campaign encouraging these three forms of economic and political pressure against Israel until it complies with the stated goals of the movement…

--Carwil (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources I cited describe BDS as "Anti-Israel", which was the challenge that was given to me in the first place (I provided three sources, none of which are "trash") but I can provide more if needed. However, now that I think about, I believe the issue we are debating is how BDS views itself vs. how BDS is viewed by others. Your suggests are basically how BDS would describe itself; therefore, they would need to include a qualifier such as "[BDS} describes itself as a global campaign to increase economic and political pressure on Israel..." before they should be considered.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC))

I don't know who added the sources, but I started this discussion because the sources being used to support the term "anti-Israel" didn't. It's also questionable whether Wikipedia should be stating, as a fact, that an organization or movement is anti-Israel. That's an opinion that needs to be attributed, as I showed above. 66.87.115.153 (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur with 66… There's no imperative to put opinions in the first sentence, so let's not. Sources 1 & 2 describe opinions by opponents, source 3 doesn't describe BDS at all, but a precursor campaign.--Carwil (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I fail too see how anyone can claim with a straight face that a boycott against Israel (until it effectively ceases to exist as a Jewish state) is not "anti-Israel." Even Press TV describes BDS as "Anti-Israel."[8] However, I'm willing to accept the current wording that BDS is a campaign "targeting Israel"

It's readily verifiable that POVs differ on "anti-Israel." See [9] [10]. Regardless of whether you personally find BDS obviously anti-Israel or not, we need to attribute this POV.--Carwil (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Linking from within quotes

Hi, I have tried to link within the citation "Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel" the word "existence" to the right to exist. User RonaldR claims I cannot link from within quotes, but there are numerous examples for this kind of citation, in this entry alone. For example:

• President Curtis Marez argued that America has "a particular responsibility to answer the call for boycott because it is the largest supplier of military aid to the state of Israel." - There is a link within the quote on the words "military aid to the state of Israel" (a few lines under Academic Supporters).
• In a quote from Omar Barghouti in response to the Antisemitic allegation "As absurd and bigoted as claiming that a boycott of a self-defined Islamic state like Saudi Arabia, say, because of its horrific human rights record, would of necessity be Islamophobic" - The word "Islamophobic" has a link.
• Under the "Business" headline - United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967", Richard A. Falk- there is a link within the cite to the Palestinian territories entry.

How is this paragraph any different from the others? The right to exist is a relevant entry. ScottyNolan (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not rewriting the whole article to comply, but I noticed that earlier today you made an edit of a type deprecated by the Manual of Style, which states explicitly that links in quotations are to be avoided. If there are other such links elsewhere, feel free to remove them; the fact that I did not see them or do so does not legitimate your edit. RolandR (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

youtube as a source

Hello RonaldR, you reverted my last edit, in claim of " A personal transcript of a YouTube video is not a reliable source". The transcript is not a personal interpretation, but the exact words that she says. If we cannot use speeches as reliable sources, then what is a reliable source? A personal transcript by a journalist? I am adding it again, feel free to watch it yourself (22:15 -22:38).--ScottyNolan (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed countless times at the reliable sources noticeboard, where the consensus has been that a video on YouTube is only acceptable if the original source is itself reliable. In this case, the original source is something called "PSB Satellite News". I can find no information about this body, its structure, funding, or editorial policy, and I therefore question its reliability. Further, you quote words which you claim were said by Clinton in the course of a one-hour video, but offer no link to a reliable transcription, and nor do you indicate at what point in the video these words can be heard. It is not reasonable to expect readers and other editors to watch and listen to a one-hour video in order to confirm whether these words were indeed used, and you have transcribed them accurately and in context. This is therefore not a reliable source. I cannot myself revert you again; but I hope and trust that other editors will do so. Meanwhile, I will open a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about this, in order to establish what independent editors think. RolandR (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

At the RSN discussion, another editor has pointed to a transcription by a reliable source of this speech.[11] This does not contain the clause in your citation "When antisemitism is on a rise across the world especially in Europe", nor any wording even vaguely similar. So I ask again, what is the source for these words? RolandR (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"There is no doubt that if an individual was video recorded making statements, that is sufficient proof" that's also been said there, but anyway I added another reliable source for this speech. --ScottyNolan (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Original research in recent edits

I'm surprised and disappointed that Enthusiast01 seems confused by my edit summary: "rv good-faith edits that do not appear to be supported by reliable sources; please see WP:No original research".

• The name of the movement (and the name of the article) is "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions", not "Boycott, divestment and sanctions"
• It is a movement, not a campaign

As I wrote in my edit summary, without reliable sources that support your changes, they are impermissible original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In the article the terms "campaign" is used interchangeably with "movement". I also mentioned that it is sometimes called a movement. Also, one party calling itself a movement does not a movement make. Let's just be up front: the so-called movement is a Palestinian front for anti-Israel propaganda dressed up as an attempt to get Israel to "comply" with some so-called international law, which in their view means withdrawing from the so-called occupied territories, without having to settle the issues by negotiation. Having said that, is your objection the removal of capitals or the use of the term campaign, or what? Enthusiast01 (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

My objection is your inability to recognize that you are engaging in blatant POV pushing. Provide sources for your proposed changes or don't make them. That's not my rule, it's Wikipedia policy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110513203251/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233050211942&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233050211942&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160207102704/http://boycottisrael.info/node/229 to http://boycottisrael.info/node/229

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Israeli Reaction/Effectiveness of BDS

The section titled "effectiveness of BDS" is a misnomer, because the section relates to economic impact, which does not necessarily correlate with an impact on Israeli policy that would further the goals of BDS. The economic impact discussion should be integrated into the sections on "support", and the "Israeli Reaction" should be moved from the section on global reactions to a main section category of its own. The effect of BDS on the Israeli public is much more significant, as a measure of the potential for changing Israeli policy, than the effect of BDS on citizens of other countries in the world.Jdkag (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016

re: the following sentence -

"Dr. Hawking boycotted the prestigious Israeli Presidential Conference, held by Israeli president Shimon Peres, in protest at the Israeli occupation of Palestine.[46][47][48]"

... "Israeli occupation of Palestine" ... this phrase is inaccurate by any standards ... it would be more appropriate if it read ... "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank" or something similar.

The article also mentions an occupation of Gaza: "Israeli Apartheid Week is an annual series of university lectures and rallies against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza."

- Israel has fully withdrawn from Gaza: "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank" would be more appropriate.

These aren't political points as such, it helps on-going discussion if articles on this subject are as accurate as possible.

The article would benefit from an overview of what is considered "occupation" by the different sides & the international community. Ideally i'd make a suggestion regarding this/add additional suggested edits but i'm not really in a position to suggest longer edits at the moment, due to lack of previous edits. Palestinian Territories, though, were previously under Jordanian, British Mandate, Ottoman control - prior to being under Israeli control.

Happy to discuss any of this.

T23please (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

With respect to your first request (concerning Hawking), another editor changed the article to better summarize what the sources say.

With respect to your second request (concerning Israeli Apartheid Week), this article repeats what Wikipedia's article about Israeli Apartheid Week says.

Finally, the question of whether Gaza is still occupied by Israel is not as straightforward as you suggest, and is beyond the scope of this article. If you're interested, you can read the third paragraph of Gaza Strip and the section of that article titled "Military occupation", as well as the many sources cited. Israeli-occupied territories may also be of interest to you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Right, due to the large number of accounts created to further the denial of Palestine, the occupation, and promote Israel's view over the rest of the world's view, WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 was enacted. Please make 500 edits on articles not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before discussing or editing any article related to the conflict. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith

This was not intended to be well-poisoning, although I understand why some might assume bad faith and claim that it was. It was intended to convey that Israel was not yet a state in 1945. I intend to revise with a less blunt, but more accurate description within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree and restored the more accurate term. I challenge anyone to show the Arab League or anyone else was talking about boycotting Israel in 1945, which as I'm sure we all know is not going to happen. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The sentence already stated that the 1945 boycott was against "Jews of Mandatory Palestine", the first part of the sentence talks about "ongoing" boycotts which target Israel as a state. Sepsis II (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There must be a way to make it clear that the debate in 1945 (and arguably today) targeted Jews living within the borders of Israel/Palestine. I look forward to a reasonable suggestion. --GHcool (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment, and will also attempt to formulate a sentence which conveys this. But it is misleading to refer to "a wide ranging boycott of Jews", since this was not directed at Jews in general, but at the (Zionist, settler) Jewish community in Palestine; the Yishuv before 1948, the state of Israel subsequently. RolandR (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever it was, it was not, and could not have been, against Israel in 1945. I see Sepsis has already edit warred what we all know is false back into the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This book uses the term Palestinian Jews. This one says "Jews in Palestine." This one says "the Jewish community in Palestine." All are acceptable to me. --GHcool (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

All would be acceptable, but I would prefer "the Jewish community in Palestine", which clarifies that the boycott was of a national community, rather than of individual Jews. RolandR (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. Boycotting Jews collectively seems somehow more acceptable than boycotting Jews individually.  ;) --GHcool (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Mandate era boycott

I reverted deletion of material on British Mandate period boycott of Jewish-owned businesses to Background section. Background/History sections are normal and appropriate. This well-sourced material belongs in this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It does not belong in the article without consensus. It was added recently without discussion and boldly removed with the following edit summary - "This is not background about BDS at all, but a fork of another article". That is a reasonable view that may or may not find consensus. The next step is to discuss the content and gain consensus. Instead it has been aggressively edited warred back into the article for invalid reasons (which is why I reverted) - "sourced, relevant, longstanding text". It's sourced, it's relevance has already been questioned and it is not longstanding text. So what you need to do is self-revert and make a case for inclusion. Others will make their case for exclusion no doubt. Lots of tools are available to help find consensus. That is how it is supposed to work. I will not be participating in the discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

History/background sections are normative on Wikipedia. I can imagine no grounds for deleting this. It provides useful, well-sourced background. Mandate-era boycott, Post-independence boycott, Modern boycott form a series of movements closely related by target, goal, and chosen weapon of economic boycott.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I asked you to self-revert and explained why you should do that. You have not done so. Why ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not create this material. I happened on it and deem it to be a well-sourced and appropriate part of the page. In fact, it is so appropriate and so well-written that I assumed it had been a long-standing part of the page, which certainly needs a section of this sort. If you have a policy-based reason to delete, feel free to share. But beware WP:OWN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. My question is not about what you think of the content. I can understand why some people would like to connect BDS to Jewish boycotts, or Nazis or whatever. I can understand why some people might like to go even further back and try to attach the entire history of anti-Semitism to the BDS movement. But I'm not interested in such things because as someone who supports BDS I have a conflict of interest. I would like to know why you will not allow the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle to be reset to the correct step so that it can proceed as designed.

• The content was added 2016-01-31T05:50:30‎ Enthusiast01
• Removed 2016-03-08T15:51:16‎ Qualitatis
• That is where discussion should have started.
• Restored 2016-03-10T02:00:08‎ No More Mr Nice Guy
• Removed 2016-03-10T07:35:36‎ Qualitatis
• Restored 2016-03-11T02:31:38‎ No More Mr Nice Guy (with an inaccurate edit summary)

That is edit warring.

My edit tried to set it back to where it should be. It hasn't worked so far. But why ? What is preventing that from happening? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A. As you know since you argue this often, editors who edited the page but did not remove the content implicitly consented to its inclusion (that's over 10 people. They may argue differently now, but that's the implication of their leaving it there). We are past the BDS cycle.

B. If there's an edit war going on and you make a revert, you're participating in the edit war.

C. here is a pro BDS source connecting boycotts before Israel was established to current BDS. There are of course many many others. So kindly cut out the "I'm not going to participate in the discussion but let me just accuse my political opponents of playing the antisemitism card, as is their wont" bullshit. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

At least 10 different editors made at least a couple dozen edits to the article for over a month between the time this information was inserted until it was removed. The BRD train has long left the station. Sean accusing others of edit warring as he edit wars is about par for the course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That argument is nonsense. I was one of the people who edited the article in this period. The fact that I did not remove this text emphatically does not mean that I consented to its inclusion, or that I consent now. I chose to make a different edit, and not to edit-war on this text. But I strenuously object to this attempt to pose me as a supporter of the edit. RolandR (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of editing this article, but the thing I notice about the disputed text is how biased it is. The mandate period in Palestine was a time of mutual boycotts between Arabs and Jews. Presenting it as a one-sided phenomenon enforced by violence is outrageous. Where is the Hebrew labor movement mentioned? Or this, from the 1936 report to the League of Nations: "A mutual boycott of considerable stringency between the Arab and Jewish communities broke out after the end of the strike. It provoked isolated instances of violence and intimidation and continued to be observed until the end of the year." 1939-ish mention by Hurewitz, Struggle for Palstine p161: "[t]he prevailing economic boycott of Arab products and labor". Also Hope-Simpson Report. Also Hyamson Palestine under Mandate: "obstinate and long-persisting trade boycott of Arabs and Jews mutually". And so on, lots of sources. If you want "background" do it properly at least. Zero^talk 22:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hebrew labor and related movements are entirely tangential to BDS. --GHcool (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS. Just because something has sources doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Inclusion requires consensus. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

None of you has actually made an argument why not to include this material. Just saying "no consensus" or "BRD" or "rv edit warring" (that was a good one, as if you didn't just join the edit war) doesn't cut it, as I'm sure you know. Kindly provide a policy based reason not to include it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

<- The article has now been restored to the correct point in the BRD cycle with the removal of the content for which consensus has not been established. The discussion can now proceed to establish whether the content should be included. This is how things are meant to work. It should be obvious that the right thing to do is to proceed with the discussion from this point to try to establish consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

BRD is an essay. You should really stop talking about it as if it is some kind of policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I also don't see any connection between the boycotts by a set of groups nearly a century ago which had to do zionism, imperialism, racial conflict, nationalism, etc, and BDS today which is an international movement about ending the occupation and supporting human/civil rights and international law in the area. Sepsis II (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The BDS movement is clearly pointed at ending the Israeli occupation and colonization. As such, it has no roots in British Mandate boycotts any way. Thus, an introduction into historic boycotts is inappropriate, especially in this article, especially in the background section.

I would even go further. All what is left until "During the Second Intifada ..." should also be removed, as it is about boycotts against the existence of Israel as such, not about the issue that is central in BDS, thus also not background of BDS. For the Julie Norman and Rhea DuMont paragraphs: These are very academic essay-like pieces and I don't think they make any sense in elucidating the BDS movement.

And per Malik Shabazz: Even if some like to connect BDS with British Mandate boycotts, it is still not background of the BDS movement. --Qualitatis (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, here is a reliable source, a pro BDS one no less, that makes the connection between pre-Israel boycotts and BDS. Do you guys have any policy based objection to restoring this? The section is reliably sourced and the connection between it and the topic of this article is reliably sourced. I mean, I understand you DONTLIKEIT, but that's just not enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Just because two sections, one on the origin of BDS, and another on historic boycotts in Palestine, are in the same book does not mean they are closely related. Do you have any policy based reasons for keep this unrelated material in this article? I understand you like it, but that's just not enough. Sepsis II (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read more closely. He is explicitly connecting the two, going so far as to use the terms "boycott, divestment and sanctions" for pre-Israel boycotts. Here are another two pro-BDS authors making the same argument. Do you have any actual policy based objection to restoring this? It obviously meets WP:V. By the way, I enjoyed your imitation - sincerest form of flattery and all that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, this is getting ridiculous. Can we see a show of hands as to who opposes this content and why? As far as I can tell from comments here and changes to the article, GHCool, E.M. Gregory, Enthusiast and myself support it. Sepsis and Qualitatis say it's irrelevant and a couple others opposed the restoration on technical grounds but haven't told us if they feel it belongs or not. As far as I can tell there's a consensus to include so kindly speak up if you're opposed and I didn't count you. Please note that I added two sources that explicitly connect past boycotts to BDS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the Mandate era stuff. The pro-BDS reliable sources referenced are pretty clear that BDS is historically related to pre-1948 boycotts against the Zionist/Jewish community in the region. --GHcool (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I support the retention of the Mandate era examples of boycotts. The material is reliably sourced and relevant.Enthusiast01 (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The historical scope of an article is somewhat arbitrary and can be negotiated. I don't think the rules force us to either include or exclude the mandate period here. The existence of sources that make a connection doesn't require us to make the same connection. Authors decide the scope of their books but we decide the division of that information into articles. On the other hand, we don't get to decide whether to obey NPOV. We don't report the Spassky-Fisher match without mentioning that both players were making moves. Likewise it would actively misleading and therefore an obvious neutrality violation to mention only one side of a mutual boycott campaign. The actual text currently fought over is thus unacceptable without modification. Count me as opposed unless this deficiency is corrected. Zero^talk 08:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing it's ok to remove text because some editor might not find it NPOV enough? This is a very dangerous precedent, but as usual I will follow you guys' lead. There's a lot of stuff I could remove if this is they way we do it now, rather than have the editor who thinks information is missing add it where appropriate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Strongly oppose This is an article about BDS, not about boycotts in general. I have a very good reason to say it is misleading to compare British Mandate period boycotts with BDS in the background section. They differ fundamentally. While the first were Arab anti-Jewish boycotts, BDS is a pro-Palestinian movement (or pro-Arab for Palestinians-deniers) with completely other purposes. It would be wrong and non-neutral to put in the background the suggestion that the two are comparable. WP should not promote wrong myths and distortions of history. It may rather be correct to put a paragraph about the comparison in the opinions section. (And BTW, I haven't seen a strong source to support such connection, yet.)

If there is concensus that BDS is a movement that pursues the end of Israel's occupation and colonization of Palestinian land and the Golan Heights, the scope of the article should be the anti-occupation (and pro equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and respect for the right of return, as currently stated in the lead). Therefore, I propose to limit the scope to the period from 1967, and refrain from mentioning previous Arab anti-Jewish boycotts in both, the lead and the background section. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000: If the purpose of some editors (not you) is to water-down the article, to make it unreadable for common readers and divert from the subject, including the discussions you propose is the right way. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I still don't see any consensus, infact strong opposition, for the inclusion of this hardly-related material in the background section. As with all material it needs consensus to stay and this tag-team edit warring needs to stop. If we need more background information to replace it with if that is the issue then I would suggest adding a few sentences on the very similar boycott of South Africa. Again, these boycotts are being pushed by liberal western university students and human rights groups who wish to see Israel improve and have no relation to the pre-occupation boycotts that certain governments created for largely ethnic/religious reasons many decades ago. Sepsis II (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Currently, there are 3 opposes (hopefully Zero will clarify) and 4 supporters of including this material. If we don't solve this within a couple of days, I'll just start an RfC. I can't imagine uninvolve editors would support censoring this information which is amply sourced both in terms of relevance and in terms of content. I'm just trying to save some time for everyone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Opinions of Wikipedia editors are less significant than the fact that sources support the continuity of the series of anti-Jewish, Arab boycotts from the 1930 through modern BDS. Some analysis making the link come from Zionists: [12], but a great many come from anti-Israel activists like Joseph Massad publishing in Al Jazeera article: [[13]]. Pro-BDS, socialist books [14]; this Ilan Pappe interview on Electronic Intifada [15]. The link is extremely sturdy and well-sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

To quote your source, "Today, it is the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and its international solidarity network that is the champion of a boycott of the racist Israeli settler colony. Like its noble predecessors, from African American boycotts in the 19th and 20th centuries, the Indian boycott of British goods, the Jewish anti-Nazi boycott, and the international boycott of Rhodesia and South Africa, the BDS movement insists that its call for a boycott should be heeded until Israel sheds all its racist laws and policies and becomes a non-racist state." Sepsis II (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Massad is an outspoken opponent of Jewish statehood. My point is that anti-Zionists like Massad, reliable scholars, and BDS supporters have all published essays and papers connecting the anti-Jewish boycotts in Mandatory Palestine, the Arab boycott of Israel, and the modern BDS movement, as Massad does in this essay when he states: "The Palestinians countered Zionist separatism with boycotts of their own, targeting the Zionist colonies and their products during the British Mandate years. The Arab League of States would issue its own boycott of Zionist and Israeli goods that would go into effect in 1945." The material belongs in the essay precisely because writers across a board spectrum of political opinion have agreed that these boycotts form a closely related series.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

My objection is not that it is a view I do not like. In fact, BDS is presented as another variant of anti-Jewish boycotts. The contested text is in fact implicitly, covered and manipulatively labeling the movement as an anti-semitic movement! It is as wrong and absurd as if you would put into the Background:

Anti-semitism in Palestine is not new for Palestinians and others opposed to Zionism. It dates back to the 13th century when Palestine was ruled by ...

Moreover, BDS is not simply a boycott campaign, as symbolized by S of Sanctions. Concensus is not simply counting votes without considering arguments. In any case, this discussion shows that it does not belong in the Background section. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not a policy based reason not to include this amply sourced material. That's textbook IDONTLIKEIT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit by GHcool is a 1RR violation. It's time for all the edit warring to stop. If it doesn't the issue needs to be reported and the page fully protected. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of mandate-era communal boycotts. As far as I see it, it's an example of WP:COAT, which tars the BDS movement as anti-Semitic by association. If any precedent historic campaigns should be included under background, surely more relevant example is the one most discussed in analysis of the movement and even mentioned in the lead - the boycott of South Africa. If you're going to include the Mandate era history due to important context, then the First Intifada internal boycotts and tax strikes and the Arab League boycotts would also have to be included. In an article that's already pushing length, that's surely too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrickyH (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying the dispute

May be, there is a lack of knowledge here.

• Arab boycotts during the British Mandate era were directed against Jewish mass immigration into and colonization of the whole of historic Palestine.
• The BDS movement aims to end the colonization of a small part of historic Palestine, and end of Israeli racism and apartheid, and the return of expelled Palestinians.

Completely different era's, completely different aims, with no connection between the two. And unlike past Arab boycotts, yet supported and led by a significant part of the non-Arab world. By connecting them in the background section, it is suggested that BDS is a continuation, or a new variant of the past Arab anti-Jewish boycotts. It is, in fact, again an attempt to present the agressors as the victims and as already mentioned a covered attempt to label the movement as an anti-semitic organization.

Clearly, the BDS movement acts in the context of the current Israeli occupation and has no relationship with past boycotts. Even if sometimes the two phenomena in some sources are compared with each other or mentioned together, be it pro- or anti-Israel, it does not change the background and context of BDS.

To repeate my thesis, this should not be treated in the lead or the background section. Rather there may be a paragraph in the opinions section. To be clear, also in the latter option, it should be directly related to BDS, not a trick to insert unrelated stuff. -Qualitatis (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Too long

Somebody wisely said that this article is getting too difficult to navigate. I propose doing the following to make this article shorter:

1. Deleting the paragraph that begins "Protests and conferences in support ..."
2. Deleting the paragraph that begins "According to Julie Norman ..."
3. Merging and trimming the fat in the "Goals" and "Methods" sections.
4. Trimming the fat in the sections called "Academics" and "Business"
5. Merging and trimming the fat in the "Political organizations" and "Trade Unions" sections
6. Deleting the "Other prominent people" and "Israel Apartheid Week" sections
7. Merging and trimming the fat in the "Jewish individuals and organizations outside of Israel" and "Israeli individuals and organizations" sections
8. Trimming the fat in the entire "Reactions" section
9. Moving the "United States" section to a new article called Reactions to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement in the United States and keeping a brief summary on this page.
10. Trim the fat in the "Criticism" section

I intend on working on these ideas within the next couple of days unless I hear arguments to the contrary. --GHcool (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

According to GHcool, the article is too long. According to the standard measure, the page has 58 kB (9180 words) of "readable prose" (the main body of the text, excluding material such as footnotes and reference sections, diagrams and images, tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, and formatting and mark-up). Wikipedia's size guideline says an article with more than 60 kB of readable prose "[p]robably should be divided" and an article with more than 50kB "[m]ay need to be divided".

So what do other editors think? Is the article too long?

My own view, and I've expressed it several times over the years, is that the article is made up of too many news articles, quotations, and (poor quality) examples, and not enough secondary analysis from historians and other third parties. In my opinion, the problem isn't so much the length of the article but that there's too much crap in it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz' concerns confirm my impression after the first reading of the article. It is surely due to the controversial character of the subject. It invites to insert every single view of every single group in every single country in all details. A solution may be to put them in a "crap page": Views on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement. Furthermore, the layout and headings, and the absense of quotes are important for readability. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The views of the movement are an integral part of understanding the movement. It cannot be removed from the main page, but it can be summarized and paraphrased better. --GHcool (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, but not the views of the whole world. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of the views could be moved into sub-pages. The suggestion of a greater number of country-based BDS pages (ie BDS in Europe, BDS in the US) would allow for a lot of trimming down of individual campaigns, targets etc from those sections. A greater degree of secondary analysis would be useful, but the problem is there's not very much written in the way of analysis that isn't partisan. News articles at least tend to be more neutral towards the goals of BDS. TrickyH (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

On a bit of a reflection and read-over, I think shortening the sections of criticism (and response) and moving the meat of them to Views on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement is a good idea. There could be more written on the topic, particularly from world governments, although we should try and keep to notable opinions.

I also think we could create a page, History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement in which a lot of the campaigns, currently listed by country, could be listed chronologically. Alternatively, we could make History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement in the United States and History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement in the United Kingdom (or Europe generally), and that could help to trim down the "reactions" section considerably.

The long "Supporters - Academic" section could be seriously truncated and some text moved to Academic boycott of Israel, although it largely covers everything listed here already and is itself quite long. The same holds for "Supporters - Business" and Disinvestment from Israel, although it could also be split into a new section on Government support, since that's significantly different from business bodies such as pension funds disinvesting.

Then there's the matter of the Boycotts of Israel page, which seems to be duplicating large parts of this page, albeit with more history. I'm loathe to suggest moving content there, however, since it already seems to be pushing the limits of readable prose for a page, and it's confusing what having two such similar pages achieves. Perhaps some of its content could also get moved into the newly created pages, since it would logically function best as a kind of umbrella page?TrickyH (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to invest time and energy, you do not need to wait until the page is unprotected again. It makes sense to list chronologically in History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement rather than by country, because it gives much more coherence and historical context. Keep apart the Israeli responses, including Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions#Israeli individuals and organizations (if the latter are not merged into the specific sections), in Israeli reactions on BDS is, however, useful.

Personal views (if relevant at all) should not be sorted by country and usually fit, together with criticisms, in a section views and comments.

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions#Academic response is undue and wrong place.

Furthermore, quotes are mostly undue and unnecessary. --Qualitatis (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't think Israeli reactions to BDS could fit in a Views of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement page? That would allow us to truncate a lot of the content of this page, alongside the History one. I'll get started on drafting both of these soon. TrickyH (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The Israeli views will always be part of the general articles, also be present in the main article (in summarized form). But if there is a specific Israeli page, the sections in the main articles need not to be unduely large. E.g. the US views would normally be in the main article in full, but as editors made it unduely large, it has become to big for the main article, so it has to be summarized and details moved to a subpage. --Qualitatis (talk) 08:51, 18 March 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)

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)

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)

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)