Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/Archive 6

More than one occasion
This edit was made in error. I'll quote the study for which the original claim ("BDS efforts have, at times, targeted Jewish individuals who have little or nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict") is cited: "'We contend that the BDS movement, born of an ideology hostile to Judaism and Jewish nationalism and still immersed in that ideology rather than the language of peace, is not, as its proponents assert, a focused campaign aimed to change Israeli policies. Instead, it is a movement that often lacks integrity and quite often traffics in anti-Semitism. We have demonstrated that these anti-Semitic underpinnings are exhibited in the cultural, academic, and commercial spheres.  In all three cases, persons who happen to be Jewish are blamed for the supposed sins of other Jews.' (emphasis added, see the 6th page of the PDF which is labeled pg. 275 in the original published issue of Geographical Review)" I intend to change the edit back to the original within the next couple of day and perhaps add the relevant quotation in the footnote. --GHcool (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * GHcool has accurately quoted the conclusion of this article. However, this conclusion does not accurately summarise the article itself. The article examines in some detail boycott campaigns against Matisyahu, Caterpillar, and SodaStream, and by the American Studies Association; the only one of these where it is claimed that a Jewish individual was targeted is the Matisyahu incident. We have a problem here where the concluding page of a cited source does not accurately reflect the contents of the source (which can be read by anyone with access to the Gale database). I request that others read the article and comment here before GH Cool reverts my edit. If necessary, we should take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I nearly adopted the same misconception as RolandR, but when one reads the article closely, one notes that the article explicitly references two individual Jews and implicitly references more who were "blamed for the supposed sins of other Jews." They are:
 * Matisyahu, on this, RolandR and I agree (pg. 271)
 * The bulldozer operator in the Rachel Corrie incident (pg. 274)
 * Sodastream, which is called "a Jewish company" (pg. 274). I believe that this phrase means that the company's CEO and other prominent shareholders are individual Jews (not simply "Israelis").  If RolandR contests this interpretation, I ask him to honestly consider whether SodaStream would have been targeted if its CEO and prominent shareholders were Muslim or Christian citizens of the State of Israel.
 * I stipulate that the article is unclear exactly which individual Jews are being targeted in the academic boycotts, but assume that the authors would assume that institutions like Hebrew University is "Jewish" in the same way that SodaStream is. --GHcool (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The original edit which I removed stated "BDS efforts have, at times, targeted Jewish individuals who have little or nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict". Neither Caterpillar, SodaStream nor the Hebrew University can be described as "individual Jews". In the Caterpillar case, the article does not claim that the individual bulldozer driver was targeted, but that "the BDS movement blames all Israeli Jews for the supposed criminal action of one Israeli Jew". Even if we accept the dubious premise that a boycott of a US company is an attack on "all Israeli Jews", it surely cannot be argued that Israeli Jews "have little or nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict". And in the article cited, SodaStream is not described as a Jewish company, but as an Israeli company. GHcool, please reread it and confirm that your recollection is mistaken.
 * I repeat, the summary at the end of the article cited does not accurately reflect the contents of the article, and it is therefore to cite this in support of a contentious assertion. GHcool's original reading of the article, which agrees with my own reading, is correct, and her/his subsequent rereading seems to be erroneous. RolandR (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Correction: SodaStream is described both as an Israeli company and as a Jewish company. However, it is the authors of the article who make this equation, not the BDS activists. This confirms the authors' own bias, and cannot be used to ascribe motivations to the boycotters. RolandR (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I maintain the position I outlined above. I take exception to the claim that Israeli Jews, as a class, are somehow responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict.  It reminds me of those who blame Muslims, as a class, for Islamist terrorism.  It is a sloppy, hasty generalization that blames kindergarten children and military generals in equal measure.
 * Shall we take this to the reliable sources noticeboard, as you suggested? --GHcool (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand that you object to the suggestion that all Israeli Jews should be held responsible for the actions of Israel. But it should be noted that this suggestion comes from the interpretation by the authors of the cited article, not from BDS activists themselves. But in any case, this is beside the point: the text I amended in the article specifically stated that "Jewish individuals who have little or nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict" are being targeted; this can hardly be intended as a reference to Israeli Jews. The only instance cited in the article (and I would challenge the interpretation of this) is that of Matisyahu.


 * If no-one else comments here in the next day or so, I believe we should seek guidance from the reliable sources noticeboard. The guidance I would seek is "If the summary in an article inaccurately describes the argument in the article, can this summary be regarded as reliable and cited in Wikipedia". Would you regard that as an appropriate question, or do you still maintain that the summary accurately describes the article? RolandR (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would phrase the question this way: "If the summary in an article imprecisely describes the argument in the article, can this summary be regarded as reliable and cited in Wikipedia?" --GHcool (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I too think we can take this to a noticeboard now, and would ask to receive notification on my talkpage when this happens. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. --GHcool (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours after posting this on the reliable sources noticeboard, and before a clear consensus had developed, GHcool took the semi-agreement of one editor as a licence to reintroduce a modified version of the original contentious edit. Rather than revert this, I added a note in the reference to the misleading nature of this summary. Debresserthen summarily reverted my edit, without even bothering to explain or discuss his action. Given the discussion above, this means that Debresser has knowingly and intentionally left a misleading statement in the article and deliberately removed a note pointing clarifying this. While not apparently a breach of any hard-and-fast rules, this edit by Debresser is certainly against the spirit of Wikipedia, and I urge him to self-revert and to engage in a proper discussion of the merits of these edits. RolandR (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Whine, whine. The statement is not misleading at all. You are the one contesting it, but unless you can show a consensus against it, sourced information can be represented in the article without including your personal objections to it. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please also refrain from accusing editors of having a POV. You yourself are far from able to wash your hands yourself in this regards, begin a rather vicious adherent of certain POVs yourself, as I have had chance to notice in the past. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The way it is worded now is perfectly acceptable to all, including to those on the RS Noticeboard. Thanks.  --GHcool (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry; nothing is lost by waiting a few days for discussion here and on RSN. As for Debresser's point, the responsibility to obtain consensus is on the person wishing to include the content, not the one contesting it. See WP:ONUS. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When the information is reliably sourced, there has to be a good reason not to have it. The consensus at the moment is that such reasons do not exist. Debresser (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The reasons have been given; you just don't agree with them. That's fine: you can hold whatever opinion you want; but you're not the only person who counts. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. Again, read WP:ONUS. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The contested edit states "According to Ira M. Sheskin of the University of Miami and Ethan Felson of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, BDS efforts have, at times, targeted Jewish individuals who have little or nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict". The source cited states "In all three cases, persons who happen to be Jewish are blamed for the supposed sins of other Jews". Can anyone who supports this edit explain to me who the three "persons  who happen to be Jewish" are, or which "Jewish individuals who have little or nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict" have been targeted? I can only see reference to one such case (the singer Matisyahu), and even here the full story is not quite as Sheskin and Felson report it. At present, our article misrepresents the summary of the source cited, which itself misrepresents the text of the source. RolandR (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. See above.  --GHcool (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it has not been answered. I repeat, who are the individuals referred to? There is evidence offered of just one person. RolandR (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233050211942&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/0da4ba56ade85249852574190058d462%21OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029201415/http://ricwillmot.com/index.php/2012/martin-foley-vic-labor-mp-scared-of-year-12-student/ to http://ricwillmot.com/index.php/2012/martin-foley-vic-labor-mp-scared-of-year-12-student/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202033234/http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/troy/entry/delegitimizing_the_delegitimizers_posted_by to http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/troy/entry/delegitimizing_the_delegitimizers_posted_by
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bdsmovement.net/?q=node%2F52

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarity of Opposition (Artists and Writers) Section
The aforementioned section contains the paragraph "Other artists include John Lydon, Umberto Eco, Joel and Ethan Coen,J. K. Rowling, Hilary Mantel, Helen Mirren, Ziggy Marley, Jon Bon Jovi, Howard Stern, and Ed Asner." For clarity, I suggest it should read "Other artists that oppose the BDS movement include John Lydon, Umberto Eco, Joel and Ethan Coen,J. K. Rowling, Hilary Mantel, Helen Mirren, Ziggy Marley, Jon Bon Jovi, Howard Stern, and Ed Asner."

Also, should the subtitle read "Artists, Actors and Writers" instead? I'm unsure if actresses like Helen Mirren fall under artists. --Fold 1997 (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * DONE. --GHcool (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2017
Kansas recently passed anti-BDS legislation. I propose adding to this section the following (modifications are welcome):

In April 2015, Tennessee became the first state in the United States to pass a resolution condemning BDS. There was one vote against the resolution, which passed the General Assembly with bipartisan support. As of June 2017, a total of 18 states have passed anti-BDS legislation, including California, New York, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. --186.125.80.252 (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Jerusalem Post article you mentioned said that the law only passed the Senate. When it passes the House, we will update the article.  In the meantime, I updated the article to include Nevada's recent legislation (cited to Jewish Virtual Library).  --GHcool (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: per above —MRD2014 talk contribs 02:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Revert by User:WarKosign
I recently changed the text in the lead section from  to. User:WarKosign reverted this, citing WP:EGG.

Does "Israel's colonization" not have an obvious connection to the Israeli settlements?  ~barakokula31  (talk)  07:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Colonization (noun): the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.
 * Saying that Israel's settlements are an act of colonizing an indigenous population is extremely POV-prone. This claim must be made explicitly, supported by sources and balanced by opposing claims. You can't hide such a claim behind a link, since some (most?) of the readers would not guess where the link leads by looking on its label. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That argument makes sense. WarKosign is correct to invoke MOS:EGG here. Mind you, I have no problem with the word "colonizing" in itself, and as soon as it will be sourced, I'd remove the POV tag. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what it says though, that term is used to describe BDS' "stated goals" and in that context. It's already sourced in the article. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The term "colonization" is used on the BDS website, and I have no idea what it could refer to other than the settlements. It should also be noted that the word "colonization" is also used in the section "Goals of the campaign", which directly quotes the website.  ~barakokula31  (talk)  19:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One example of an independent source referring to the settlements as "(Israeli) colonization" is the French newspaper Le Monde. However, the term may just have different implications in French.  ~barakokula31   (talk)  19:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes BDS describes it as "settler colonialism" on their website, so we could actually change "colonization" to "settler colonialism" and keep the piped link. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think BDS is not a reliable source on POV subjects, apart from about itself. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the Le Monde article mentioned above?  ~barakokula31  (talk)  20:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a POV subject, they absolutely are WP:RS for their own "stated goals" - this isn't controversial when there aren't any secondary sources that dispute this, even NGO monitor but we can ask at RS/n, whether BDS is WP:RS for this particular statement the stated goals of the movement: the end of Israel's occupation and ... There is this source also and   — it should link to our article on settler colonialism because that is the language used by WP:RS   Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless the article is about BDS it would be WP:SYNTH Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that I noticed that the text in question is about the organization's stated goals, and applying my own words that they are a RS about themselves, of course I agree with you. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What a load of POV-pushing nonsense. The sentence refers to "Israel's occupation and colonization". In English, that means "Israel's occupation and Israel's colonization". What colonization do you imagine it could refer to, if not the settlement of Israeli citizens in Palestinian territories? Israeli colonization of the moon? If you honestly believe there's a POV problem with the link, take advantage of WP:NPOV/N. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To make it NPOV, the lead should say something like "The stated goal of the movement is to end what it considers Israel's occupation and colonization". It must be clear that occupation and colonization are alleged by BSD itself; not stated in wikipedia voice as an objective fact. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, you restored a reverted edit 24 hours and 14 minutes after it was reverted without discussion, looks like you are gaming the rules. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That rule was repealed. Looks like you're not keeping up with the rules. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 10:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus first rule was repealed. The 1RR rule is still in place. Just reminding everybody. Debresser (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That primary source.In general we should use a secondary source about organisation goals.Shrike (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of things that can be reliably sourced to primary sources as well. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Reactions by France
French Justice declared BDS illegal and the France’s prime minister has criticised boycotts of Israeli products, saying they fuel anti-Semitic sentiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#cite_note-Blatman-174

Can someone update that? Thanks 2A02:A03F:1673:BF00:2969:32DD:F515:DD22 (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I more or less did that. Thanks.  --GHcool (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2017
Maybe something like this should be added to the article. Or maybe not. Should we make a more comprehensive list? What do you think?--186.124.203.57 (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Links to Hamas
I recently edited the page adding the text below. User:Malik_Shabazz removed the edit because he believed "that's Schanzer's opinion, not a government response." In my opinion, Shabazz is incorrect. It is not just the opinion of a former U.S. Treasury antiterrorism official; rather, it is the research conclusions of a non-profit, non-partisan policy institute (from their web page: "The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)3 policy institute focusing on foreign policy and national security"). Moreover, given the controversy over BDS, it is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy to stifle such debate, especially when no contrary set of facts (if such exist) are presented. My proposed edit below:

On April 19, 2016, Jonathan Schanzer, Vice President of Research Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former terrorism finance analyst for the U.S. Treasury, testified before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade regarding alleged links between BDS and Hamas. Before the subcommittee, he stated that "in the case of three organizations that were designated, shut down, or held civilly liable for providing material support to the terrorist organization Hamas, a significant contingent of their former leadership appears to have pivoted to leadership positions within the American BDS campaign." Avisnacks (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It is a notable position that perhaps should appear in the article, but it does not belong under responses by governments, simply because it is not one. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, WarKosign. That was precisely my point. As a former Treasury official, Schanzer has expertise, but his testimony represents his opinion, not the position of the U.S. government. Also, an opinion column in Commentary is a reliable source for its author's opinion, not for facts. See WP:RSOPINION. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * MShabazz and I are usually on opposite sides of Israel-related issues on Wikipedia. I must concede, however, that this time I agree with MShabazz.  --GHcool (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your feedback. Just to summarize the main points:
 * 1. Schanzer is indeed an expert but obviously not a government official so placing his testimony in the section for government responses was misleading.
 * 2. The Commentary citation was an opinion piece. As such it is unreliable for unqualified statements of fact.
 * — Avisnacks (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong abbreviation of party name
"Berlin's Social Democratic Party (SPD) accused BDS of antisemitism in May 2017, although some, such as Reinhard Schramm, the head of the SDP in Ilmenau and the head of the Jewish community of the state of Thuringia, say that the party's commitment to protecting the Jewish state is doubtful."

The Social Democratic Party of Germany is abbreviated to SPD. This has been done correctly for the first occurrence of the abbreviation in this sentence, but not for the second one.. --Marcus Schätzle (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2017
Change "... Israel to comply with what they describe as international law." (first sentence) to "... Israel to comply with international law."

The BDS movement wants Israel to comply with the Geneva convention and international law, and be held accountable for any transgressions against these. They do not want Israel to bend to any subjective interpretation to said conventions and law. 86.150.58.221 (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not take sides. BDS considers Israel to be in violation of the international law, Israel considers itself to be within the law. Current sentence describes the situation correctly without implying that either side is correct. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

By stating BDS is working for Israel to comply to a subjective interpretation of international law - instead of the international law as stated, phrased and ratified without subjective interpretation - Wikipedia (or at least the chosen one that formulated it as such) is most certainly taking sides. Phrasing it as such is a misrepresentation of the reality at hand. A correct description of the situation without implication of either side being correct would be "to comply with international law" seeing as it's international law and the Geneva convention that Israel flagrantly disregards and which is what BDS is trying to hold them accountable for. Not the subjective interpretation, but the laws and convention as stated. The fact that Israel considers itself to be within the law is a moot point. It's about international law and the Geneva convention, not about Israel's interpretation of them.

86.150.58.221 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is about the international law and the Geneva convention, not about BDS's interpretation of them. This is why we do not take their representation as the only correct one. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There's indeed no room for interpretation when it comes to the Geneva convention. Maybe you haven't read up on it, which is fine. Article 33 reads:

“No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”

I am of the opinion that this applies to Israel. Their armies, secret services, drones, rockets, guns, tanks, helicopters and fighter jets can be intimidating to a populace that has rocks. Either way, with a bit of mental gymnastics and knowing which news sources zionists use, I can find a way to formulate sentences that are not untruth and would still say Israel is compliant to this article. So there's room for interpretation here. However, Article 49 reads:

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Can you tell me how this needs even a morsel of subjectivity to apply to Israel, to say they're definitely not complying? Was there nothing in that location before 1948, and after that all of a sudden there was Israel which was occupied by the people that were there first? Balfour declaration, anyone?

And this is just the Geneva convention. International law is not subject to interpretation by Israel. International law is international law. If you want to flip this again and repeat your non-sequitur, please explain what your interpretation is of what BDS wants and I will explain why your interpretation is wrong. You can see where this is going. It's not about interpretation, so the first sentence should not imply anything of the sort. It's bordering on negationism of the present. Were concentration camps described by jews as horrible, or were they horrible? Did approximately 6 million jews die by the hand of a ruthless and hateful regime, or do anti-anti-semites describe it as 6 million?

86.150.58.221 (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You believe that what BDS demands is in perfect alignment with the international law. This is your interpretation, not an objective fact. Wikipedia policy is not to take sides. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

My apologies to User:Jd02022092|jd22292 if I am not following the guidelines properly. Please advise if there are things I should do differently.

As for User:WarKosign, your obtuseness amazes me. If it's not about interpretation, it shouldn't be about interpretation. What BDS demands is in perfect alignment with international law. You refuse to answer my questions or clarify, you just throw one-liners that do not make sense. If it's not about taking sides, the first sentence should be objective. Your implying that Israel is objectively not disregarding any international law or the Geneva convention is as much taking sides as what I am doing, which is the point I am trying to argue. Please explain how Israel is not breaking international law, because I have explained how they are with absolute objectiveness. Incarcerating people without trial or just reason is a flagrant disregard of international policy. Killing children and unarmed civilians is a flagrant disregard of international policy. Stealing homes, repossessing properties without legal justification, setting fire to crops and fields and cutting off power and leaving an entire country in the dark; all going against international law and the Geneva convention. Are you denying that these things happen, or is that just my "description" of what you are doing? Please reply in full and argue all points, because this does not feel like a discussion with a person, this feels like a discussion with a badly written bot. 2A00:23C1:538B:5800:458E:1F3F:2932:BE6C (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "What BDS demands is in perfect alignment with international law" - this is your opinion, not a fact. You are the one being obtuse, you need to accept and respect that some people disagree with you. There are countless sources, including on Wikipedia that explain their position. You do not need to agree with it, only to accept that it exists. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wanted to add to this discussion. I think WarKosign is absolutely correct about this. When a Wikipedia article says something in the "encyclopedia's voice", it should be incontrovertibly true. If there is a reasonable dispute, the opinion -- even if it seems like common sense to you or me -- needs to be attributed. Is Israel violating international law? Many people think so, but some smart people think not. Therefore we can't state it as if it were a fact. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

With respect, I think that you are all missing the point here. Everyone surely agrees that Israel should comply with international law. The disagreement is over whether it actually does comply. The sentence in question ("The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (also known as BDS and the BDS Movement) is a global campaign attempting to increase economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with what they describe as international law") is very clumsy, and also misleading. It is not the BDS movement which believes that certain provisions constitute "international law"; these provisions are an objective, and easily established, fact. We should rephrase this, to state that BDS is campaigning because it believes that Israel does not comply with these provisions; currently, our phrasing implies that BDS is inventing them. RolandR (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I think the second sentence, which is a quote, makes that clear. Maybe the first sentence should end with something along the lines of "pressure on Israel to end what it describes as violations of international law." What do others think? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, as long as it's clear that the violations are one POV and not an objective fact I'm fine. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this is needlessly repetitive and relies on WP:SYNTH when tying the goals of BDS to an unspecified "description" (see below). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150820235650/http://www.rototomsunsplash.com/en/news-release/a-rototom-sunsplash-public-institutional-declaration-regarding-the-cancellation-of-matisyahu/ to http://www.rototomsunsplash.com/en/news-release/a-rototom-sunsplash-public-institutional-declaration-regarding-the-cancellation-of-matisyahu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2017
"the boycott of Jewish products by Palestine"? This edit doesn't make sense. Boycott was against Jews OF Palestine (meaning Jews living in Palestine before Israel became a state), not a boycott by "Palestine" (whatever that means) against Jews. Please someone revert it.--181.1.145.49 (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is your edit. Please provide feedback. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2017
Somebody please add Germany to this section with the following text:

In July 2017 Munich became the first German city to approve anti-BDS legislation on the grounds that the movement is antisemitic and discriminatory.refFirst German city set to pass anti-BDS bill. Jerusalem Post. 1 August 2017./ref

Modifications are welcome. This could sound a little bit WP:Crystal, so perhaps we should wait until the city council approves the bill. Thanks.--181.90.1.81 (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You are correct; typically, approval by a higher order of power is required before we can make this kind of change. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Wording in lead sentence
The phrase "what it describes as violations of international law" in the lead presents doubt disguised as fairness, in my opinion. Replace describe with claim and the dubious tone is clear. The quoted statements from BDS leaders in the lead speak for themselves – it's not for Wikipedia to cast doubt on these claims with vague wording. Nor is it necessary to give equal prominence to Israel's stance in the lead – that would be a case of false balance. I would suggest the statement "political pressure on Israel in support of the Palestinian nationalist cause" as in this edit. It succinctly names the reason for the BDS movement's existence, appropriate for the introductory sentence. Explanation of the actual legal issues should come after. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:CLAIM: "...described... almost always neutral and accurate". "Claim" would indeed imply that BDS is wrong, while omitting "described" would assert in wikipedia voice that BDS's position is correct. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how omitting all mention of international law, as in my proposed wording, amounts to an endorsement of BDS's position. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your proposal does not endorse BDS's position, I was referring to original proposal of dropping "what they describe as". If anything, your proposal implies that BDS is not interested in the international law but only in how it helps the Palestinian cause. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well, but I think that the international law issue is covered pretty well by the quote in the very next sentence: "The BDS campaign calls for 'various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law'." Why do we need a vague paraphrase of this statement preceding it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC) (updated 05:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC))
 * I've swapped the redundant wording for the suggested wording above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm reverting your change. Please produce reliable sources that indicate that a goal—let alone the goal—of the BDS movement is to increase pressure on Israel to support Palestinian nationalism. I don't believe any such sources exist. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My edit did not say, "increase pressure on Israel to support Palestinian nationalism". It said, "[increase] pressure on Israel in support of [Palestinian nationalism]" – referring to the reasoning behind BDS, not to Israel. However, I grant that my wording could have been clearer. I propose replacing the current wording with "place economic and political pressure on Israel in response to perceived violations of the rights of Arab citizens", or something similar, per Tripp (2013). I am open to other suggestions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With this edit, the introductory paragraph again reads: "The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (also known as BDS and the BDS Movement) is a global campaign attempting to increase economic and political pressure on Israel to end what it describes as violations of international law. The BDS campaign calls for "various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law"."


 * I really don't see the need for both references to "international law" in the space of two sentences. The first sentence also looks like WP:SYNTH unless reliable sources explicitly connect the movement's goals with its "description" of international law. As it stands the wording is vague and tends to raise doubts, as I mentioned above. If I'm missing something here, I'd appreciate a pointer to the appropriate sources. Otherwise my proposal still stands. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC) (updated 12:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Instead of standing, your proposal can sit down. Where are the reliable sources connecting BDS to Palestinian nationalism? The lead is supposed to summarize the text of the article, which is supported by multiple sources, not introduce unsourced novel interpretations. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, Rolling Stone has linked BDS with the notion of a "Palestinian state", and the movement's Web page specifically mentions "stateless" Palestinian refugees. However, my most recent suggestion did not mention Palestinian nationalism, but rather "perceived violations of the rights of Arab citizens". That's in the interests of clarity (as I mentioned above), although the article already contains several references to the Palestinian cause, which redirects to Palestinian nationalism —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed the lead sentence to read, "...place economic and political pressure on Israel in response to perceived violations of the rights of Arab citizens". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Democratic Socialists of America endorsement
Mistakenly put it in twice - this has happened and tweets saying so have been retweeted from the official organizational account but not directly from it. Also no news stories yet so I guess we'll have to wait until most likely tomorrow to put it in? Sorry for the impatience, just very eager to get it in. Ab e g92 contribs 21:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky's recent statement
I believe Noam Chomsky's recent statement concerning BDS to the group Artists for Palestine may have been misinterpreted. At minimum, there's a critical element of ambiguity in the statement.

Chomsky's statement reads as follows:


 * "I am opposed to any appearance in Israel that is used for nationalistic or other propaganda purposes to cover up its occupation and denial of Palestinian human rights. I’ve been involved in activities to hold Israel accountable for its international law violations since before the BDS movement took shape. While I have some tactical differences with the BDS movement, I strongly support the actions and continue to participate in them."

It is possible to interpret the last sentence as Chomsky indicating his support for and continued participation in the BDS movement. To my mind, the more likely meaning is that Chomsky strongly supports activities to hold Israel accountable for its international law violations and will continue to participate in the same. (Chomsky has not, to my knowledge, participated in any BDS activities to date. He cannot therefore continue to participate in them. This alone makes me suspect that the first of these two possible readings is inaccurate.)

I do not believe Chomsky's statement indicates a change in his position toward the BDS movement. By extension, I do not agree with the decision to remove references to Chomsky's viewpoint concerning BDS on the argument that he has vacillated in his position (although the recently removed text could probably be trimmed, if it is reinstated).

Comments are welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The text abusively removed runs as follows:
 * "Noam Chomsky, a prominent American critic of Israel, stated that he supports the 'boycott and divestment of firms that are carrying out operations in the occupied territories' but the current BDS movement's 'hypocrisy rises to heaven.' He stated that the BDS campaign harms the 'whole movement. It harms the Palestinians and it is a gift to the Israeli hardliners and their American supporters' because the BDS's 'hypocrisy is so transparent ... why not boycott the United States? ... Israeli crimes [are] a fragment of US crimes, which are much worse.' He also argued that the Palestinian people don't support boycotting Israel and that the BDS movement is run by 'one man NGOs' who falsely claim to represent the Palestinian people. In a subsequent letter to Artists for Palestine, Chomsky clarified his position, writing 'I’ve been involved in activities to hold Israel accountable for its international law violations since before the BDS movement took shape. While I have some tactical differences with the BDS movement, I strongly support the actions and continue to participate in them'. On the other end of the spectrum, the UC Student Association passed a resolution not only to boycott Israel, but also to boycott the United States and several other countries."
 * I think it's pretty obvious that Chomsky supports the actions (activities) that he himself was involved it. His differences with BDS are tactical, hence presumably he generally supports the movement but prefers different actions - the ones in which he himself was/is involved.


 * I agree with removal of this wall of text. It is undue to give so much space to represent opinions of a single person. A short sentence could do, assuming one can be phrased that makes sense and doesn't contradict sources. Something meaning "Chomsky is undecided about BDS" would be useless. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The text is shoddy. But there is no question Chomsky's views cannot be trimmed down to a sentence. He is the most prominent and authoritative critic of Israel's occupation, with a massive following. His critique of BDS, as WarKosign says, regards their tactics, or rather their frequent habit of preferring useless self-inflicting wounding strategies instead of adopting workable tactics, which he defines as (a) any measure that will help the Palestinians themselves and (b) any measure that pursues the goal of educating the constituencies in Europe and the United States whose opinions will count if the West is to finally own up that Israel's policies in the occupied territories are what every rationally informed person knows them to be (worse than apartheid: to be distinguished from the situation in Israel which should never be confused with apartheid). BDS has, he argues, often played into the hands of the enemies of Palestinian statehood or rights by making proposals they fully understand cannot possibly be implemented. They have been, in his view (and that of Norman Finkelstein) politically inept, indeed stupid. We should use this space to craft a synthesis of his remarks, perhaps based on the following sources:-
 * Noam Chomsky On Israel-Palestine and BDS The Nation 2 July 2014
 * Yousef Munayyer, M.J. Rosenberg, Nadia Ben-Youssef, Ran Greenstein and USACBI Responses to Noam Chomsky on Israel-Palestine and BDS Writers defend the tactic of boycott, divestment, and sanctions. The Nation 10 July 2014
 * Noam Chomsky On Israel-Palestine and BDS: Chomsky Replies The Nation 22 July 2014 Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2017
A local German politicians view on a German party doesn't seem relevant for the BDS article. As such, I propose to remove the following:

", although some, such as Reinhard Schramm, the head of the SPD in Ilmenau and the head of the Jewish community of the state of Thuringia, say that the party's commitment to protecting the Jewish state is doubtful"

It might be a better fit for the SPD article, but my guess would be that it is not relevant enough for that either. Zukorrom (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: The "although" of the statement is clearly not supported by the cited source, which makes it clear that Schramm was more-or-less agreeing with the criticism. The text has been edited to better align with the source given.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I still don't see the relevancy of a local German politicians view on the SPDs view on Israel. I would again suggest to completely remove it, as it's not related to BDS.

If it were to remain in the article, I would suggest to further edit it. Currently, it doesn't make a lot of sense. "BDS" should be replaced with "pro-BDS activity", although more sources would be good in that case, and it should possibly be moved to the "Support" section. It might also make sense to include the anti-BDS resolution from the CDU as mentioned in the source.Zukorrom (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Krillanchant
The Krillanchant should be given equal weight to the apartheid analogy. Opponents equate the BDS as the equivalent of the targeting of Jews by the Nazis with the same goal of anhillation of the Jewish race — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:F387:9B00:A1F1:B0F9:133A:3001 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * First, I think you mean Kristallnacht, not Krillanchant. Second, just because somebody's opponents equate two things doesn't mean they should be given equal weight. See WP:Neutral point of view and Zionism and Racism. Instead, we try to summarize what reliable sources say about a subject. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course it should be given equal weight. unless someone other than Malik objects. the change should be made50.241.103.195 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

When will equal weight be given to the Kristallnacht? this article is heavily weighted to the Palestian narrative. as the BDS was started by a terrorist it should be put in the headline173.166.127.233 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed
"Palestinians work in settlements because they have no other choice and 82% of Palestinians working in Israeli settlements would quit those jobs if viable alternatives were available.[citation needed]" The source is in citation 76, "Palestinian Workers in Settlements–Who Profits' Position Paper". Who Profits, 2013, page 3, citing “Palestinian wage workers in Israeli settlements in the West Bank – Characteristics and Work Circumstances”, 2011, by Dr. Majid Sbeih, Associate Professor in Economics at Al-Quds Open University for the Democracy and Workers’ Rights Center in Palestine (Executive summary: http://www.dwrc.org/attachment/51/Executive%20Summary%20of%20a%20study%20on%20wage%20workers%20in%20Israeli%20settlements.pdf) Sorry I can't add it myself, I'm too new here. (Samo-vaari (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC))
 * That's not a reliable source, you'd have to attribute it to the partisan think tank, this wasn't published in a peer reviewed setting.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2018
Change "acknowledgement of the right of return of Palestinian refugees. " to "respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194." Jackdresser (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC) 


 * I'm not going to change the article, which summarizes the three demands of the BDS movement (about half-way down the page) to summarize the first two and quote the third verbatim from the BDS website.
 * Nevertheless, I invite comments from other editors concerning the question of whether the article's current language ("acknowledgement of the right of return of Palestinian refugees") adequately summarizes the third demand ("Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194"). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to use secondary sources to properly interpret their demands and what they really mean--Shrike (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good luck finding any. We cite the organization itself to avoid "interpreting" their demands and repeating what others think they "really mean". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Malik - we shouldn't replace a summary. As for our current summary - it is inaccurate. BDS goes beyond "just" acknowledgement - and per their own statement they are "Respecting, protecting and promoting" - which we should summarize to promoting (as promoting a non-existent policy option obviously includes respect as well as protection of said option if it comes to pass). I was BOLD - and edited promoting in.Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed it from "promoting" to "promotion of" for parallel structure: "the end, full equality, and promotion" (rather than "promoting"). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Goals
You previously argued (diff) that "'War by other Means' or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley’s Divestment Bill", as an article in a "peer-reviewed journal", should be used as support of Israeli representatives' stance regarding BDS. Now you are stating that the article is a "misrepresentation of BDS goals" (diff). What the authors write is: "This article explores the discourses surrounding the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement aimed at ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

So which is it? Is this source reliable for facts or not? By the way, if one were to read beyond the first sentence, one would see that the movement's other goals ("withdrawal from the occupied territories, removal of the separation barrier in the West Bank, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and promotion of the right of return of Palestinian refugees") were clearly stated in the lead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The goals of BDS include the West Bank and Gaza . They also include the "right of return" to other parts of Palestine and governmental changes in others parts of Palestine, as well as the Golan heights. Note we recently had a discussion here on the goals portion of the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine. Then why not replace the text and sources I added along with "include"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the lead section, references, etc., and added the sentence The campaign aims to use economic and political pressure to end Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, among its other goals to the lead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't that repetitive? The first sentence says Israel's obligations under international law include withdrawing from the Occupied Territories. The second sentence says "The campaign aims to use economic and political pressure to end Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, among its other goals." Maybe the second sentence should simply say "The campaign aims to use economic and political pressure to achieve its goals." Unless I'm misreading it, and the BDS campaign aims to use economic and political pressure to end the occupation and other means to achieve its other goals? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The campaign aims to remove all "colonial Israeli holdings" - and is not limited to the West Bank and Gaza (from which Israeli withdrew). The source being cited does not mention the West Bank in the goals (though it obviously is included in "all lands occupied in 1967") - and the language chosen misrepresents the way the organization represents itself and it represented by others.Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The source being cited does not mention the West Bank in the goals – kindly have a look at the above-quoted abstract which mentions "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank" in the first sentence. I believe that the article attempts to clarify the various ways the campaign (not a single "organization" as I understand it) is represented. I haven't got hold of a full copy yet, so I can't say what the authors' conclusions are there. I would support 's suggestion to restore "The campaign aims to use economic and political pressure to achieve its goals" per Tripp (2013), since that seems like basic information that's otherwise missing from the lead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And why should we copy the abstract of this journal paper, which has been cited 14 times, over other several other readily available sources? Most sources present their wider goals, not just this aspect.Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And why should we copy the abstract of this journal paper, which has been cited 14 times, over other several other readily available sources? Most sources present their wider goals, not just this aspect.Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2018
I wish to add the following in section 10.3 the position of the leader of the largest Jewish religious denomination in the United States, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism:

Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ), has called BDS “a hindrance to the peace process” because it “favors isolation over engagement and dialogue” and “strengthens the maximalists on both sides.” Aron Hirt-Manheimer (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This denomination's statement of opposition is not evidence that there is anything notable about it. One would expect this to be their position and there is no evidence that any independent, third-party sources have covered it.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Issue with the section "Allegations of ties to Hamas"
The evidence cited for ties to Hamas are very tangential and the author of can be understood to be part of the Israel lobby. Hamas is committed to violent resistance and did not state approval of the non-violent BDS movement until a tweet in July 2017, 12 years after the BDS call was made. Either this section should be removed or its bias explained and the lack of Hamas involvement in BDS elaborated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausrussell (talk • contribs) 05:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If at all it should be expanded, as there is plenty of other coverage, e.g. . As you may see here, their support of BDS runs beyond a mere tweet - . Hamas is a major Palestinian faction, and it is pretty much supports just about every BDS position (Hamas has additional positions (e.g. on Islamic law) that go beyond the core BDS tenants, but they with the BDS goals and methods).Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Half of the article's lede is criticism of the movement
That seems pretty ridiculous. There's already a criticism section in the article itself. Move the actual criticism, with quotes and all, there, and just leave a sentence saying that the movement has attracted criticism, with citations if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.208.74 (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD, our guideline on writing the opening section of articles, says that they should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Whether it should be controversial is a separate matter, but I think anybody would have a hard time arguing that BDS is not very controversial ("giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement"). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Source #164 has an error
Just wanted to point out there was an error citing source 164, that's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolkien5 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * FIXED. --GHcool (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The collateral issue of Disambiguation
I hope to stay clear of (what is, perhaps, at least not yet devolving into) a BDS-Dab edit war, and help engage what IMO is a practical problem for WP: it doesn't matter whether the presumably intentional naming of Israel BDS is "fair", nor whether Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions counts as an instance of anti-Semitism. (And I propose also merely noting that the historical irony of "American Indian" is not too many ballparks distant from that of what must be at least an occasional blunder into antinomy by referring to "anti-Semitism" on the part of an Arab.) So, in short, may I propose that BSD (Middle East), aside from exact wording TBD, be an "equal" Dab along these lines:
 * BSD may refer to either
 * Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, campaign opposing Israel policies toward Arabs in areas where its military control is currently dominant
 * Israel BDS (Building Dialogue through Science), Israeli education-oriented Web-site
 * FIXED --GHcool (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed your "fix". There is already a disambiguation page to help readers looking for articles about BDS. This article is only about "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions", and it's extremely unlikely that a reader looking for information about "Israel BDS" would find herself or himself here instead. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Figure in the logo
I know the character in the logo is popular figure by a Palestinian caricaturist, unfortunately I've forgotten the names. Could anyone help out and add them? -- 131.188.6.21 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Night of Broken Glass
Equal weight should be given to comparing the BDS to the Nazi targeting of Jewish business as the comparison to Aparthied South Africa. That would follow Wikipedia state neutral policy.KirinMagic (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Added to "see also" section. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleted as absurd (and add 5 or 6 additional negative adjectives). Zerotalk 22:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And you"re still being overly nice in your assessment of this drive by vandalism.--TMCk (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.israeliamerican.org/national-headquarters/media/bigotry-discrimination-anti-semitism, That should be suffcient.KirinMagic (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not even remotely a reliable source. RolandR (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ABOUTSELF this is a perfectly valid source to support the fact that IAC criticizes BDS and compares its boycott to the Nazi policy. This notion is already mentioned in the lead of the article, attributed to a better source so it's probably unnecessary, although Israeli-American Council seems to be notable enough to mention under reactions or opposition. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please change the text of the first paragraph
I want to start with: sorry for my English. Currently, the relevant part of the paragraph looks like this: "withdrawal from the occupied territories, removal of the separation barrier in the West Bank, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and promotion of the right of return of Palestinian refugees.[1]" Now, we know and there is no dispute over this, that the territories are occupied; that the wall stands; and that there is a demand of return of the refugees. But the paragraph also tells they want also "full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel". The problem with the text is that the very fact of so-called discrimination against those citizens is disputed; unlike the fact, for example, that the wall stands, there is disagreement wherever that alleged discrimination exists. In my opinion, you need to add after the second demand this fact, like this: "full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel (through BDS's claim they don't have such equality)". I think this would be more neutral. (Again, I'm very sorry for my English, I hope my point was understood, it's very important for me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.34.196 (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yоur English seems perfectly fine, nothing at all to apologize for. If I had to point to most problematic POV in the sentence I would begin with "occupied territories" - as evident from Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967 it is far from obvious that the territories are occupied. Indeed it is implied that Israeli Arabs do not have full equality, but similarly it is implied that the "right of return of Palestinian refugees" is indeed a right and not just an impossible demand. The paragraph describes BDS's views, and it is nearly impossible to describe them correctly and neutrally at the same time. You are welcome to suggest a specific change. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with WarKosign's views on "occupation" and "right of return", but I certainly endorse their conclusion that "it is nearly impossible to describe them correctly and neutrally at the same time". These are indeed the demands of the BDS campaign, and although they can be discussed and criticised later (using reliable sources, of course), they should be presented accurately in the introduction. RolandR (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request para 3 sentence 2
IMPROVEMENT TO ENGLISH add to after actions i.e. FROM 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] TO Supporters of BDS compare the movement with the 20th century anti-apartheid movement and view their actions as similar to the boycotts of South Africa during its apartheid era, comparing the situation in Israel to apartheid.[4][5][6] Jontel (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Really long intro
Is there a reason the intro is so long? There are three paragraphs in the intro dedicated to criticism; I can't think of another article that puts so much criticism into the intro when there's a separate section in the article for criticism.--35.9.186.126 (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In the lead there are two sentences describing criticism, as well as two sentences describing support. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents", so it makes sense to have criticism - as well as support - in both. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Three paragraphs worth of criticism, though? Intros should to be two or three paragraphs at most, not a five paragraph lead like this article. Even by the rule-of-thumb standard in the policy you linked, the lead is too long, it should be cut by at least one paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.186.126 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Much of what has been written about BDS has been critical, so it makes sense that much of the lead will be critical. This is the nature of controversial topics like BDS.  Nevertheless, I will trim some of the fat out of the lead.  --GHcool (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The final paragraph which had nothing to do with the BDS campaign, nor anything to do with boycotts or reactions to them, has been removed. It certainly did not belong in the lead, if anywhere. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Extensive cleanup edits
Several edits have been made to the article. These include copyedits (grammar and punctuation), removing repetition, cutting more fat from the lead, and most significantly - balancing the Support and Opposition sections, so that they follow the same format. A couple of edits have been moved to their new respective sections, i.e. artists and public figures. Other noteworthy changes include Noam Chomsky's move from opposition (are you kidding?) WP:OR to the rightful position under support - (read his support quote!) J.K. Rowling's full statement was included in its entirety, not just the cherry picked parts WP:CHERRYPICKING. That's it for now. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Added a disambiguation hatnote - Stop the confusion
After having spent several hours with a fine-tooth comb separating edits that refer to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions from those that belong to Boycotts of Israel, what has become clear is that there have been countless edits made to the wrong article. It is not surprising why. Both of these articles include the word 'boycott' in their name and both deal with boycotts of Israel. Consequently, editors come to this page and seek to write about the boycotts of Israel, rather than boycotts that only mention BDS; the latter being the only edits that are welcome in the article here it would seem.

If this is happening to editors, then it is surely also happening to visitors who come to Wikipedia looking for information on the BDS movement and/or boycotts of Israel. One simple method, to eliminate this confusion and help both editors and visitors alike to find the page that they are looking for, is through the use of a hatnote created for situations such as this. A simple one that helps to confirm which article they want to read/edit is all that is needed. One has now been added to this article, a second one soon to be added over at Boycotts of Israel. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Britain from Responses section
GHcool deleted the following content from the Response by other governments section under the pretext that the word ‘Britain’ did not appear in the sources and that these boycotts had nothing to do with the BDS Movement.


 * beginning of edit


 * Britain


 * In 2014, the Leicester City Council passed a motion to boycott goods originating from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank to oppose "continuing illegal occupation" of Palestinian territory and the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government. Jewish Human Rights Watch (JHRW) sought to bring legal action against the council. However, the bid was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.


 * The lead judgement given by Lord Justice Sales stated that the Council’s motion condemned ‘certain actions’ of Israel’s government yet still recognised the state of Israel's right to exist. He said, "The condemnation was in line with a respectable body of opinion, including the UK government, the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union and the International Court of Justice." He added, "the criticism made was temperate and legitimate." Lord Justice Floyd and Lord Justice Underhill supported his decision. The judgement also stated that similar judgements were a, “well-known gesture of political solidarity with oppressed groups overseas, as illustrated by calls for boycotts of goods from South Africa during the apartheid era.”


 * Other councils that have implemented boycotts include the Swansea Council (2010), and Gwynedd Council (2014). Claims of discrimination against them were all dismissed by the High Court.


 * end of edit

City councils are clearly government instruments as is the Court of Justice. The City Councils involved all decided to implement boycotts against Israel. The delete has no grounds, whatsoever, on either counts and frankly seems ridiculous. I ask GHcool to undo his revert himself. The edit will be reintroduced in 24 hours per WP:ARBPIAINTRO. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My edit summary was: "removed britain section since BDS is not mentioned at all in the sources. Only "boycott" is mentioned, which does not seem to be identical with the BDS movement." Sources should be found that "BDS" or "Boycott Divestment and Sections" was being referenced in the city council boycotts. Otherwise, it belongs in some other article (perhaps this one), but not in the BDS article.  --GHcool (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If that is your standpoint you will need to cull every other edit that does not mention BDS itself in the source. You have selectively removed the one country mentioned to date that's government has introduced boycott measures. Do you wish to strike these others from the article on the same grounds?


 * Section 4.1 Reaction by Palestinian authorities - includes no sources that refer to BDS Movement. Strike it?
 * Section 4.2 Reactions by Israeli authorities - Paragraphs 1,2,3,6 include no sources that refer to BDS Movement. Strike them?
 * Section 6 Business boycotts - Paragraph 1 includes no sources that refer to BDS Movement. Paragraph 3, 10/12 sources do not refer to BDS Movement. Strike the content?


 * The point has surely been made by now without going deeper into the article and excising every other instance of BDS not being refereed to in a source. You have started clipping; where should it end? The answer is not to cut the article to a skeleton, but rather to broaden the scope and encompass the BDS campaign in this very article. If, on the other hand, there is a consensus to separate boycotts against Israel including reaction that does not specifically mention a tie to the movement, then this article needs to be gutted removing each and every instance that is not attributed to BDS with both sides of the argument falling under the chopping block equally and respecting NPOV. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Section 4.1 Reaction by Palestinian authorities - includes no sources that refer to BDS Movement. Strike it? Not true. One source does mention BDS.  I included the relevant info for that source and struck the rest. ✅
 * Section 4.2 Reactions by Israeli authorities - Paragraphs 1,2,3,6 include no sources that refer to BDS Movement. Strike them? Yes. ✅
 * Section 6 Business boycotts - Paragraph 1 includes no sources that refer to BDS Movement. Paragraph 3, 10/12 sources do not refer to BDS Movement. Strike the content? Yes. ✅ --GHcool (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edit which cut extensive parts of the article has been reverted. Cutting the amount of content you have done in the last 24 hours should have time for discussion between more than just the two of us. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If there aren't sources connecting the text to the BDS movement then it is SYNTH.Icewhiz (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We agree there. The article needs to be stripped completely then of ALL such content. Nevertheless, and for the record, attempting to separate the BDS movement from Israeli boycotts, when the former is a campaign for the latter, is foolhardy and disingenuous at best. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Many reliable sources and involved parties explicitly recognise the connection between the Leicester council decision and the BDS campaign. For example, Jewish Human Rights Watch as quoted in the Daily Telegraph "In particular, we took three local councils – Leicester, Swansea and Gwynedd – to court for passing BDS motions"; the Board of Deputies "In Leicester, a BDS motion was passed by the city council with next to no consultation with the local Jewish community"; the Conservative candidate for the Leicester parliamentary seat, as quoted in Jewish News "Leicester City Council relies on products from companies with links to Israeli settlements, despite councillors recently voting to boycott them. The admission follows a Freedom of Information (FoI) request submitted by a parliamentary candidate, who asked whether the council worked with companies blacklisted by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign" leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz; the Ethical Consumer magazine; and many more. To argue that the decision is not related to the BDS movement is to deny reality. RolandR (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RolandR, I encourage you to restore the section with the proper sources if you feel it is necessary. I will not fight what is appropriately sourced to articles that specifically mention BDS by name.  --GHcool (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RolandR, I agree wholeheartedly for reasons already given. This source ties the resolutions passed to BDS. The edit will return to the article if you or someone else doesn't beat me to it first. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit has been made and sourced connecting it to BDS as requested. - "Councils in Tower Hamlets, Leicester, Swansea and Bristol also passed resolutions supporting BDS." Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)