Revision as of 08:51, 18 March 2016 editQualitatis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,414 edits →Too long← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:22, 31 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,254 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/Archive 10) (bot | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} | {{Skip to talk}} | ||
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} | {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | |||
{{sanctions|<br>'''See ] for details'''}} | |||
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Mid}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Economics |importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 10 | ||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 10 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(180d) | ||
|archive = Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ |
{{Archive box|auto=yes|age=1|units=month|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} | ||
{{Broken anchors|links= | |||
{{Archive box|auto=yes}} | |||
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> Anchor ] links to a specific web page: ]. The anchor (#Human shields) ]. <!-- {"title":"Human shields","appear":{"revid":780460135,"parentid":779491545,"timestamp":"2017-05-15T07:34:43Z","replaced_anchors":{"2008-09 Gaza War":"2008–2009 Gaza War","Extrajudicial executions of rivals":"Extrajudicial killings of rivals","2011–13 Sinai insurgency":"2011–2013 Sinai insurgency","Human Shields":"Human shields","Children as Combatants":"Children as combatants","Political Freedoms":"Political freedoms"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1179562546,"parentid":1179561189,"timestamp":"2023-10-10T23:24:17Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
}} | |||
== External links modified == | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110513203251/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233050211942&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233050211942&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull | |||
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160207102704/http://boycottisrael.info/node/229 to http://boycottisrael.info/node/229 | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 13:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
==Israeli Reaction/Effectiveness of BDS== | |||
The section titled "effectiveness of BDS" is a misnomer, because the section relates to economic impact, which does not necessarily correlate with an impact on Israeli policy that would further the goals of BDS. The economic impact discussion should be integrated into the sections on "support", and the "Israeli Reaction" should be moved from the section on global reactions to a main section category of its own. The effect of BDS on the Israeli public is much more significant, as a measure of the potential for changing Israeli policy, than the effect of BDS on citizens of other countries in the world.] (]) 16:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016 == | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions|answered=yes}} | |||
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. --> | |||
<!-- Begin request --> | |||
re: the following sentence - | |||
"Dr. Hawking boycotted the prestigious Israeli Presidential Conference, held by Israeli president Shimon Peres, in protest at the Israeli occupation of Palestine." | |||
... "Israeli occupation of Palestine" ... this phrase is inaccurate by any standards ... it would be more appropriate if it read ... "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank" or something similar. | |||
The article also mentions an occupation of Gaza: "Israeli Apartheid Week is an annual series of university lectures and rallies against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza." | |||
- Israel has fully withdrawn from Gaza: "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank" would be more appropriate. | |||
These aren't political points as such, it helps on-going discussion if articles on this subject are as accurate as possible. | |||
The article would benefit from an overview of what is considered "occupation" by the different sides & the international community. Ideally i'd make a suggestion regarding this/add additional suggested edits but i'm not really in a position to suggest longer edits at the moment, due to lack of previous edits. Palestinian Territories, though, were previously under Jordanian, British Mandate, Ottoman control - prior to being under Israeli control. | |||
Happy to discuss any of this. | |||
<!-- End request --> | |||
] (]) 19:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
Thanks | |||
:With respect to your first request (concerning Hawking), another editor to better summarize what the sources say. | |||
:With respect to your second request (concerning Israeli Apartheid Week), this article repeats what Misplaced Pages's article about ] says. | |||
:Finally, the question of whether Gaza is still occupied by Israel is not as straightforward as you suggest, and is beyond the scope of this article. If you're interested, you can read the third paragraph of ] and the section of that article titled "Military occupation", as well as the many sources cited. ] may also be of interest to you. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Right, due to the large number of accounts created to further the denial of Palestine, the occupation, and promote Israel's view over the rest of the world's view, ] was enacted. Please make 500 edits on articles not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before discussing or editing any article related to the conflict. Thanks, ] (]) 22:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Assumption of bad faith == | |||
was not intended to be well-poisoning, although I understand why some might assume bad faith and claim that it was. It was intended to convey that Israel was not yet a state in 1945. I intend to revise with a less blunt, but more accurate description within the next couple of days. --] (]) 00:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I agree and restored the more accurate term. I challenge anyone to show the Arab League or anyone else was talking about boycotting Israel in 1945, which as I'm sure we all know is not going to happen. ] (]) 00:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::The sentence already stated that the 1945 boycott was against "Jews of Mandatory Palestine", the first part of the sentence talks about "ongoing" boycotts which target Israel as a state. ] (]) 01:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::There must be a way to make it clear that the debate in 1945 (and arguably today) targeted Jews living within the borders of Israel/Palestine. I look forward to a reasonable suggestion. --] (]) 01:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::I agree with the last comment, and will also attempt to formulate a sentence which conveys this. But it is misleading to refer to "a wide ranging boycott of Jews", since this was not directed at Jews in general, but at the (Zionist, settler) Jewish community in Palestine; the ] before 1948, the state of Israel subsequently. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 01:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::Whatever it was, it was not, and could not have been, against ''Israel'' in 1945. I see Sepsis has already edit warred what we all know is false back into the article. ] (]) 01:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::: uses the term ]. says "Jews in Palestine." says "the Jewish community in Palestine." All are acceptable to me. --] (]) 02:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::::All would be acceptable, but I would prefer "the Jewish community in Palestine", which clarifies that the boycott was of a national community, rather than of individual Jews. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Certainly. Boycotting Jews collectively seems somehow more acceptable than boycotting Jews individually. ;) --] (]) 05:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
==Mandate era boycott== | |||
I reverted deletion of material on British Mandate period boycott of Jewish-owned businesses to Background section. Background/History sections are normal and appropriate. This well-sourced material belongs in this article.] (]) 16:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:It does not belong in the article without consensus. It was added recently without discussion and boldly removed with the following edit summary - "This is not background about BDS at all, but a fork of another article". That is a reasonable view that may or may not find consensus. The next step is to discuss the content and gain consensus. Instead it has been aggressively edited warred back into the article for invalid reasons (which is why I reverted) - "sourced, relevant, longstanding text". It's sourced, it's relevance has already been questioned and it is not longstanding text. So what you need to do is self-revert and make a case for inclusion. Others will make their case for exclusion no doubt. Lots of tools are available to help find consensus. That is how it is supposed to work. I will not be participating in the discussion. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 17:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:History/background sections are normative on Misplaced Pages. I can imagine no grounds for deleting this. It provides useful, well-sourced background. Mandate-era boycott, Post-independence boycott, Modern boycott form a series of movements closely related by target, goal, and chosen weapon of economic boycott.] (]) 17:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::I asked you to self-revert and explained why you should do that. You have not done so. Why ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 17:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::I did not create this material. I happened on it and deem it to be a well-sourced and appropriate part of the page. In fact, it is so appropriate and so well-written that I assumed it had been a long-standing part of the page, which certainly needs a section of this sort. If you have a policy-based reason to delete, feel free to share. But beware ].] (]) 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::That doesn't answer my question. My question is not about what you think of the content. I can understand why some people would like to connect BDS to Jewish boycotts, or Nazis or whatever. I can understand why some people might like to go even further back and try to attach the entire history of anti-Semitism to the BDS movement. But I'm not interested in such things because as someone who supports BDS I have a conflict of interest. I would like to know why you will not allow the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle to be reset to the correct step so that it can proceed as designed. | |||
::::* The content was added 2016-01-31T05:50:30 Enthusiast01 | |||
::::* Removed 2016-03-08T15:51:16 Qualitatis | |||
::::* That is where discussion should have started. | |||
::::* Restored 2016-03-10T02:00:08 No More Mr Nice Guy | |||
::::* Removed 2016-03-10T07:35:36 Qualitatis | |||
::::* Restored 2016-03-11T02:31:38 No More Mr Nice Guy (with an inaccurate edit summary) | |||
::::That is edit warring. | |||
::::My edit tried to set it back to where it should be. It hasn't worked so far. But why ? What is preventing that from happening? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 18:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::A. As you know since you argue this often, editors who edited the page but did not remove the content implicitly consented to its inclusion (that's over 10 people. They may argue differently now, but that's the implication of their leaving it there). We are past the BDS cycle. | |||
:::::B. If there's an edit war going on and you make a revert, you're participating in the edit war. | |||
:::::C. is a pro BDS source connecting boycotts before Israel was established to current BDS. There are of course many many others. So kindly cut out the "I'm not going to participate in the discussion but let me just accuse my political opponents of playing the antisemitism card, as is their wont" bullshit. Thanks. ] (]) 20:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::At least 10 different editors made at least a couple dozen edits to the article for over a month between the time this information was inserted until it was removed. The BRD train has long left the station. Sean accusing others of edit warring as he edit wars is about par for the course. ] (]) 18:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::That argument is nonsense. I was one of the people who edited the article in this period. The fact that I did not remove this text emphatically does not mean that I consented to its inclusion, or that I consent now. I chose to make a different edit, and not to edit-war on this text. But I strenuously object to this attempt to pose me as a supporter of the edit. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 20:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:: I have no intention of editing this article, but the thing I notice about the disputed text is how biased it is. The mandate period in Palestine was a time of ''mutual'' boycotts between Arabs and Jews. Presenting it as a one-sided phenomenon enforced by violence is outrageous. Where is the ] movement mentioned? Or this, from the 1936 report to the League of Nations: "A mutual boycott of considerable stringency between the Arab and Jewish communities broke out after the end of the strike. It provoked isolated instances of violence and intimidation and continued to be observed until the end of the year." 1939-ish mention by Hurewitz, ''Struggle for Palstine'' p161: "he prevailing economic boycott of Arab products and labor". Also Hope-Simpson Report. Also Hyamson ''Palestine under Mandate'': "obstinate and long-persisting trade boycott of Arabs and Jews mutually". And so on, lots of sources. If you want "background" do it properly at least. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Hebrew labor and related movements are entirely tangential to BDS. --] (]) 22:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} See ]. Just because something has sources doesn't mean it belongs in an article. ''Inclusion'' requires consensus. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::None of you has actually made an argument why not to include this material. Just saying "no consensus" or "BRD" or "rv edit warring" (that was a good one, as if you didn't just join the edit war) doesn't cut it, as I'm sure you know. Kindly provide a policy based reason not to include it. ] (]) 05:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
<- The article has now been restored to the correct point in the BRD cycle with the for which consensus has not been established. The discussion can now proceed to establish whether the content should be included. This is how things are meant to work. It should be obvious that the right thing to do is to proceed with the discussion from this point to try to establish consensus. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 06:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::BRD is an essay. You should really stop talking about it as if it is some kind of policy. ] (]) 17:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I also don't see any connection between the boycotts by a set of groups nearly a century ago which had to do zionism, imperialism, racial conflict, nationalism, etc, and BDS today which is an international movement about ending the occupation and supporting human/civil rights and international law in the area. ] (]) 15:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::The BDS movement is clearly pointed at ending the Israeli occupation and colonization. As such, it has no roots in British Mandate boycotts any way. Thus, an introduction into historic boycotts is inappropriate, especially in ''this'' article, especially in the background section. | |||
::I would even go further. All what is left until "During the Second Intifada ..." should also be removed, as it is about boycotts against the existence of Israel as such, not about the issue that is central in BDS, thus also not background of BDS. For the Julie Norman and Rhea DuMont paragraphs: These are very academic essay-like pieces and I don't think they make any sense in elucidating the BDS movement. | |||
::And per {{U|Malik Shabazz}}: Even if some like to connect BDS with British Mandate boycotts, it is still not background of the BDS movement. --] (]) 16:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Once again, is a reliable source, a pro BDS one no less, that makes the connection between pre-Israel boycotts and BDS. Do you guys have any policy based objection to restoring this? The section is reliably sourced and the connection between it and the topic of this article is reliably sourced. I mean, I understand you DONTLIKEIT, but that's just not enough. ] (]) 17:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::Just because two sections, one on the origin of BDS, and another on historic boycotts in Palestine, are in the same book does not mean they are closely related. Do you have any policy based reasons for keep this unrelated material in this article? I understand you like it, but that's just not enough. ] (]) 19:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::Perhaps you should read more closely. He is explicitly connecting the two, going so far as to use the terms "boycott, divestment and sanctions" for pre-Israel boycotts. are another two pro-BDS authors making the same argument. Do you have any actual policy based objection to restoring this? It obviously meets WP:V. By the way, I enjoyed your imitation - sincerest form of flattery and all that. ] (]) 01:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{od}}OK, this is getting ridiculous. Can we see a show of hands as to who opposes this content and why? As far as I can tell from comments here and changes to the article, GHCool, E.M. Gregory, Enthusiast and myself support it. Sepsis and Qualitatis say it's irrelevant and a couple others opposed the restoration on technical grounds but haven't told us if they feel it belongs or not. As far as I can tell there's a consensus to include so kindly speak up if you're opposed and I didn't count you. Please note that I added two sources that explicitly connect past boycotts to BDS. ] (]) 05:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I '''support''' the inclusion of the Mandate era stuff. The pro-BDS reliable sources referenced are pretty clear that BDS is historically related to pre-1948 boycotts against the Zionist/Jewish community in the region. --] (]) 07:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I '''support''' the retention of the Mandate era examples of boycotts. The material is reliably sourced and relevant.] (]) 08:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
: The historical scope of an article is somewhat arbitrary and can be negotiated. I don't think the rules force us to either include or exclude the mandate period here. The existence of sources that make a connection doesn't require us to make the same connection. Authors decide the scope of their books but we decide the division of that information into articles. On the other hand, we don't get to decide whether to obey NPOV. We don't report the ] without mentioning that both players were making moves. Likewise it would actively misleading and therefore an obvious neutrality violation to mention only one side of a mutual boycott campaign. The actual text currently fought over is thus unacceptable without modification. Count me as '''opposed''' unless this deficiency is corrected. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Are you seriously arguing it's ok to remove text because some editor might not find it NPOV enough? This is a very dangerous precedent, but as usual I will follow you guys' lead. There's ''a lot'' of stuff I could remove if this is they way we do it now, rather than have the editor who thinks information is missing add it where appropriate. ] (]) 18:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:'''Strongly oppose''' This is an article about BDS, not about boycotts in general. I have a very good reason to say it is misleading to compare British Mandate period boycotts with BDS in the background section. They differ fundamentally. While the first were Arab anti-Jewish boycotts, BDS is a pro-Palestinian movement (or pro-Arab for Palestinians-deniers) with completely other purposes. It would be wrong and non-neutral to put in the background the suggestion that the two are comparable. WP should not promote wrong myths and distortions of history. It may rather be correct to put a paragraph about the comparison in the opinions section. (And BTW, I haven't seen a strong source to support such connection, yet.) | |||
:If there is concensus that BDS is a movement that pursues the end of Israel's occupation and colonization of Palestinian land and the Golan Heights, the scope of the article should be the anti-occupation (and pro equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and respect for the right of return, as currently stated in the lead). Therefore, I propose to limit the scope to the period from 1967, and refrain from mentioning previous Arab anti-Jewish boycotts in both, the lead and the background section. --] (]) 11:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|User:Zero0000}} If the purpose of some editors (not you) is to water-down the article, to make it unreadable for common readers and divert from the subject, including the discussions you propose is the right way. --] (]) 11:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I still don't see any consensus, infact strong opposition, for the inclusion of this hardly-related material in the background section. As with all material it needs consensus to stay and this tag-team edit warring needs to stop. If we need more background information to replace it with if that is the issue then I would suggest adding a few sentences on the very similar boycott of South Africa. Again, these boycotts are being pushed by liberal western university students and human rights groups who wish to see Israel improve and have no relation to the pre-occupation boycotts that certain governments created for largely ethnic/religious reasons many decades ago. ] (]) 19:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Currently, there are 3 opposes (hopefully Zero will clarify) and 4 supporters of including this material. If we don't solve this within a couple of days, I'll just start an RfC. I can't imagine uninvolve editors would support censoring this information which is amply sourced both in terms of relevance and in terms of content. I'm just trying to save some time for everyone. ] (]) 00:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
*Opinions of Misplaced Pages editors are less significant than the fact that sources support the continuity of the series of anti-Jewish, Arab boycotts from the 1930 through modern BDS. Some analysis making the link come from Zionists: , but a great many come from anti-Israel activists like ] publishing in ] article: ]. Pro-BDS, socialist books ; this ] interview on ] . The link is extremely sturdy and well-sourced.] (]) 22:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::To quote your source, "Today, it is the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and its international solidarity network that is the champion of a boycott of the racist Israeli settler colony. Like its noble predecessors, from African American boycotts in the 19th and 20th centuries, the Indian boycott of British goods, the Jewish anti-Nazi boycott, and the international boycott of Rhodesia and South Africa, the BDS movement insists that its call for a boycott should be heeded until Israel sheds all its racist laws and policies and becomes a non-racist state." ] (]) 23:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Joseph Massad is an outspoken opponent of Jewish statehood. My point is that anti-Zionists like Massad, reliable scholars, and BDS supporters have all published essays and papers connecting the anti-Jewish boycotts in Mandatory Palestine, the Arab boycott of Israel, and the modern BDS movement, as Massad does in this essay when he states: ''"The Palestinians countered Zionist separatism with boycotts of their own, targeting the Zionist colonies and their products during the British Mandate years. The Arab League of States would issue its own boycott of Zionist and Israeli goods that would go into effect in 1945."'' The material belongs in the essay precisely because writers across a board spectrum of political opinion have agreed that these boycotts form a closely related series.] (]) 00:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
My objection is not that it is a view I do not like. In fact, BDS is presented as another variant of anti-Jewish boycotts. The contested text is in fact implicitly, covered and manipulatively labeling the movement as an anti-semitic movement! It is as wrong and absurd as if you would put into the Background: | |||
''Anti-semitism in Palestine is not new for Palestinians and others opposed to Zionism. It dates back to the 13th century when Palestine was ruled by ...'' | |||
== What BDS is based on == | |||
Moreover, BDS is not simply a boycott campaign, as symbolized by S of Sanctions. Concensus is not simply counting votes without considering arguments. In any case, this discussion shows that it does not belong in the Background section. --] (]) 09:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:That is not a policy based reason not to include this amply sourced material. That's textbook IDONTLIKEIT. ] (]) 22:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
Misplaced Pages's 2nd parapgraph is based on what the BDS describes their movement based on. But it more based on the Nazi movement targeting Jewish business. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/will-bds-lead-to-the-next-kristallnacht/ Right now Misplaced Pages is accepting a POV descrition as opposed toa NPOV. ] (]) 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
by GHcool is a 1RR violation. It's time for all the edit warring to stop. If it doesn't the issue needs to be reported and the page fully protected. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 17:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Times of Israel blogs are unmoderated and written by random people on the internet. Sorry, but that is not a reliable source and it merits no further consideration. Oliver Jack Melnick is free to believe what he likes, we dont however have to take his beliefs seriously. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
And we don't have to take the statement of the BDS at face value {BLP infraction removed}.] (]) 20:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
:But you think we should take the statement of some bloke on a blog at face value & that should take precedence? 🙄 The BDS movement itself is the best source for describing what its own movement is based on within its own article. Anything else is opinion. Regardless, those dissenting opinions are contained in the 3rd paragraph of the lead and throughout the article. Incidentally, your comment about ] looks like a BLP violation to me, note the rules around making potentially defamatory statements apply to ], not just articles. I suggest you get your comment removed.--] (]) 08:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
No the BDS self description is not the best way to describe them I am sure Hezbollah, Al Quada and antifa don't describe themselves as terrorists. Having a newspaper like the Jerusalem Post the leading Mideast newspaper is a much better source.] (]) 22:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I '''oppose''' the inclusion of mandate-era communal boycotts. As far as I see it, it's an example of ], which tars the BDS movement as anti-Semitic by association. If any precedent historic campaigns should be included under background, surely more relevant example is the one most discussed in analysis of the movement and even mentioned in the lead - the boycott of South Africa. If you're going to include the Mandate era history due to important context, then the First Intifada internal boycotts and tax strikes and the Arab League boycotts would also have to be included. In an article that's already pushing length, that's surely too much. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Such a random selection. Erm, who apart from the far-right in the US describe antifa groups as terrorists? That's a crazily marginal viewpoint. ] (]) 10:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
=== Clarifying the dispute === | |||
:Antifa in the same sentence with Hezbollah and Al Quada is ridiculous. Comparing BDS with the 1,600 synagogues ransacked and 300 set on fire in one night is beyond the pale and an insult to Holocaust survivors. Please lower the level of hyperbole. This does not convince. ] (]) 14:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
*We're ''not'' basing it on their self-description. We cite multiple academic sources for that, which themselves do not attribute the view to BDS but state it as objective fact. And, as people have pointed out to you above, a random person's opinion posted in a ] hosted by the Jerusalem Post is not the same as it being posted by the Jerusalem Post itself; the source you presented isn't even an ]. Obviously we cannot weigh an opinion from a blog equal to a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. --] (]) 16:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Mandy Rice-Davies applies or not? == | |||
May be, there is a lack of knowledge here. | |||
*Arab boycotts during the British Mandate era were directed against Jewish mass immigration into and colonization of the whole of historic Palestine. | |||
*The BDS movement aims to end the colonization of a small part of historic Palestine, and end of Israeli racism and apartheid, and the return of expelled Palestinians. | |||
Reading the opening description and other parts of the article, would ] here? Obviously, they would say they are a human rights movement and deny that they are anti-Semitic. Maybe because this discussion involves academic debates it goes beyond MRD, but just reading I could at least see the argument for it, but I can also see the opposite of ]. Thoughts? I personally lean towards the point in not of "If we do not accompany an accusation with its denial, then our readers by and large will not assume the existence of one. This is especially true of readers who also are accustomed to the journalistic standard of including denials." However, if someone has a different opinion, I would be open to change. ] (]) 03:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Completely different era's, completely different aims, with no connection between the two. And unlike past Arab boycotts, yet supported and led by a significant part of the non-Arab world. By connecting them in the background section, it is suggested that BDS is a continuation, or a new variant of the past Arab anti-Jewish boycotts. It is, in fact, again an attempt to present the agressors as the victims and as already mentioned a covered attempt to label the movement as an anti-semitic organization. | |||
: You could equally consider whether Mandy also applies to the accusation by BDS critics and the Israeli government that the movement is anti-Semitic. Generally we should not say that anyone '''denies''' being something, as that gives ] to the accusation than the rebuttal. It would be more neutral to omit the word "deny" and write that the BDS movement says the accusation is an attempt to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism. ] (]) 04:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 == | |||
Clearly, the BDS movement acts in the context of the current Israeli occupation and has no relationship with past boycotts. Even if sometimes the two phenomena in some sources are compared with each other or mentioned together, be it pro- or anti-Israel, it does not change the background and context of BDS. | |||
{{Edit extended-protected|Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions|answered=yes}} | |||
To repeate my thesis, this should not be treated in the lead or the background section. Rather there may be a paragraph in the opinions section. To be clear, also in the latter option, it should be directly related to BDS, not a trick to insert unrelated stuff. -] (]) 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
Change: “Some critics accuse the BDS movement of antisemitism, a charge the movement denies, calling it an attempt to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism.” | |||
To: “Organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League have labeled the BDS movement antisemitic, a charge the movement denies, arguing such critiques conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism.” ] (]) 01:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Too long == | |||
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> I'm not sure why we'd single out the one organization. This line is summarizing body content on criticism from multiple people and groups. ] (] / ]) 12:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::I'm not sure why you think "Some critics..." is better, forcing readers to parse the refs to find out who these "critics" are. ] (]) 21:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::They can parse the refs if they'd like, but it would be better to just read the body of the article. ] (] / ]) 21:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023 == | |||
Somebody wisely said that this article is getting too difficult to navigate. I propose doing the following to make this article shorter: | |||
#Deleting the paragraph that begins "Protests and conferences in support ..." | |||
#Deleting the paragraph that begins "According to Julie Norman ..." | |||
#Merging and trimming the fat in the "Goals" and "Methods" sections. | |||
#Trimming the fat in the sections called "Academics" and "Business" | |||
#Merging and trimming the fat in the "Political organizations" and "Trade Unions" sections | |||
#Deleting the "Other prominent people" and "Israel Apartheid Week" sections | |||
#Merging and trimming the fat in the "Jewish individuals and organizations outside of Israel" and "Israeli individuals and organizations" sections | |||
#Trimming the fat in the entire "Reactions" section | |||
#Moving the "United States" section to a new article called ] and keeping a brief summary on this page. | |||
#Trim the fat in the "Criticism" section | |||
I intend on working on these ideas within the next couple of days unless I hear arguments to the contrary. --] (]) 04:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{Edit extended-protected|Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions|answered=yes}} | |||
According to ], . According to ], the page has 58 kB (9180 words) of "readable prose" (the main body of the text, excluding material such as footnotes and reference sections, diagrams and images, tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, and formatting and mark-up). ] says an article with more than 60 kB of readable prose "robably should be divided" and an article with more than 50kB "ay need to be divided". | |||
remove the comma before "could cost the Israeli economy" bit (Impact section, Economic subsection) ] (]) 16:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 16:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
== spelling mistake == | |||
So what do other editors think? Is the article too long? | |||
"Puma signed a for-year sponsorship" should be "Puma signed a four-year sponsorship" | |||
My own view, and I've expressed it several times over the years, is that the article is made up of too many news articles, quotations, and (poor quality) examples, and not enough secondary analysis from historians and other third parties. In my opinion, the problem isn't so much the length of the article but that there's too much crap in it. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
I can't edit the page so I thought I would put it here ] (]) 09:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Malik Shabazz' concerns confirm my impression after the first reading of the article. It is surely due to the controversial character of the subject. It invites to insert every single view of every single group in every single country in all details. A solution may be to put them in a "crap page": ]. Furthermore, the layout and headings, and the absense of quotes are important for readability. --] (]) 09:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::The views of the movement are an integral part of understanding the movement. It cannot be removed from the main page, but it can be summarized and paraphrased better. --] (]) 16:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::Obviously, but not the views of the whole world. --] (]) 11:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::I agree that a lot of the views could be moved into sub-pages. The suggestion of a greater number of country-based BDS pages (ie BDS in Europe, BDS in the US) would allow for a lot of trimming down of individual campaigns, targets etc from those sections. A greater degree of secondary analysis would be useful, but the problem is there's not very much written in the way of analysis that isn't partisan. News articles at least tend to be more neutral towards the goals of BDS. ] (]) 11:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
On a bit of a reflection and read-over, I think shortening the sections of criticism (and response) and moving the meat of them to ] is a good idea. There could be more written on the topic, particularly from world governments, although we should try and keep to notable opinions. | |||
:{{done}}, thanks! ] (] / ]) 17:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
I also think we could create a page, ] in which a lot of the campaigns, currently listed by country, could be listed chronologically. Alternatively, we could make ] and ] (or Europe generally), and that could help to trim down the "reactions" section considerably. | |||
== EI is not a reliable source about BDS == | |||
The long "Supporters - Academic" section could be seriously truncated and some text moved to ], although it largely covers everything listed here already and is itself quite long. The same holds for "Supporters - Business" and ], although it could also be split into a new section on Government support, since that's significantly different from business bodies such as pension funds disinvesting. | |||
Per the RfCs, I/P is an area with significant bias for the source, and using them here is not appropriate. Please revert your edit. ] (]) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
Then there's the matter of the ] page, which seems to be duplicating large parts of this page, albeit with more history. I'm loathe to suggest moving content there, however, since it already seems to be pushing the limits of readable prose for a page, and it's confusing what having two such similar pages achieves. Perhaps some of its content could also get moved into the newly created pages, since it would logically function best as a kind of umbrella page?] (]) 10:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:@]: ] is a subject-matter expert and would be usable as a source even were he self-published, per ]. It would be wise to better familiarise yourself with our content policies on sources before proceeding with any more hasty removals of standing content. ] (]) 20:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:If you want to invest time and energy, you do not need to wait until the page is unprotected again. It makes sense to list chronologically in ] rather than by country, because it gives much more coherence and historical context. Keep apart the Israeli responses, including ] (if the latter are not merged into the specific sections), in ] is, however, useful. | |||
::You’re right, I missed him, he can stay. What do you think about Alys Samson Estapé, is she involved enough to be considered aboutself? ] (]) 20:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Bias has nothing to do with reliability. Making that premise invalid. And Alys Samson Estapé is the European coordinator for the BDS movement, making her also a usable source even if self-published. ''']''' - 20:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Could you elaborate on why that article should be included? | |||
::Bias is generally not an exclusion criteria, but a source with a history of both bias and poor reliability where it has bias is probably not a good fit for a place where it has such a significant bias. ] (]) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
== "Israel's strongly pro-Palestinian cultural community" == | |||
:Personal views (if relevant at all) should not be sorted by country and usually fit, together with criticisms, in a section ''views and comments''. | |||
I'm a bit skeptical of this statement and the sources it purports to be based on, which may be out of date. What is it even meant to be "strongly pro-Palestinian"? (] · ]) ''']''' 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:] is undue and wrong place. | |||
== Natan Sharansky's 3 Ds == | |||
:Furthermore, quotes are mostly undue and unnecessary. --] (]) 17:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
Natan Sharansky's 3Ds have been associated with the BDS movement. With repeated reverts of this point, how to restore NPOV? ] (]) 11:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::You don't think Israeli reactions to BDS could fit in a ] page? That would allow us to truncate a lot of the content of this page, alongside the History one. I'll get started on drafting both of these soon. ] (]) 20:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:You have now inserted this material 3 times after reverts by 2 editors. I would suggest you cease edit warring and btw, 1R is not an allowance. ] (]) 12:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The Israeli views will always be part of the general articles, also be present in the main article (in summarized form). But if there is a specific Israeli page, the sections in the main articles need not to be unduely large. E.g. the US views would normally be in the main article in full, but as editors made it unduely large, it has become to big for the main article, so it has to be summarized and details moved to a subpage. --] (]) 08:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024 == | |||
== RfC == | |||
{{edit extended-protected|Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions|answered=yes}} | |||
{{rfc|hist|pol|rfcid=EAF74FF}} | |||
The statement "Some of BDS's opponents have said that it has ties to militant organizations." needs to have a reference to back it up. ] (]) 20:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Should the article include a background section that discusses previous boycotts by Palestinians?<br> | |||
:Not done... It appears that the entire section that starts with that statement is full of references backing up that statement, unless I am reading it incorrectly. - ] (]) 21:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Here are a couple of sources that make the connection: | |||
* - "Boycotts are not a new tactic for Palestinians. As far back as the 1936–39 revolt against the British Mandate, Palestinians incorporated general strikes and boycotts into their struggle. " | |||
* gives previous boycotts as historical background. | |||
* " reminds readers that Palestinian boycotts have a very long and important history—indeed, back to 1936. The current BDS campaign is an extension of earlier indigenous forms of struggle, and not merely a copy of the South African anti-apartheid movement." | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2024 == | |||
] (]) 21:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{edit extended-protected|Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions|answered=yes}} | |||
*'''Support.''' This easily verifiable information should be included per NPOV. ] (]) 21:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
Regarding this sentence: | |||
*'''Oppose''' Any book whose subject is boycotts in Palestine will of course mention both historic boycotts and the current BDS but that doesn't mean the link is strong. A link is often used by those who attack the current movement to add to their claims that BDS is related to the Jewishness of Israel rather than current Israeli policies. The difference between the reasons for the boycott and the people taking part in BDS and those who supported boycotts in the Levant many decades ago is huge, which is why it is more often compared to the boycott of Apartheid South Africa. I think a paragraph in the history section about the boycott of South Africa would be much more appropriate for this international pro-international law, human rights movement rather than linking it to a semi-localized nationalistic, racist, religious, two-way-boycott of yore. ] (]) 21:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
"It quickly racked up over 700 signatories, among them Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins, who said they could no longer "in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions, including universities."" | |||
::A. All the sources I provided above are pro-BDS so your claim that "a link often used by those who attack the current movement" seems somewhat a diversion. If both sides note the link then so should this article. B. How can you on the one hand admit that "Any book whose subject is boycotts in Palestine will of course mention both historic boycotts and the current BDS" and on the other say it's not relevant to this article? ] (]) 22:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Because this article is not about boycotts in Palestine. The stance of the sources is questionable and irrelevant and I still don't see your sources linking any of the leaders, followers, or the reasons or goals, between these distant boycotts. ] (]) 22:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::I'll just let your last comment stand on its own. Thankfully, Misplaced Pages has editing policies. ] (]) 22:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
The sentence is false because Blakemore and Dawkins did not endorse that statement. The Guardian article has a correction at the bottom to clarify this mistake: | |||
*'''Support'''. Though the organisers of the so-called BDS movement seek to portray it as an international reaction to what is going on in Israel, it is reliably sourced that it has been orchestrated by and coordinated from and by Palestinians (such as ], who is opposed to any settlement with Israel) in the Palestinian territories. It is clear and widely understood that the campaign seeks to put economic and diplomatic pressure on Israel to achieve the goals of the organisers without the use of direct violence, which they know would draw a rapid response. These goals do not include a peace settlement of the Middle East conflict. The use of terms like Israeli occupation, colonialism, apartheid, racism and other terms are deliberate to draw the parallels with the South African apartheid regime. ] (]) 00:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
"To try to clarify as succinctly as possible: what Oxford professors Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins endorsed with others was the call for Europeans to suspend scientific grants and contracts until Israelis "abide by UN resolutions and open serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians". We wrongly listed them as signatories to a separate declaration by the Open University's Steven Rose and others who say they "can no longer in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions including universities"." | |||
::Careful, ], your POV is showing here... the article already lists the goals of the organisers, which are indeed not a peace settlement of the Middle East conflict, and the campaign was indeed initiated and is now led by the BDS national committee, a Palestinian group. None of that is up for debate, it's all factual, and I don't see how any of that is pertinent to the RfC. What's your argument that the historical communal boycotts (back to 1922, if you say) contribute to the understanding of this movement and deserve a place in the history section? ] (]) 06:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
I suggest you delete their names from the sentence. ] (]) 15:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' - as I said earlier, it's an example of ] to only include the 1936 mandate-era boycotts in background. We are already discussing breaking up this page with a couple of sub-pages above, so if this content is so important for context, why not propose a ] page, which could be linked? ] (]) 05:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
Fixed. ] (]) 16:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 19:22, 31 December 2024
Skip to table of contents |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
What BDS is based on
Misplaced Pages's 2nd parapgraph is based on what the BDS describes their movement based on. But it more based on the Nazi movement targeting Jewish business. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/will-bds-lead-to-the-next-kristallnacht/ Right now Misplaced Pages is accepting a POV descrition as opposed toa NPOV. Unselfstudier (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Times of Israel blogs are unmoderated and written by random people on the internet. Sorry, but that is not a reliable source and it merits no further consideration. Oliver Jack Melnick is free to believe what he likes, we dont however have to take his beliefs seriously. nableezy - 15:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
And we don't have to take the statement of the BDS at face value {BLP infraction removed}.Unselfstudier (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- But you think we should take the statement of some bloke on a blog at face value & that should take precedence? 🙄 The BDS movement itself is the best source for describing what its own movement is based on within its own article. Anything else is opinion. Regardless, those dissenting opinions are contained in the 3rd paragraph of the lead and throughout the article. Incidentally, your comment about Omar Barghouti looks like a BLP violation to me, note the rules around making potentially defamatory statements apply to non-article space, not just articles. I suggest you get your comment removed.--DSQ (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
No the BDS self description is not the best way to describe them I am sure Hezbollah, Al Quada and antifa don't describe themselves as terrorists. Having a newspaper like the Jerusalem Post the leading Mideast newspaper is a much better source.Unselfstudier (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Such a random selection. Erm, who apart from the far-right in the US describe antifa groups as terrorists? That's a crazily marginal viewpoint. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Antifa in the same sentence with Hezbollah and Al Quada is ridiculous. Comparing BDS with the 1,600 synagogues ransacked and 300 set on fire in one night is beyond the pale and an insult to Holocaust survivors. Please lower the level of hyperbole. This does not convince. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- We're not basing it on their self-description. We cite multiple academic sources for that, which themselves do not attribute the view to BDS but state it as objective fact. And, as people have pointed out to you above, a random person's opinion posted in a WP:NEWSBLOG hosted by the Jerusalem Post is not the same as it being posted by the Jerusalem Post itself; the source you presented isn't even an WP:RS. Obviously we cannot weigh an opinion from a blog equal to a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Mandy Rice-Davies applies or not?
Reading the opening description and other parts of the article, would Misplaced Pages:Mandy Rice-Davies apply here? Obviously, they would say they are a human rights movement and deny that they are anti-Semitic. Maybe because this discussion involves academic debates it goes beyond MRD, but just reading I could at least see the argument for it, but I can also see the opposite of Misplaced Pages:Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply. Thoughts? I personally lean towards the point in not of "If we do not accompany an accusation with its denial, then our readers by and large will not assume the existence of one. This is especially true of readers who also are accustomed to the journalistic standard of including denials." However, if someone has a different opinion, I would be open to change. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- You could equally consider whether Mandy also applies to the accusation by BDS critics and the Israeli government that the movement is anti-Semitic. Generally we should not say that anyone denies being something, as that gives more weight to the accusation than the rebuttal. It would be more neutral to omit the word "deny" and write that the BDS movement says the accusation is an attempt to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism. Burrobert (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: “Some critics accuse the BDS movement of antisemitism, a charge the movement denies, calling it an attempt to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism.”
To: “Organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League have labeled the BDS movement antisemitic, a charge the movement denies, arguing such critiques conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism.” 2603:6011:C222:4BAA:5E6:DF01:9B60:8D81 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: I'm not sure why we'd single out the one organization. This line is summarizing body content on criticism from multiple people and groups. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you think "Some critics..." is better, forcing readers to parse the refs to find out who these "critics" are. 142.126.188.216 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- They can parse the refs if they'd like, but it would be better to just read the body of the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you think "Some critics..." is better, forcing readers to parse the refs to find out who these "critics" are. 142.126.188.216 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove the comma before "could cost the Israeli economy" bit (Impact section, Economic subsection) Hypermoddie (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
spelling mistake
"Puma signed a for-year sponsorship" should be "Puma signed a four-year sponsorship"
I can't edit the page so I thought I would put it here Timsmsmsm (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
EI is not a reliable source about BDS
Per the RfCs, I/P is an area with significant bias for the source, and using them here is not appropriate. Please revert your edit. FortunateSons (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @FortunateSons: Joseph Massad is a subject-matter expert and would be usable as a source even were he self-published, per WP:EXPERTSPS. It would be wise to better familiarise yourself with our content policies on sources before proceeding with any more hasty removals of standing content. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- You’re right, I missed him, he can stay. What do you think about Alys Samson Estapé, is she involved enough to be considered aboutself? FortunateSons (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Bias has nothing to do with reliability. Making that premise invalid. And Alys Samson Estapé is the European coordinator for the BDS movement, making her also a usable source even if self-published. nableezy - 20:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate on why that article should be included?
- Bias is generally not an exclusion criteria, but a source with a history of both bias and poor reliability where it has bias is probably not a good fit for a place where it has such a significant bias. FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
"Israel's strongly pro-Palestinian cultural community"
I'm a bit skeptical of this statement and the sources it purports to be based on, which may be out of date. What is it even meant to be "strongly pro-Palestinian"? (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Natan Sharansky's 3 Ds
Natan Sharansky's 3Ds have been associated with the BDS movement. With repeated reverts of this point, how to restore NPOV? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- You have now inserted this material 3 times after reverts by 2 editors. I would suggest you cease edit warring and btw, 1R is not an allowance. Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statement "Some of BDS's opponents have said that it has ties to militant organizations." needs to have a reference to back it up. User montu (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not done... It appears that the entire section that starts with that statement is full of references backing up that statement, unless I am reading it incorrectly. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding this sentence: "It quickly racked up over 700 signatories, among them Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins, who said they could no longer "in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions, including universities.""
The sentence is false because Blakemore and Dawkins did not endorse that statement. The Guardian article has a correction at the bottom to clarify this mistake:
"To try to clarify as succinctly as possible: what Oxford professors Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins endorsed with others was the call for Europeans to suspend scientific grants and contracts until Israelis "abide by UN resolutions and open serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians". We wrongly listed them as signatories to a separate declaration by the Open University's Steven Rose and others who say they "can no longer in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions including universities"."
I suggest you delete their names from the sentence. 173.3.71.235 (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Economics articles
- Low-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- B-Class organization articles
- Mid-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- High-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles