Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Content not supported by RSes

@RolandR: - you restored this saying Sourced to Deutsche Welle, which is a reliable source - however most of the contents are not sourced to DW, which merely says - " Most recently, in mid-July, more than 40 left-leaning Jewish organizations from all over the world signed an open letter calling on people not to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and specifically defended the BDS campaign. - which does not support the language (e.g. affirm) nor the quotations. Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

There were two sources until they were removed. One is the letter itself which can be quoted, while the other is a story from DW. There was no SYNTH. The quotes were from the original letter. RolandR's restore had no problems. Deleting content for fallacious reasons is the real issue that needs to be addressed here; namely your conduct Icewhiz. I am restoring it. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

NPA please. This content is UNDUE - We generally avoid WP:ADVOCACY of material that appears only on fringe activist websites - while yes, this can be attributed to the activist group, if the only place this resides is at the fringe activist group - it is UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The DW article confirms the publication and significance of this statement. The PACBI site is reliable for the actual content. Other sources also include the quoted sentence, including the Jerusalem Post[1], which I propose to add to the article. RolandR (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz I see that you have made more than one edit now removing reliably sourced content. I will restore the content that you have removed and will file a complaint should you try to delete it again. Furthermore, your edit summaries that attempt to justify your deletions have been inaccurate on more than one occasion now. Two editors have reverted you now. Consider that. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Veritycheck: I've attempted to be accurate in all my summaries, which included removal of information on BLP stmts that was not reliably sourced. I do apologize if I erred in any edit summary. My consecutive edits were policy complaint, and were separated into individual edits in order to provide separate summaries for each. Your stmt of "Two editors have reverted you now" - is incorrect AFAICT, as only RolandR reverted. Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I am the second editor. Here is an example of one of your false edit summaries. 1. You removed sourced content. The source says, "Three UK councils have been cleared of anti-semitism by the High Court". Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I summarized the actual contents of the body of the article (which details a dismissal of a discrimination case against the councils) - as opposed to the click-bait title and beginning of the article. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No, your edit deleted exactly what they were cleared of - "cleared of anti-semitism". Your edit didn't summarize, rather it attempted to whitewash. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope. We do not use clickbait titles. The councils were sued for discrimination based on Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 - and this legal claim was dismissed by the UK court. The judges did not make a determination outside of the scope of section 149 and the specific motiin.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read the RS article from the Independent. - This is the first sentence of the article.

Three UK councils have been cleared of anti-semitism by the High Court after they imposed boycotts on Israeli goods, a ruling pro-boycott campaigners have described as an “important victory”.

It is not clickable, neither is it headline or a subheading; all of which is of no importance for that matter. I have spent enough time pointing this out to you. As you have obstinately refused to accept this, even with the source in hand, I am left with no other recourse but to escalate this. Consider, I tried in goodfaith to give you a chance to revert your error. This is but one example of many such instances of you seeking to remove sourced content with fallacious reasons. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No - this is an attempt to summarize what this ruling was about -- which per the Independent -- "The charity Jewish Human Rights Watch (JHRW) brought judicial charges against Leicester City Council, Swansea City Council and Gwynedd Council for discrimination, but the claims were dismissed.". However, on second look at this it seems we are merely repeating the previous sentence in an out of order manner (the court of appeal being the latter ruling, oddly presented first by us). Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Another inaccurate edit summary: Icewhiz removed the sentence "Stephen Hawking, a BDS supporter, was critical of Israel, although he visited the country on several occasions", supported by citations from Newsweek and Haaretz, with the edit summary "Newsweek doesn't say this. Haaretz says this in a byline, but bylines and titles are often click-bait and we generally treat the article body - which is much more complex in this case (it seems he was pressured once to cancel an event)".[2] However, the Newsweek article cited states "An atheist, anti-war activist, BDS supporter and anti-capitalist, the overlap between Hawking’s humanist politics and scientific interests found expression in his repeated public statements on the possibility of contact with extraterrestrial life",[3] while the whole Haaretz article is about his support and explicitly states that "Hawking was the first scientist of his stature to embrace the boycott movement".[4] Given this repeated pattern of misleading edit summaries, it seems that we must carefully examine every edit by Icewhiz, and that we cannot rely on the summary. RolandR (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2018

Update section 4.3.8 United States, by changing this:

As of June 2017, a total of 21 states have passed anti-BDS legislation.[76]

to this:

As of November 2018, a total of 26 states have passed anti-BDS legislation.[76]

(This info can be verified at the same source originally cited) Cosmictinker (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Garbage logic, arguments & refs in Lead

Most refs don't agree with the text (but #6 might). Thus the "charge that Israel is an apartheid state" is a straw man fallacy. Also, the text seems to require that "apartheid" be an exact duplicate of South Africa's, a preposterous claim both in and out of the used context. The entire paragraph is worthy of deletion.

"There is considerable debate about the efficacy and morality of the BDS movement. Supporters of BDS compare the movement with the 20th century anti-apartheid movement and view their actions similar to the boycotts of South Africa during its apartheid era, comparing the situation in Israel to apartheid.[4][5][6] Critics of BDS vehemently repudiate the charge that Israel is an apartheid state, asserting, among other things, that in Israel (outside of the West Bank) "Jews and Arabs mix freely and increasingly live in the same neighborhoods...there is no imposed segregation" and that Arabs and Jews interact together in any mall, restaurant, or hospital in Israel.[7]"

The below paragraph seems to be wild-eyed propaganda on it's surface due the usage of constant "and," where only "or," is supported. This surface defect alone makes the the whole; laughable. The listed critics believe all that!? Not according to the refs.

"Critics further argue that the BDS movement disincentivizes the Palestinian leadership from negotiating with Israel at present,[8] and that it is antisemitic[9][10] in the form its opposition to Zionism takes,[11][12] in resembling historic boycotts such as the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses[13][14][15] and in promoting the delegitimization of Israel.[16][17]"

Uhm..."Nazis V. Jews!?" What I find troubling is; what if these wikipedians were better at pretending to be objective? I also wonder, what if the so called "BDS movement" actually existed as implied, wouldn't they discover such obvious problems? Hmmmm.... Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:1DD4:F5FC:1EF5:91BB (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Your opinion is noted. --GHcool (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Samuel Neaman Institute study

We had:

Despite the BDS movement's focus on universities, a 2016 study by the Samuel Neaman Institute proved "that academic collaboration between American and Israeli scholars has grown dramatically" since 2006.

Problems: It reads as if a quote from the report is being presented but the report does not have it. It is actually a quote from the Executive Director of the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), who has an obvious vested interest and should not be quoted without attribution and identification. Nor does the report support the claim. Compare:

ICC summary: A new independent study conducted by the prestigious Samuel Neaman Institute using data retrieved from academic databases, reports that academic collaboration between US and Israeli universities increased by 45 percent in the prior decade — despite aggressive, well-funded campaigns to stifle joint research.

The report: The number of joint U.S.-Israel publications, where at least one collaborating researcher is affiliated with a U.S. institute and at least one collaborating researcher is affiliated with an Israeli institute went up from 3,439 joint U.S.-Israel publications in 2006 to 4,979 publications in 2015, a marginal increase of 45%. (The marginal increase in the total number of U.S. globally joint publications was 69% in the same period).

So the number of joint publications increased in absolute terms, but decreased in relative terms (by 14%). The ICC "summary" of course doesn't mention the second part. Another example:

ICC summary: We found that the number of American students who attended Israeli universities increased by 78% from the[sic] 2004 through 2014.

The report: During the years 2005/06-2014/15 Israel's position among top destinations for international U.S. students remained relatively constant (except for the years 2008/2009 and 2010/2011)

This is not a contradiction but shows how the ICC opinion piece is mostly spin.

It isn't clear that any of this belongs in the article at all, since the unreliable ICC opinion piece is the only source we have that connects the report to BDS. Incidentally, the ICC opinion piece claims that the ICC was a partner in writing this report, but the report itself does not mention the ICC. Someone is not being straight with us. Zero^talk 08:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

When writing the above I was a tad confused. The Pessin source has a single sentence, which is just a paraphrase of the headline of its source, which is the ICC opinion piece (presented as a blog with a disclaimer). Zero^talk 10:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

References

While I agree with your point, we should probably never say a study proved something. In the real world, no study proves anything. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Anti-BDS laws have been challenged in court and in two cases so far have been overturned.

The section on "Government Responses: U.S." states that a number of anti-BDS laws have been passed but fails to mention that in at least two cases, the law was struck down by a federal judge on 1st amendment grounds (i.e. they violate the right to free speech under the U.S. constitution). Secondly, in at least many other cases, the laws passed have either been criticized on similar free speech grounds by free speech advocates such as the ACLU and in some cases are being actively challenged, such as in Texas where a lawsuit was just filed against it's recently passed anti-BDS law on free speech grounds. Thus we need to have more info added to the section, beyond the overly simple statement that starting with Tennessee, a total of 26 states have passed anti-BDS legislation. We should include the fact that two of these laws have been struct down and mention that others are being challenged in the courts as we speak. I would request that someone with editing privileges on this protected article (which is not me apparently) should fix these issues. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a good idea, an entire section devoted so court cases sorted by country should be added with bullet-point cases where the laws have been up-held or have been ruled to be against that nation's superseding laws. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, could assist in being utilized to collect case law where the laws have been struck down to assist other attorneys in identifying history to present before Judges and other ruling bodies.

Even if such a section were to consist of a stub which editors may add to, that would be a good thing to have. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

How about just no, [5]. We are not a link site. We don't report on a democracy in action. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I added a short explanation in the U.S. section. That should do the trick. --GHcool (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

And I reverted it. Reason.com is a fine source for the opinions of its authors—which should be attributed in the text—but it's not a reliable source for facts. See WP:RSOPINION. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Attributed he is law professor so his view is notable Shrike (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph, here, about legal challenges to several U.S. states' anti-BDS laws. Two of the laws have been blocked from enforcement, while other lawsuits are still pending. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I pared it down to match the section. Let's see where the court cases go. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Sir Joseph's edit. Once the court cases are decided, we can re-evaluate. --GHcool (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Reaction section

I tagged the clearly biased section written with only criticism in mind (97% of content is criticism). This does not reflect its true reception on the ground. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Your perception to reception is not what we base our content on. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems to reflect reception in mainstream sources.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This long-form article (Aug 2018) tells a completely different story:

More than 170 Palestinian organisations from the occupied territories, Israel and the diaspora endorsed the BDS call

Though BDS has not had a major economic impact on Israel so far, compared to the decades-long campaign in South Africa, its ascent has been rather steep. Institutional investors such as the Dutch pension fund PGGM and the United Methodist Church have withdrawn from Israeli banks. The Presbyterian Church, the United Church of Christ, and Norway’s largest private pension fund have divested from companies profiting from Israel’s occupation. And major firms such as Veolia, Orange, G4S and CRH have fully or mostly pulled out of Israel following boycott campaigns. Dozens of student governments and numerous academic associations have endorsed boycott and divestment initiatives. And many musicians and artists have cancelled shows or pledged to boycott the country.

International organisations, too, have been influenced by the BDS movement to move slowly from ineffectual condemnations to calls for practical measures that have some teeth. Last summer, Amnesty International called for a worldwide ban on settlement products and an arms embargo on Israel and Palestinian armed groups. Human Rights Watch called on institutional investors in Israeli banks to ensure that they are not contributing to or benefiting from settlements and other violations of international law. And the UN human rights office has compiled a list of over 200 companies – the majority based in Israel or the occupied territories, 22 based in the US – that are linked to the establishment, expansion or maintenance of Israeli settlements. In what is expected to be the most significant development in the 13-year-old BDS campaign, the UN human rights office plans to publish the names of these companies later this year.

In addition, the reaction section does not mention any of the (systematic) intimidation that the BDS movment has been facing. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There's an entire article called Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. All of that information and more are in that article. --GHcool (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Palestinian and pro-Palestinian POVs from the article you link to are absent from the reactions section. Hence the tag. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Censored information in the academic boycotts section

Why was this removed: "Resolutions to endorse BDS do not have any effect on college investment decisions. The effect they do have is to promote of anti-Israel (and sometimes antisemitic) sentiment within student bodies, faculty, and academic departments. [cited to: Nelson, Cary. "Conspiracy Pedagogy on Campus: BDS Advocacy, Antisemitism, and Academic Freedom." Anti-Zionism on Campus, Pessin and Ben-Atar, Indiana UP, 2018, pp. 190-211.]" If no legitimate reason is given, I intend to restore within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stop accusing other editors of censorship. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

GHcool, are you asking why someone would revert an opinion presented as a fact in Wikipedia's voice? Maybe someone was trying to enforce Wikipedia policy? Zero^talk 10:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I plan to restore it with the following edit: "Resolutions to endorse BDS do not have any effect on college investment decisions. The effect they do have, according to Nelson, is to promote of anti-Israel (and sometimes antisemitic) sentiment within student bodies, faculty, and academic departments. [cited to: Nelson, Cary. "Conspiracy Pedagogy on Campus: BDS Advocacy, Antisemitism, and Academic Freedom." Anti-Zionism on Campus, Pessin and Ben-Atar, Indiana UP, 2018, pp. 190-211 (see especially p. 191).]" --GHcool (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not an opinion, but a stmt pf fact in a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can see it is an opinion. You can too. I'll also notice that Nelson now has more than one opportunity to express his opinion in our article. Zero^talk 08:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

A praise and a criticism

Firstly, I'd like to praise User:MShabazz for his tireless efforts on articles relating to antisemitism. He/she is a good, and mostly fair-minded, editor. As he/she may have realized, I recently got a new gift that will no doubt keep on giving: a 438-page, heavily footnoted academic tome titled Anti-Zionism on Campus published by Indiana University Press. I've been peppering the BDS article with information from this book, and in his/her haste, MShabazz chose to revert a reasonable edit based on the research within.

While I encourage MShabazz to rethink the specific edit referenced above, I do not want to discourage him/her from checking me from my sometimes unbridled enthusiasm for exposing the BDS movement to the daylight. Edits like this one and this one and this one are genuinely helpful in balancing hasty, passionate rhetoric with clear-eyed, reasoned language that is still accurate.

The great Zionist and Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis liked to quote another great Jewish analyst, the prophet Isaiah, when he said, "Come let us reason together." This is the spirit of Wikipedia that MShabazz and I respect so very much. I look forward to continuing to reason with him/her on this and other topics. --GHcool (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I also have that book, though I have only skimmed it. The fact that it presents only one side of the story, intentionally and with gusto, is rather obvious. Regarding the edit, imprecise claims like "inundates", "recurring", "without time for open debate" can't ever be more than opinions. So "have documented" amounts to agreeing with an opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which is something we shouldn't do. Zero^talk 09:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, GHcool, for the kind words. Being published by a university press—generally the highest level of quality when it comes to sources—is not a guarantee that the content of a book is unbiased or necessarily true. The book in question is clearly intended to support the worldview of its editors and authors: that criticism of Israel and its government is antisemitism, that "antisemitism" so defined is on the rise, and that advocates of such "antisemitism" are boorish, if not uncivilized, compared to the ultra-polite and put-upon advocates for Israel/Jews. But please don't mistake it for an objective inquiry into the matter, because it doesn't pretend to be one.

For what it's worth, several of Norman Finkelstein's books have been published by university presses. I think you would agree that doesn't make them ipso facto good sources for the Wikipedia articles about Gaza, antisemitism, and the Holocaust. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

But Norman Finklestein is a crank who was defrocked, his books discredited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

First, nobody cares what you think of Professor Finkelstein, whose name you misspelled. Second, WP:BLP applies on talk pages as well as in articles. Finally, did I mention that nobody cares what you think? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You make some fair points. Would "argue" be an acceptable substitution for the current phrasing of "allege"? The sentences would read: "Its opponents argue that at official university levels, the BDS movement inundates university organizations and departments with various and recurring anti-Israel resolutions, often without notice or time for open debate" (of course, the word wouldn't be bolded in the article). --GHcool (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm indifferent, so long as we don't denigrate it to a "claim" or elevate it to a "point out", per WP:CLAIM. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Pessin is clearly a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• Andrew Pessin is well-regarded philosophyprofessor at an elite college, and as such he is prima facie a reliable source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 05 February 2019

Propose that the category "Antisemitism" be added to the article. Proposing or advocating negative treatment of the only openly Jewish state on the globe, while not proposing the same on any other country, is, by definition, anti-Semitism. The article states very clearly that not only do the progressive organizations the ADL and Wiesenthal center classify it as anti-Semitism, but numerous public figures on both the left, right, and center. Including a category in an article does not necessarily mean that it is definitive, but people looking for (arguably) examples of anti-Semitism by perusing categories should be able to see this article listed in that category. AppliedCharisma (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added Category:Antisemitic boycotts, which is more specific. DannyS712 (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been undone. by User:RolandR. DannyS712 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the category "Antisemtic boycotts" is that the initiative is more than just a boycott as it also involves sanctions, i.e., trying to actually punish the Jewish state by means other than boycotts. So, the generic AntiSemitism category probably fits best. Should we have a straight-up poll to decide? AppliedCharisma (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Link is dead

The link Norman Finkelstein Throws Wrench In Anti-Israel Movement’s Claim To A Rights-Based Agenda] ADL, 21 juni 2013 is invalide

The correct one is: https://www.adl.org/blog/norman-finkelstein-throws-wrench-in-anti-israel-movements-claim-to-a-rights-based-agenda

Langerak100 (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Y --GHcool (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

details about antisemitism

The article mentions accusations of antisemitism but doesn't provide any examples of antisemitic rhetoric or activity by the BDS movement. It only presents the view of its critics that interpret the movement as a manifestation of antisemitism. Is the association with antisemitism solely based on the critics' interpretation, or are there any instances of explicit antisemitism?--Exjerusalemite (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Berlin Intelligence Agency Declares BDS antisemitic

European parties urged to agree Israel boycott tactics are antisemitic

“I Love Adolf Hitler”: BDS at South African Universities

The Case Against BDS: Why Singling Out Israel for Boycott Is Anti-Semitic and Anti-Peace

Trudeau blasts BDS movement as anti-Semitic

Need more exapmples? “WarKosign” 19:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If Exjerusalemite needs more examples, all he/she has to do is reread the Wikipedia article. The link between antisemitism and BDS is iron clad. --GHcool (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

In your mind, at least. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, we should also take into account the view, for example, of Daniel Blatman, Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University, who writes "the boycott imposed on Jews by antisemitism and the boycott of Israel today have nothing in common. The historical boycott was an unrestrained attack on a persecuted minority fighting for its place in society, while the current ban is designed to assist in the liberation of a minority without rights, which has been under the yoke of a brutal occupation for 48 years... Anti-Semitism? Expressions reminiscent of what the Nazis said about the Jews? These exist only in the imagination of those who react hysterically".[6] And there are many more similar articles. We should mention the allegation of antisemitism, and its rebuttal; but we should not state in Wikipedia's voice that BDS is antisemitic. RolandR (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

WarKosign, almost all of those links are completely irrelevant to my question as they do not give any examples of targeting Jews by BDS. Your links included mostly accusations of antisemitism and interpretation of criticism of Israel (some of it by Jews) as criticism of Jews. The only one to mention antisemitic rhetoric is the South Africa article. Even there, two examples were not by BDS, and indeed one of them was condemned by BDS. As far as I can tell, only one incident from that article involving BDS qualifies: BDS members stormed a 2013 concert in South Africa featuring an Israeli saxophonist, and some of them chanted "shoot the Jew" in Zulu (this incident was initially defended by BDS South Africa cofounder but was later denounced by BDS South Africa). So you have one incident. Are there more?--Exjerusalemite (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is some hard data for you. “WarKosign” 11:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

If Exjerusalemite needs more examples, all he/she has to do is reread the Wikipedia article. The link between antisemitism and BDS is iron clad. --GHcool (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

WarKosign's "evidence" introduces BDS with "The BDS movement was established with the intention of economically, academically and culturally isolating the Jewish state in order to eliminate it." Any survey that starts by defining its terms with a lie should be discounted ab initio. Besides that, the report should be given as an exercise to beginning statistics classes as it is replete with newbie errors. The authors apparently never heard of factor analysis. But my professional expertise in that area doesn't count here; the bottom line is that categories are not a device for editors to express opinions on topics. Really, nothing else needs to be said. Zero^talk 11:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks WarKosign but that is not at all what I asked. I asked for instances of antisemitism, and you've giving me a study that claims that there is statistical correlation between BDS activity and antisemitic incidence (with the flaws pointed out by Zero above). Correlation between rape incidents and gender doesn't mean that men are rapists. Only persons who rape are rapists. So I'll try again -- can you provide instances of antisemitism by BDS? So far I've only seen one instances, surely it should be easy to find more, don't you think?--Exjerusalemite (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The nature of BDS movement is antisemitic by singling out Israel a only Jewish state Harvard professor Pinker explained it best "[Are Israel’s] policies really so atrocious, so beyond the pale of acceptable behavior of nation-states, that they call for a unique symbolic statement that abrogates personal fairness and academic freedom? It helps to put the Israel-Palestine conflict in global and historical perspective—something that anthropologists, of all people, might be expected to do … Why no boycotts against academics from China, India, Russia, or Pakistan, to take a few examples, which have also been embroiled in occupations and violent conflicts, and which, unlike Israel, face no existential threat or enemies with genocidal statements in their charters? In a world of repressive governments and ongoing conflicts, isn’t there something unsavory about singling the citizens of one of these countries for unique vilification and punishment?"--Shrike (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Here you can find quite a few samples of antisemitic sayings by BDS activists and leaders. “WarKosign” 16:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

User:WarKosign I think further discussion is a unfruitful , the user was given numerous examples and explained why the movement is a Anti-Semitic.I don't think any further examples will persuade him. --Shrike (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Shrike, I am not asking to be persuaded, my opinion is irrelevant. The purpose of this section was not to explain to me why some people claim that the movement is antisemitic, I understand that perfectly well. Much of the article deals with that. The question I posed here, one that nobody seems to be able to address, is whether there are instances of explicit antisemitism by BDS. Not attacks against Israel that some people interpret as antisemitic. Not antisemitic attacks by critics of Israel who are not connected to BDS. Simply, instances of explicit antisemitism by BDS. I am not trying to have an argument. I am not defending or criticising anybody. I am just asking if the accusations of antisemitism are based on any explicit antisemitism, because all the article details (as do the mostly useless links given in this discussion) is expressions of hostility towards Israel, not Jews. It really wouldn't be hard to satisfy my question: all you have to do is give examples of BDS attacking (rhetorically or physically) Jews. Not Israelis, Jews.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Per our policies numerous WP:RS describe the movement as antisemitic nothing more than this is needed per our policy. --Shrike (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

These quotes show that many BDS activists support a one-sate rather than a two-state solution to the conflict. But not even one of them is antisemitic, ie directed against Jews as Jews. Unless, of course, you accept the initial proposition that anti-Zionism is equivalent to antisemitism, which is precisely the issue that is under discussion here. These quotes do not prove that proposition, and advancing them as proof is an example of circular reasoning. RolandR (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

That's right. WarKosign, not a single quote in the link you gave is directed against the Jews.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Many of these quotes deny that Jews exist as people (or have the right to exist), deny that Jews were oppressed in the Arab states and call for destruction (often violent) of the only Jewish state. The fact that these quote often deal with Jews (rather then, say, Israelis or Zionists) is a sure sign of antisemitism. Looks like you need to check what is and what isn't antisemitism. “WarKosign” 21:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Whether "Jews are a people" has been debated even among Jews for over a century so having a position one way or another is not antisemitism in itself. I am not looking for "signs" of antisemitism, I'm looking for actual antisemitism. You keep insisting on interpreting things but this interpretation is your opinion, it is not a fact.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stop wasting time. No point bringing evidence if you're going to dismiss it anyway. Looks like you won't be satisfied by anything short of BDS leaders explicitly describing the organisation as antisemitic. “WarKosign” 10:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is unlikely the organization is going to issue a statement saying that their purpose is to oppose Jews. Bus stop (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

They have made countless statements saying that their purpose is not to oppose Jews, yes, I agree. My impression has been that their designation as antisemitic is based solely on their critics' interpretation of their hostility towards Israel as antisemitic, and I was trying to discern whether there are any explicit indications of antisemitism. The purpose of this was to improve the article, not to argue. So far this has not proven fruitful.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, Exjerusalemite. I think there is good reason to suppose the BDS movement is antisemitic: "The Boycott, Divest and Sanctions campaign against Israel has been categorized as anti-Semitic by the Berlin State Office for the Protection of the Constitution." Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Shrike, thanks for presenting the view of those who believe that BDS's hostility towards Israel should be regarded as antisemitism. Now, again, are there any examples of actual antisemitism? Not examples of other things that some people regard as antisemitism, but simply instances of plain, unambiguous antisemitism. Anything?--Exjerusalemite (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Exjerusalemite—I think that "plain, unambiguous antisemitism" would be a very rare thing. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, except when dealing with antisemites, where plain, unambiguous antisemitism is quite common.--104.218.140.34 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

In no particular order:

• Example #1: The organizers of the week long Rototom Sunsplash music festival held in Spain in 2015, cancelled the scheduled appearance of Jewish American rapper Matisyahu after he refused to sign a statement supporting a Palestinian state. Matisyahu stated that it was "appalling and offensive" that he was singled out as the "one publicly Jewish-American artist".

BDS's statement makes it clear that the reason he was singled out is his continued support for Israel, its military and the settlers, not the fact that he is Jewish. It is you who is assuming that the reason he was targeted was his Jewishness. Did all Jewish participants in the festival required to sign such statements?--Exjerusalemite (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Example #2: The Australian attributes BDS supporters with antisemitic activity including the publication of material on the Internet that denies the Holocaust and promotes attacks against "Jews and Jew lovers."

Comments on a BDS Facebook page. Was unable to find the comments, who wrote them, or even a screenshot of the comments. Apparently, some Islamophobic comments were also added so I suppose BDS is also Islamophobic.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Example #3: BDS efforts have, at times, targeted Jewish individuals who have little or nothing to do with the Arab–Israeli conflict. --GHcool (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Can't access the article, only managed to get to the part discussing the Matisyahu incident in Spain. Any other incidents? Thanks.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving the goalpost. --GHcool (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Same goalpost. Looking for targeting of Jews as Jews by BDS. Matisyahu was not targeted because he was Jewish but because his ardent support for Israel and her military. Comments on a Facebook page by unknown individuals are not representative of an organization that owns the page. I don't know what other antisemitic incidents were in that last article because I don't have access to it, so if you do, please illuminate us.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

We going to WP:FORUM territory. Please stop it. --Shrike (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, at least I got one incident out of it (the 2013 South Africa one). Not sure whether worth mentioning in the article. I'll keep looking.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"All Arab lands"

The Goals of the campaign section starts with "Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands". What is the definition of "all Arab lands"? Are Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa and Eilat part of the "Arab lands"? If not, why not? According to BDS founder Omar Barghouti, all of Israel must be dismantled. Why is this not mentioned anywhere in the article? Is it not relevant information? I would think the (main) goal of the campaign should be mentioned at least somewhere, preferably in the lede.

VwM.Mwv (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Here is your source and it doesn't mention any of that--SharabSalam (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph removed from the financial ties section

A paragraph was inappropriately removed from the Financial Ties section. The reason given appears to have more to do with partisanship than with any Wikipedia policy regarding sources, etc. The news is buzzing about this report and its relationship with BDS (for example, here and here and here). I intend to restore it within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You do that, when you can cite reliable sources, not opinion columns and whisper campaigns. Which should be never. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Two out of three of the links above are not opinion columns. I'm sure I can find more (for example, here). Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

These sources appear to be discussing the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry's February report. That report is still discussed in the article. The paragraph that was removed discussed an earlier report from Tablet magazine which does not appear to have gained much coverage elsewhere. Nblund ^talk 04:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. Carry on, gentlemen. --GHcool (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope - these predate the ministry report (which if at all copied the 2018 press). We have RSes discussing direct ties between BDS orgs and terrorrist organizations - and per DUE this should clearly be in.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

By "this" do you mean the ISAM report or do you mean the report from Tablet? The Israeli report is included already. Nblund ^talk 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Tablet 2018 and secondary reporting on the Tablet report by other RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

What are those other sources? The three cited here all come from earlier earlier this month. This article from the Times of Israel is all I can find that directly discusses the Tablet story. It sort of seems redundant to cite this accusation given the more substantial and widely covered accusations in the ISAM report. Nblund ^talk 18:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this: I'm not sure what changed, but I still don't really see why we need to add an even more sensationalized retelling of the same information to the article. Haaretz says these most recent reports are "very similar to earlier publications by the right-wing group NGO Monitor" repackaged for the purposes of "waging a Hasbara campaign". I don't often read the Israeli press, but that sounds to me like a reliable (if editorially slanted) source is more or less calling this a PR campaign. The AP's coverage also seems to be fairly skeptical - noting that most of the cases are based on "vague accusations of affiliation or expressions of sympathy for militant groups". That skepticism doesn't appear to be reflected in this section. As it stands, "financial ties" section appears to consist almost entirely of slight variations on this same contested accusation - which strikes me as patently non-neutral. Maybe this stuff should be moved to the reactions section? Nblund ^talk 20:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"Impact of BDS"

The first source I looked at for the claim that "reports from both in and outside of Israel indicated that the movement had made very little impact on the Israeli economy, and suggested that it was unlikely to for the foreseeable future."

[77] is an article that lists no stats, claims that the primary goal of BDS is in fact 'hatred of Jews', and the quotes cited for the article are from people who have a vested interest in making it appear that the boycott is having no effect.... and I'm looking at all the other sources, not one is from outside of Israel, despite the quote claiming there are some, which is misleading.

Looking at the next reference: [78] is also written by people with a conflict of interest, and includes quotes from the Israeli government as primary 'proof', when they have a conflict of interest to make it appear that they're doing well.

[79] is also all fluff...

[80] is awful... it's like the commercials from Star Ship troopers.

Also the premise of this paragraph is misleading. The point of BDS isn't 'to harm Israel's economy' That's not the point of the boycott, so saying that it hasn't been harmed is changing the subject. The point is to 'frustrate Jewish development in Palestine', not in Israel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7a6c:4500:38f8:416:b105:5466 (talk • contribs)

I've pared this section back in pieces to allow easier reverts of my changes. Some of the sources do seem iffy and it did appear that, taken together, Wikipedia was trying to argue a point. O3000 (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Some of your edits had merit. I made corrections where they were necessary. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Although, I think comments on the significance of Israel's GDP by a philosophy and history major is a stretch for an encyclopedia article. Economists have enough difficulty discerning such effects.O3000 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Equal weight

Wikipedia talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM for general discussions about the article topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lead should give equal weight to the critics who call BDS an anti-Semetic targeting of Jews by Islamic terrorist groups.American Zionist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC) no thanks. nableezy - 18:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC) What specifically do you want to change? The lead already cites critics (including former ADL head Abe Foxman) who say that BDS is anti-Semitic or that it relies on anti-Semitic rhetoric. Nblund talk 19:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Put the criticism of BDS and the targeting of Jews in the first paragraph. The comparison to the Nazis is more comparable than the South African one.American Zionist (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Comparisons to Nazi’s is always problematic, and certainly shouldn’t be moved higher up. The ordering seems correct: description, proponents, opponents. O3000 (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC) The lead of this article is similar to the leads for other organizations like the NRA, Black Lives Matter, and the ADL: we start by laying out undisputed facts about what the organization is and what it does, then we talk about their self-description and their motivations, and then we discuss criticisms and controversies toward the end. Readers need basic facts first, the criticisms don't make sense unless readers have some basic context. Personal views about which analogy is more apt aren't really relevant here. Nblund talk 19:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia describes rightly the KKK as a white supremacist group, BDS is just as vile so it is proper that should be the lead.American Zionist (talk) First Islamic terrorist groups, then Nazi's and now the KKK. This is not useful. O3000 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC) <blp violation redacted> Please do not remove this edit. This edit is properly sourced in the main article as well, and should remain. If you don't like it, then don't fund terrorism. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC) User:Sir Joseph, hmmm, where is the proof that Omar Barghoti "support terrorism"? Huldra (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC) See here, [7] Sir Joseph (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC) A propaganda piece by an Israeli Ministry is exactly 0 proof. Ask yourself, would Israel let Omar Barghoti walk around as a free man if there was any proof against him? Any at all?? Of course not, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Also, the only thing that propaganda piece says about Omar Barghoti, is that it quotes him saying: “No Palestinian will ever accept a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.” Now, you might disagree with that, but that is an opinion, and an voicing an opinion does not mean that you are a "terrorist supporter". Please retract your words about Omar Barghoti, or risk being report you for a BLP violation, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Barghouti is a senior official in BNC, and the BNC has ties to PFLP and Hamas. That you consider the report propaganda is irrelevant, they lay out the facts and ties. I read the report, and if the only way to get your point across is by having ties to terror organizations, then perhaps it's time to rethink your ideology. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC) You stated that "Omar Barghoti's support of terrorism is not in dispute". That is an extremely serious allegation, an allegation which you have given exactly 0 proof of. Your only answer is to link to an Israeli Ministry report, and even that does NOT say that Omar Barghoti supports terrorism. Your "Guilt by association" does not work, you should know that. Again, please withdraw your accusation against Omar Barghoti, Huldra (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC) [8] Here's a chapter of a book where he glorifies terrorism. Here is another statement of his, [9], if you want, here is a collection of his statements that glorifies violence and terrorism, [10] Sir Joseph (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC) The two first links does not work for me, and the last, canarymission, is an anon smear site, Huldra (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC) they have links to all his statements of his supporting terrorism and violence going back years. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC) The problem for you is that what he says (like “we believe that people under occupation, in international law, have a right to resist by any means, including violent means,") is exactly what international law says...That does not make him "supporting terrorism". Any people has the right to oppose occupation. (Btw, by your standard, my beloved late father was a terrorist, from 1940 to 45 (the authorities that ruled our land in that period thought so too)), Huldra (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC) "as long as we attack legitimate targets, that is, the occupation, settlers [i.e., Israeli civilians] and people who are armed."Sir Joseph (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC) And shouldn't armed settlers be legitimate targets? Huldra (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC) firstly, he didn't say armed settlers, he said settlers. Secondly, being armed is not an excuse for violence, there are 300 million guns in the USA does that mean I can preemptively kill someone with a gun? Why would an armed person be a legitimate target just for being armed? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Being an armed American in the US is different from being an armed American in, say, Iraq, wouldn't you say? I would look upon any armed American in my country (who wasn't there by invitation of an legitimate government) as an legitimate target... Huldra (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC) @Sir Joseph: said: Please do not remove this edit. This edit is properly sourced in the main article as well, and should remain. If you don't like it, then don't fund terrorism. I removed the post because it was from a self-admitted blocked sock. And please, why are you claiming that I fund terrorism? That’s probably the worst WP:PA I have received in my 11+ years here. O3000 (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@GHcool:, note the following:

1. The official BDS website states that it is a Palestinian-led movement. https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds
2. The statement "acknowledging that some people involved in the BDS campaign may be motivated by antisemitic sentiment", is the view of the author of the book and not the BDS campaign.

Kindly undo your edits. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Feel free to find a reliable source that verifies the claim that BDS is a Palestinian-led movement. We do not use self-published sources.
2. If you don't like the views of an author, I suggest that you not cite them. If you do cite them, Wikipedia guidelines insist upon presenting their views accurately. --GHcool (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

1. This is false. A movement's own statements are considered reliable in its own page. From your link: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (emphasis in original). Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
2. You cited an author's view. I cited an official statement and response from the BDS to the antisemitism libel. In fact, what I cited earlier is word for word stated on their website in link provided earlier: "an inclusive, anti-racist human rights movement that is opposed on principle to all forms of discrimination, including antisemitism and Islamophobia".

Again, I'm asking that you revert your edits. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Stmts by the BDS website are reliable only as to the BDS website having posting them. We follow published RSes, and there is no lack of such sources - there is no need here to use non-indepentent sources (BDS website or people involved with the BDS). An "official statement" on their website is also UNDUE if not picked up by RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Palestinian-led" is posted on their website. The rest of what you say about the use of "non-indepentent sources" is quite false and cannot be taken seriously. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Their website is enough to write "BDS describes itself as ...", not to repeat something they claim as a fact. “WarKosign” 14:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to appropriately quote parts of the book that you like. Just be aware that I might feel it necessary to quote the parts I like too. --GHcool (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, when you (1) attribute the views to their author rather than the campaign like you did, and (2) accurately reproduce the views themselves (because your last attempt was quite dishonest), and (3) give them their due weight by placing them in the body of the article, and not the lede section. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all three points (except, of course, the dishonesty part). Hopefully you do too. --GHcool (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added three reliable sources (The Guardian, The Independent and The Times of Israel) which describe BDS as Palestinian-led. The ToI ascribes this description to the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry. And there are very many more such sources, they weren't hard to find. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Germany

I reverted the edits by Attack Ramon as they were repetitive (three additions all basically saying the same thing with the same cite) and WP:NPOV problems as they didn't mention that Israeli academics criticized the motion. Nblund fixed one of the additions. The other two should be removed. O3000 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

what repetition do you see in the current version? Attack Ramon (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Nblund fixed it. O3000 (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

A letter of criticism sent to a newspaper by private individuals who work as academics in Israel does not belong to the section about government responses - it's not a government reaction; it may or may not be notable, but it has no relation to the governments. It could fit in another part of the article though in relation to private support of BDS - for now I've moved it to the "Political support section".Avaya1 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I can see a case for putting the Israeli gov. response to BDS in the lead, by would a symbolic vote in Germany warrant the same level of significance? It seems odd to say that we would only add criticism of the resolution in an entirely different section, and the other articles all include some mentions of criticism even if they don't include this exact one. I don't have a strong feeling on which one gets included, but it seems pretty plainly non-neutral to leave all of it out. Nblund ^talk 00:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A statement by the German parliament is surely highly notable, as a statement by the legislative body of a country, and it is the most notable governmental statement about the subject of the article so far. However, we could do a request for comment about having it in the lede or not?Avaya1 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need an RfC if your only justification is a bare assertion of notability. The section on reactions from other governments shows a bunch of responses. Why are they less notable? And why wouldn't we just integrate the criticism of the resolution in to the section mentioning the resolution? In this edit, we're having to explain the resolution a third time just so we can mention the Israeli academic letter. This is just poor writing. There's no reason that we can't mention a government statement and its response in the same section. Nblund ^talk 00:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't imagine why we would include this up top. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think Avaya1 tried to help those with limited imaginations: it would go in the lead as a statement by the legislative body of a country, which is the most notable governmental statement about the subject of the article so far. Attack Ramon (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. The U.S. Congress votes almost every week to rename post offices. They, too, are "statements by the legislative body of a country" but hardly "the most notable governmental statements". The U.S. Congress also periodically passes sense of the House or Senate resolutions on various subjects. This nonbinding statement by the German parliament is equivalent to such a resolution. The article should certainly not be saying that the German government designated or declared BDS an antisemitic movement, because it hasn't. Maybe some editors need to learn more about what a nonbinding resolution is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

And if we have any articles about such US Post offices, thise US congress motions renaming them would belong on those articles, as well. Here on wikipedia, when reliable sources like the BBC say "Germany labels Israel boycott movement BDS anti-Semitic", we follow what they say. Attack Ramon (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't get mad with me. I'm not the editor who said that a nonbinding resolution was "the most notable governmental statement". That was you. The truth is, it's a meaningless piece of paper, it carries no force, cannot be cited for any purpose, and doesn't represent the views of the German government (the Chancellor would have ti issue that), so we shouldn't treat it like it's something it's not. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You're mistaking disagreement for anger. You're entitled to your opinion that this is meaningless, but around here, we assign notability not by personal opinion, but according to coverage in reliable sources, of which there is plenty. You might also want to read this to improve your understanding of what "government" is - you seem to be under the impression that it is synonymous with the executive branch..Attack Ramon (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

There may be one, but I've never heard of a government in which the legislative branch sets foreign policy. That's typically the exclusive domain of the executive. And you still don't seem to understand what nonbinding resolutions are, or how unimportant they are. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Declaring a group to be antisemitic is not foreign policy, unless BDS has become a state actor while no one was looking. Again, while you are entitled to the opinion that parliamentary resolutions are not important, on Wikipedia we determine notability by coverage in reliable sources, not the personal opinions of Mr. Shabazz. Attack Ramon (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to keep bloviating. The New York Times keeps referring to the resolution as "non-binding". But you're right. It's "the most notable governmental statement". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Non-binding does not mean not notable or unimportant. Again, on Wikipedia we determine notability by coverage in reliable sources, not the personal opinions of Mr. Shabazz. There is plenty of significant coverage of this in reliable sources, so it belongs in the article. Attack Ramon (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that you will find making personal attacks is a poor method of gaining consensus. O3000 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it's more notable than all other critics of BDS combined. Or at least that's the impression one would get from the fact that Germany's non-binding resolution is mentioned before the sentence "Critics have also argued that the BDS movement is antisemitic" in the opening paragraph. We don't actually determine notability according to who can say "it's notable" the most. Nblund ^talk 01:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course. We determine notability according to coverage by reliable sources. For this one, we have, less than a day after the event - [11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16] - and that's just the first page of the Google results. So yeah, it's probably fair to say it's more notable than all other critics of BDS combined. Attack Ramon (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

So you see nothing odd with the fact that the structuring a paragraph so that we say "BDS is designated as an antisemitic movement by the governments of Israel and Germany" in the first sentence of a paragraph, and then "Critics have also argued that the BDS movement is antisemitic" in the last sentence? Nblund ^talk 01:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not wedded to the particular wording currently in the article. I would be fine with something along the lines of "BDS is designated as an antisemitic movement by the governments of Israel and Germany,[9][10] the German Bundestag declaring in 2019 that the movement is "reminiscent of the most terrible chapter in Germany history".[11] Critics of BDS reject its charge that Israel is an apartheid state, asserting that in Israel (outside of the West Bank) "Jews and Arabs mix freely and increasingly live in the same neighborhoods...there is no imposed segregation."[12] Critics have also argued that the BDS movement's call for a boycott of Jewish Businesses is analogous to to the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses[17][18][19] and accuse it of promoting the delegitimization of Israel.[20][21]". I am open to hear your suggestions, as well. Attack Ramon (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly the same wording already in the article? I'm suggesting that it should be removed entirely. But you could at least make a defensible version by moving the first sentence to the end of the paragraph and saying that it was a May 2019 non-binding resolution, and adding a brief mention of BDS's response. Nblund ^talk 02:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not the same - I removed the repeated mention that critics accuse it of antisemitism from the end of the paragraph. As the most notable criticism to date (witness the extensive coverage I referenced above), I would not support removing it entirely, as that would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Attack Ramon (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so you removed the last sentence, but you still include "Critics have also argued that the BDS movement's call for a boycott of Jewish Businesses is analogous to to the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses and accuse it of promoting the delegitimization of Israel." This is exactly what the German resolution says. Why are we putting a specific example of a criticism before a general statement about criticisms?

It's not a "gross violation of NPOV". Lots of stuff gets left out of the lead. Here's ten stories on Madonna's decision to reject calls to boycott Eurovision. WaPo, Reuters, AP News, BBC, CNN, Haaretz, Jpost, AFP, The Independent, Yahoo News. I think you would be hard-pressed to add more than a sentence about this to the main body of the article, it would be silly to say that it's a "gross violation" of NPOV to keep it out of the lead just because it has a few mentions.Nblund ^talk 02:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The German resolution is the general criticism ("BDS is anti semitic"), while the sentence at the end is specific examples- calls for boycotts are reminiscent of Nazi boycotts, etc.., so I think the order is correct. The main body actually has a full paragraph about this so I don't think a one sentence mention in the lead is undue. Coverage has been quite a bit more than "a few mentions" - please don;t make me link to 3 pages' worth of Google links to major outlets like the BBC, the New York times and Reuters, from this day alone. . Attack Ramon (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You think that a sentence about a German government resolution is the overall subject of the paragraph about criticisms of BDS? That might make sense if the subsequent sentences were also about the resolution, but they aren't.This is poor writing. "Madonna Eurovision" turns up 4 pages of hits in google news, many from those same top sources. And we have an entire section on government level responses to BDS. We don't include a sentence for every paragraph in the lead. Nblund ^talk 03:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No you misunderstood. I think a sentence about the German parliament resolution is a good summary of the paragraph about the same solution included later in the body. And I think a motion by that parliament is the strongest, most notable criticism of BDS, to date, so it belongs in the lead. And I certainly think that Madonna's actions deserve mention in the "Opposition by artists" section. I will add that. Attack Ramon (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I dont see why a non-binding parliamentary motion would be included in the article much less the lead. I am removing it per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. nableezy - 03:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

And to that end I restored the original lead. nableezy - 03:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the responses from the Jewish and Israeli academics back to the Germany section. I'm open to being convinced here, but I don't see a compelling case for segregating mentions of a government action from criticisms of those actions. Nblund ^talk 16:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate revert

This edit was inappropriate. The reason given for it was a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. I plan to restore the properly cited information within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, MEMRI is not a reliable source and as such it should not be cited for its "studies". nableezy - 19:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

GHcool: if you just restore it without any explanation, it will probably just get reverted again. It's clearly WP:PRIMARY, and it's not clear to me whether or not your edit accurately characterized the study: The study covers "posts by members of the Facebook groups" [emphasis added] who espoused neo-Nazi sentiments. They don't say that these are "the most prominent" pro-BDS groups, and they aren't just looking at posts from the groups themselves. They don't even analyze the official BDS facebook page. Reliable secondary sources would probably be able to give us some guidance regarding how seriously we should take these claims, but I haven't found any. Have you? Nblund ^talk 23:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I found this one in Mosaic (magazine). --GHcool (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a blurb from a content aggregator that added 3 sentences of summary to a lengthy quote from the primary source, I don't think this is an analysis from a reliable source. The author also describes this as a study of "regular and frequent contributors" to "anti-Israel facebook groups", which really isn't the same as saying that "prominent BDS groups" are hosting a bunch of neo-Nazi content. Nblund ^talk 00:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see your point and accept it. --GHcool (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Another inappropriate revert

This edit was inappropriate. The reason for the revert suggests that the editor who reverted did not listen to the podcast cited. I'm happy to add more context if that is deemed appropriate, but simply removing material cited to a reliable source in a huff doesn't seem like the most productive way to make Wikipedia a better place. I plan to restore the properly cited information within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you would need to provide quotations or time stamps. The summary explains that Kontorovich was involved in drafting some of the state level legislation, so he's probably a biased source. It might be reasonable to cite him with in text attribution, but we probably would also need to cite a counterargument from opponents of those laws. The ACLU has disputed the claim that these laws are similar to anti-discrimination laws. Nblund ^talk 16:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It isnt reasonable to cite him, he has no expertise on this topic. He is an expert in maritime law, and he is not an established expert on BDS or American laws related to it, so including his self-published views is not acceptable here. Besides that, as Malik noted, he is just wrong. The laws in question govern what individuals do, not just companies that a state contracts with. nableezy - 17:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Time stamps and quotes provided here:

• "26 American states [at the time of the recording] have executive orders or laws that govern the regulations of states contracting with private companies. Anyone is free to criticize or even boycott Israel, but if a company does choose to boycott Israel then this law [the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019] makes clear that the discriminating company is not entitled to contract with the state government." (00:00:53-00:01:16)

• "[T]hese laws are ... based on existing precedents. States have other laws that provide that the state will not contract with people who engage in forms of what the state considers discriminatory conduct .... [A]bout the same number of states have laws or executive orders that say you can boycott gays. No one's going to make you hire gays if you have an ideological opposition to homosexuality. You can refuse to do business with LGBT people, but the state considers this to be a form of discrimination, and thus, [the state doesn't] want to subsidize your discriminatory conduct with with our taxpayer dollars. You are free to ... engage in this discrimination, but you are not free to get government contracts while you do it." (00:05:09-00:05:57)

1. The claim that Kontorovich is a biased source because he was involved in drafting some of the legislation cannot be taken seriously. Surely Nblund would not say, for example, that the National Council on Disability is a biased source on the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because it was involved in drafting the legislation. In fact, someone who was involved in drafting the legislation is an even more valuable source to Wikipedia so that the law's purpose can be evaluated. Indeed, people like me who disagree with the legislation should want the best argument on the opposing side available so that their disagreement is more informed, not less.
2. I'm happy to cite both Kontorovich with in text attribution and a critic of the law with a good counter argument from a reliable source with in text attribution. The ACLU is a perfectly acceptable example of such a critique (and one that I personally find more compelling than Kontorovich's argument). However, I'd suggest it be cited to a better source than a post on the ACLU's blog. Perhaps this letter would suffice. --GHcool (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely would say that the NCD is a biased source for contested claims about the enactment of the ADA. "Biased" doesn't mean useless or unusable, it just means that we should take some extra precautions to avoid giving undue weight to one side of a debate. It's implausible to think that Kontorovich is just a wholly disinterested legal analyst when he's considered a primary advocate of the laws. Putting his arguments in Wikipedia's voice (without in-text attribution) would effectively be taking sides on a hotly contested legal dispute.

I don't have a strong preference regarding the sourcing other than to say that, ideally, we should try to find secondary sources for both sides of this issue, and we should try to avoid being overly detailed. Nblund ^talk 18:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Unless there is some evidence that Kontorovich has been academically published on this topic he should not be cited. The ACLU? The ADL? And some random lawyer who decided to become a settler? One of these things is not like the other. Kontorovich can be cited on the topics of universal jurisdiction and maritime law. Because that is where he has recognized expertise in. On BDS? He is one of any number of people who have strongly held views and no recognized expertise on the topic. WP:RS does not allow for any random person who supports ones position to be cited. nableezy - 21:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As has already been stated, and agreed to by Nblund, Kontorovich is not just a random person. He is someone who, in Nblund's words, "was involved in drafting some of the state level legislation." --GHcool (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, but that does not make him a reliable source. Still a random person with strongly held views and no recognized expertise. nableezy - 21:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but your reasoning is unconvincing. --GHcool (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

My reasoning is WP:RS. Nothing in there allows for an individual that has no academic expertise on a topic speaking on a podcast to be cited as a source. nableezy - 22:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Kontorovich is quite incapable of producing any work that would in any way impinge negatively on Israel.For example his effort last year, briefing congress on the legitimacy of Israeli claims to the Golan. He makes no attempt to hide his bias. I would certainly object on POV grounds to citing him for anything even tangentially related to Israel unless made clear that is just his opinion and nothing more.Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Kontorovich may or may not have helped draft some of the state laws, but he's either lying or dissembling when he describes them. The existing precedents to which anti-"boycott" laws are similar were all overturned in the U.S. half a century ago or more because they were unconstitutional. All states and, of course, the federal government have civil rights laws that require public accommodations to provide equal access to all members of the public and not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion, and—in some locations or in some situations—marital status, pregnancy status, sexual orientation, veteran status, national origin, etc. But there is no state or federal law that requires a teacher to sign a statement that she will not discriminate against protected classes of students. Violators of civil rights laws are sued by their victims. The anti-"boycott" laws, on the other hand, require signed statements that state employees and contractors will not participate in or, depending on the state, support a boycott of Israel. Nobody is sued for the boycott. They lose their job (or are not hired) for refusing to sign. The Supreme Court ruled that these sorts of loyalty oaths were unconstitutional in the 1960s when state universities tried to make professors sign that they were not communists. The U.S. Constitution hasn't changed in the past 50 years, and there's no reason to think that anti-"boycott" laws won't continue to be thrown out as they're implemented and challenged. Quoting somebody who says that the laws are similar to something to which they obviously bear no resemblance is insulting to both the truth and to the intelligence of our readers. If you must include such rot, attribute it to the idiots who are spouting it. You cannot state obvious untruths in Wikipedia's voice as if they were true. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we can't make this statement in Wikipedia's voice, and I don't see any particular reason to cite Kontorovich specifically, since there are plenty of others making more or less the same argument. That said, I do think it's useful to mention that supporters have offered this analogy as a legal justification, and also explain why opponents dismiss it. I've tried to add something to that effect here. Nblund ^talk 20:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I support this edit. Thanks Nblund. --GHcool (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)