Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:03, 1 October 2021 editSelfstudier (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers41,157 edits →ADL's views on BDS anti-semitism ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:11, 1 October 2021 edit undoBob drobbs (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,822 edits →ADL's views on BDS anti-semitism: IntransigenceNext edit →
Line 210:		Line 210:

	:Your acquaintance at the StandWithUS article is fond of pointing out the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include disputed content. At this point, you have been reverted by two different editors so you don't have consensus for your desired change. Perhaps some other editors will appear and support your position.] (]) 18:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)		:Your acquaintance at the StandWithUS article is fond of pointing out the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include disputed content. At this point, you have been reverted by two different editors so you don't have consensus for your desired change. Perhaps some other editors will appear and support your position.] (]) 18:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

			:: {{reply to\| Selfstudier}} There is absolutely nothing disputed about ADL, a reliable sources, spelling out the ways they feel BDS is anti-semitic. The original reverter did so until a false pretense, it was not just a "ce". Your explanation is "it was fine as-is" is also not sufficient. Why did this text need to be removed?
			:: And if you're going to continue to engage in your absolutely intransigent behavior, blocking changes, without any solid basis behind your actions then this may need to be escalated to incident reports. -- ] (]) 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:11, 1 October 2021

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:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

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.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Israel Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Right of return

Hello everybody. This is the first time I've ever contributed to a 'talk' page, so my apologies if I get protocol wrong ? My suggestion is that the sentence "...BDS demands that Israel allow the Palestinian refugees displaced in the 1948 war to return to what is now Israel.." should be changed to read something like "... BDS demands that Israel allow the Palestinian refugees displaced in the 1948 war - and all their descendants through the male line - to return to what is now Israel..." This is particularly relevant in the subsequent discussions on a 'right of return' creating an Arab majority in 'Israel'. There are only a few thousand 1948 refugees left alive, and readers might be puzzled as to how this could change Israel's demographics. What the PLO - and the BDS movement - is demanding is that their descendants be given the 'right', which would be several million people, which would most certainly change the demographics ? Regards, Roofgardener (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Roofgardener.

Impertinent revert

This revert was uncalled for. The editor asked that I discuss on the talk page. Very well:

The random black and white picture of a Palestinian refugee does not belong in this article. We do not need to start a "picture arms race" where one editor adds a random picture from Palestinian history and another editor adds a random picture from Jewish (for example, a picture from Nazi boycotts in the antisemitism section).
The "Liberal Zionism" heading should be the same size as the other headings under the "Philosophy and Goals" section. This should be self explanatory.
A paraphrase of an American University Business Law Review article in the "antisemitism" section is entirely warranted. It was reverted for no stated reason. I choose not to speculate as to whether it was done in good or bad faith.
The definite article "The" belongs before the acronym ADL in the "antisemitism" section.

Unless a reasonable argument is made for not doing so, I intend on restoring these edits some time this week. --GHcool (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I would note that Greendorfer does not contain the statement re US/EU adoption of working definition.Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to rewording the Greendorfer paraphrase so that is consistent with what is written on Page 357-8. --GHcool (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The revert was called for. I've argued for every change either in the edit messages or on this talk page but you haven't engaged in the discussion.

1. It is customary to illustrate topics with photos. If we describe X we want to have a photo showing X. In this case, we describe Palestinian refugees and thus we want a photo of Palestinian refugees. You have twice removed the photo with the edit message "removed random irrelevant photo" but you haven't explained why you think the photo is irrelevant.

2. I wrote in the edit message on the heading size that the "section deals with the RoR". Since liberal Zionism's main critique of BDS is that it insists on a right of return (RoR) for Palestinian refugees it should be a subsection of that section. Liberal Zionists generally don't have any problem with the other demands, such as dismantling the West Bank wall.

3. I motivated this change on this talk page in the section just above this one. Greendorfer's argument is described in the section "Singling out Israel": Marc Greendorfer believes that BDS "applies a unique standard not applied to any other country." There is no need to add his argument in multiple places and the EU and the US has not adopted the Working Definition for that matter.

4. See this discussion about "the ADL": Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020_September_24#The_in_front_of_abbreviations Since the Misplaced Pages article about the Anti-Defamation League doesn't write "the ADL" I don't think it should be used here either. ImTheIP (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

1. Fair enough. I'll add photos in other sections illustrating the topic in the same spirit.

2. You are wrong about this, but I don't care enough to fight it.

3. You are wrong about this, but I don't care enough to fight it.

4. You are wrong about this, but I don't care enough to fight it. --GHcool (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Unless someone explains to me why I'm wrong, I will remain wrong. Your last edit violates the WP:POINT guideline and I have therefore reverted it. ImTheIP (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a disruption. I legitimately believe those images belong there. If you have a problem with them, please state why. Otherwise, I will restore the images. --GHcool (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't do that. WP:AGF doesn't mean you have to accept editing that is obviously disruptive. There may be good images to illustrate the article with, but the ones you have chosen aren't. ImTheIP (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the ones I have chosen aren't good. I hope you don't accuse me of making a WP:POINT, but I thought that your inclusion of a refugee into the article wasn't a good image. I explained why, but this did not convince you and you reverted it because you thought it was not random. Your assertion that my images weren't good even though they are at least as relevant as your refugee image leads me to want to re-read that WP:AGF guideline to gird myself when I am tempted not to assume good faith. --GHcool (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@GHcool:, if I may comment on the photo situation... and I make no bad faith assumptions, but I will suggest another course you might take here (or to take no action), and that is this: you do not think the image of Palestinian refugees in the Right of Return section is appropriate. If that is the case, are there possibly any other images you think would be appropriate in that section? If it is simply that one photo that you take issue with, then the simplest way to solve that would be to find another one that you and @ImtheIP: both find acceptable. Also - I think that your reasoning for adding the photos you added was because ImtheIP had said that every section should have a photo. Which is perfectly ok. BUT, the way it was stated, it did kind of come across as a tit-for-tat (WP:POINT) type act. An 'if you're going to put up images I object to there I will put up images you don't like here' thing. It is not unreasonable that ImtheIP would make that misunderstanding, so that shouldn't be held against him. Cheers, Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion that my images weren't good even though they are at least as relevant as your refugee image This is the textbook definition of WP:POINT. Please stop edit warring and instead edit collaboratively. If you fail to do so I will file a complaint with the administrators. Now, if you want logos of Hamas, the Democratic party, and the Republican party added to the article, you have to explain why. It is not obvious to me what they add. But if you can argue for it, then there may be a consensus for adding them to this article in which case we do so. ] (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@GHcool: This edit is (afaict) a violation of the 1R rule and you ought to self-revert. The edit is also kind of obtuse and WP:POINTy. Knowing 1) that Israel hasn't allowed the Palestinian refugees to return and 2) that the international community believes that they have a right of return is necessary to understand what BDS's demands are about. Readers cannot be assumed to have the necessary background information. For example, I read recently that a large number of Americans believe that Palestine occupies Israel! That is the level many Misplaced Pages readers are on so things have to be explained to them even if it is obvious to you and me. ImTheIP (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my edit. It is accurate and reflects what the sources say. I hope Americans foolish enough to believe what you say they do will read the relevant Misplaced Pages articles on the topic. --GHcool (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edit is still a 1RR violation... And I don't understand what "the Arab world has denied self-determination to Palestinians elsewhere" means. Perhaps you can provide a specific page number and a quote from the source? ImTheIP (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

DONE. --GHcool (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In no way does the quoted text support what you added to the article. You have on multiple occasions misrepresented the sources you are using which is against the Misplaced Pages rules. ImTheIP (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I quoted only the most "smoking gunnish" portion. I invite you to read the entire article. When you do, you will see that I summarized it accurately. Even if you do not agree with Avnon's analysis, the history is what it is and can be found in multiple sources, including Misplaced Pages (for example here). --GHcool (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it works: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Your vague reference to a 15-page essay does not pass muster. ImTheIP (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@GHcool: On the dispute resolution noticeboard you said that the photo of the Palestinian refugees was "ghastly". Are there photos in, say, Palestinian refugees or 1948 Palestinian exodus you would find less ghastly? I don't care so much about the specific photo we use as long as it is of a Palestinian. ImTheIP (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No. As I wrote here, "a photo of Palestinian refugees in 1948 is not topical enough to illustrate an article on the BDS movement." I am sorry that I did not respond with a compromise on the dispute noticeboard (I was out of town). --GHcool (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see how the section could be illustrated without featuring a photo of a Palestinian refugee. ImTheIP (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

A picture of Finkelstein is already there. Why do we need more than one photo in this section? After all, most of the "Criticism" sections have no illustrations. --GHcool (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Movement and Mascot

Editor @Enthusiast01: edits and (re)reverts without sourcing and in contradiction to the given source that BDS is a campaign and not a movement. This is his opinion and nothing more than his opinion. As is his opinion, again without sourcing that information about BDS, namely its mascot, is not relevant to BDS. This sort of editing is less than helpful.Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Agreed. I'm glad that ImTheIP seems to have resolved the issue for now. warmly, ezlev. talk 17:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Liam Hoare

@GHcool: I moved Liam Hoare's argument to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions#Effectiveness. Does it really have to be in two places? ImTheIP (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You moved one part of his argument to the effectiveness section (and I'm glad you did). The other part, the part about whether or not BDS is an existential threat, belongs as a footnote. --GHcool (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The text I added reads "Liam Hoare argues that the countermeasures have already backfired, that BDS is unpalatable to the masses and that the Israeli government's heavy-handedness keeps it alive." This already implies that he doesn't think BDS is an existential threat. It doesn't need to be double-counted, especially not in a footnote. ImTheIP (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The footnote refers to the part of Hoare's article where he writes the following:

"Since BDS is a manifestly anti-Zionist political movement, Israel has no choice but to push back against it. Its aims, if their 2005 declaration is taken at face value, are quite clear: the end of Israel’s “colonization of all Arab lands” and the protection of 'the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.' Were such demands made concrete, Israel would cease to exist. Were BDS to become a broad-based movement underwritten by national governments, it could constitute an existential threat. But, of course, it isn’t — and likely never will be. BDS is a failed political movement, and the Israeli government stalks a tiger that walks on paper feet."

--GHcool (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know what his opinion piece says. For the record, he is a freelance writer and not associated with the Israel lobby. It is true that lots of people does not believe that BDS is a "strategic" or "existential" threat to Israel, but that angle is already exhaustively covered in the article. You have it in the Criticism section: "In 2007, The Economist called the boycott "flimsy" and ineffective" In the Impact section: "Pessin and Ben-Atar have argued that since Israel's gross domestic product nearly doubled between 2006 and 2015 and foreign investment in Israel tripled during the same period, BDS has not had a significant impact on Israel's economy." There's is no point in repeating the same argument in the form of a freelance writer's WP:UNDUE opinion in a misplaced footnote. ImTheIP (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

german neo-nazis

The Newsweek source says that neo-Nazi parties support a German boycott of Israel. Not that they support or are a part of the BDS movement. The Haaretz source is a. an opinion piece, and b. doesnt say anything at all about these parties. Adding a reference to something does not make it sourced, and misrepresenting sources is sanctionable conduct. nableezy - 20:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post explicitly says that those neo-nazi parties support BDS. Why did you skip that source in your comment? - Daveout(talk) 20:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post has been paid by the Israeli government to print articles associating BDS with antisemitism. That makes the Post unsuitable for this kind negative claims. Furthermore, what the Post says is that "he III. Path supports the activities of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel." Supporting the activities is not the same as supporting the goals of the BDS movement. There parties are also microscopic - the largest, The III. Path, has 580 members. Whether they support BDS or not is UNDUE. ImTheIP (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post has been paid by the Israeli government. This claim is made by a 'webzine' (which is basically some sort of blog), so I don't think it is very trustworthy. The simple fact that neo-nazi groups support someone's ""activities"" is very concerning on its own, i would say. Neo-nazi groups are microscopic everywhere, this doesn't make them less concerning. - Daveout(talk) 21:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not even denied by the Israeli government. Here is the anti-BDS supplement the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry paid the Post to publish. If everything fringe Nazis do always is notable, then Richard Spencer's endorsement of Joe Biden should be added to Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign too. It isn't there and for the same reason shouldn't be here. ImTheIP (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. - Daveout(talk) 21:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to write about German Neonazis, it would be best to not draw any final conclusions before sources written in German and published in Germany have been consulted. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

German neo-nazis, again

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Kenosha Forever (talk · contribs · block log · spi · lta)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

There is currently a paragraph in the "Political" subsection of the "Support" section which reads According to Ha'Aretz, German Nazi parties and BDS find common ground in the effort to dilute "the widely accepted definition of anti-Semitism put forward by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Since the IHRA definition cites the demonization of Israel as an example of contemporary anti-Semitism, BDS supporters ... oppose this definition just as bitterly as neo-Nazis." This seems misplaced at best, which is why I removed it, but now it's been reinstated with an edit summary implying that it should be included because it's from Haaretz. To be clear, I just think we should remove it because the Support section is about support for BDS, and the paragraph is not about support for BDS. Not going to redo the removal myself because I don't want to edit war, but pinging GHcool who reinstated the content, and happy to hear from other editors too.

References

Marquardt-Bigman, Petra. "Why neo-Nazis Love the BDS Movement So Much." Ha'Aretz. 16 June 2019. 10 August 2020.

ezlev
_ctrbs 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev, This is textbook WP:UNDUE - an opinion piece in a partisan source. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed it, seems to me should be in the IHRA article if anywhere.Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

With that sort of programmatic smearing, it will end up with BDS, German Nazis and the 200 Jewish liberals in Jerusalem and diaspora who drew up the Jerusalem Declaration, all sharing common ground.

Tom Suarez, The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism: a critical view Mondoweiss 31 March 2021

Tony Greenstein, Why we should critically welcome the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism Mondoweiss 1 April 2021 Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

~~::: We write according to what reliable sources like Haaretz say, And they discuss this in the context of BDS. Kenosha Forever (talk)~~

There's a pretty major difference between something being vaguely in the context of BDS and being explicit support for the BDS movement, which is what the section it was placed in talks about, no? Besides, the source is an opinion article by a pro-Israel activist. ezlev
_ctrbs 02:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

:::::Let's unpack this a bit, shall we ? "the source is an opinion article by a pro-Israel activist" - yes, but so what? If we were to start excluding opinion pieces by activists, I think we'd need to remove more than 50% of this article. If you want to attribute the opinion to the writer, go ahead, but don't remove it, wholesale. "something being vaguely in the context of BDS " - come now, BDS is the headline of this opinion piece, not something "vaguely in the context of BDS". Kenosha Forever (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I only brought up the sourcing because you mentioned it as if it justified inclusion, but my mention of it seems to have steered the discussion off topic, and I apologize for that. I'd like to focus on the specific issue of whether the disputed content should be included in the "Support" section of this article.

Again, I removed the content because it did not say anything about any person or group being in support of BDS, and the section it was in is about support for BDS. I'm not saying that the source shouldn't be used in the article - I can't even read the source, it's behind a paywall. My sole reason for removing the content, and for starting this discussion when it was added back, was that its placement did not make sense in the context of the article and I didn't find a place to move it that made sense either. ezlev
_ctrbs 03:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

When we are adding published opinions to articles, we need to take care who to attribute them to. "According to Haaretz" is a false claim, since this is not a Haaretz editorial but an op-ed by Petra Marquardt-Bigman published by Haaretz with an "Opinion" label. Haaretz publishes many opinions that disagree with each other, including pro-BDS opinions. The only acceptable attribution is "according to Petra Marquardt-Bigman". One then needs to ask (1) who? (2) does her opinion support the proposed text? To me it feels rather like "Nazis like chocolate, therefore chocolate is evil". Incidentally, Kenosha, headlines are generally written by sub-editors and not by authors, so they don't count at all. Zero 04:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As an opinion piece it should be attributed to the writer Marquardt-Bigman and not Haaretz. The argument uses guilt by association (the Association fallacy) by linking BDS with "German Nazi parties". Many people and groups other than BDS and neo-Nazis regard criticism of Israel as not antisemitic. There is no reason why these two groups in particular should be linked unless the writer is trying to discredit the BDS and/or protect Israel from criticism. Anyway, that is Marquardt-Bigman's opinion and editors don't get to add their commentary when including it in an article. We need to decide whether the opinion satisfies the wp:weight requirement. I think the point about BDS challenging the IHRA definition of antisemitism would have received sufficient coverage to be suitable for inclusion. However, has anyone else linked BDS with neo-Nazi's. If not, then "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth)". The other thing to note is that, when there is disagreement about text that has been added to an article, the text should be removed from the article until a consensus is reached. Burrobert (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that attribution should be to Marquardt-Bigman, and that this is a question of due weight. Marquardt-Bigman was a historian, who wrote extensively about anti-Semitism. She was regularly published in Haaretz, The Times of Israel, The Forward, The Guardian, The Jerusalem Post and other media outlets. She was a scholar at The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law , and published academic work on anti-Semitism under its imprint. Her opinion is at least as notable as the countless activists currently present in the article, from Ali Abunimah to Peter Beinart, who have ZERO academic credentials in this are. This would be true even if she was the only one to connect BDS with neo-Nazis, but she is of course not alone: , Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC) blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100

"to connect BDS with neo-Nazis" <- problem right here. That they both don't like something doesn't otherwise connect them. That's the same thought in the BBC article ""..bah. Of course, Israel would like to connect BDS with Pol Pot if they could, you do know, I suppose, about the relationship between the MSA and the Jerusalem Post? You have a whole raft of Jewish scholars saying that BDS isn't antisemitic and you are pushing this drivel, time to move on, methinks.Selfstudier (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

::On this project, we go by sources, and we don't discount sources as "drivel" just because we don't like them. Her opinion is notable, right or wrong, politically motivated or not. If we can quote that provocateur Abunimah, we can quote an academic who knows something about anti-Semitism. Kenosha Forever (talk)

It is patently a smear by a pro-Israeli activist, part of the spin wars.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

::::On this project, we go by sources. Many consider the rants of Abunimah or the screeds by Beinart to be similar smears, part of spin wars, yet they are in the article. As should this one. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself as well as teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. What opinion? That BDS and Nazis don't like IHRA? Put it in the IHRA article. Drivel will fit right in there and I won't even object. It doesn't connect BDS with Nazis other than that. Nor does not liking IHRA make you anti-Semitic.Selfstudier (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

::::::You may not like the reasoning she uses, but that's just tough noogies for you. On this project, we go by sources, and a notable opinion published in a reliable source has made the connection. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about her reasoning, I only care about yours so I will wait for your RFC asking whether said "opinion" should be included in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, Its shame that don't care about fellow editors opinion. If there should be RFS it should be general one about what type of opinions we allow in this article Shrike (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I have placed no restriction on anyone's ability to open any RFC they please. Of course, RFCbefore requires a discussion prior to opening such RFC and all we have discussed up to now is the false BDS/Nazi equivalence. Maybe you should begin a separate discussion rather than engaging in disruptive editing in respect of this one.Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

While you are writing it up, you can absorb this "opinion" (same subject).Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have veered sharply off topic, and there have been multiple reverted attempts to reinstate the disputed content, so I'm going to reiterate what the removal was actually about. I removed the paragraph quoted at the top of the discussion because it was in the "Support" section of this article, which lists people and groups that support or have supported BDS. The paragraph did not say anything about any person or group supporting BDS. (It said that neo-Nazis find common ground with BDS on a specific issue, and that doesn't mean one supports the other any more than the John Brown Gun Club supports the National Rifle Association or vice versa.)

It's that simple. The content didn't make any sense in context, so I removed it. Adding it back with no substantial changes will not fix the problem, which is that its location in the article makes no sense. Other issues which have been raised above can and should be discussed if the content is reworked and/or relocated so that its location makes sense and it is a more constructive addition to the article. ezlev
_ctrbs 19:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Activities

In the sentence "In 2014 the Gates Foundation sold its $170 million state ..." - I believe this should be "stake"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.154.26 (talk)

Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed, and also moved your talk page comment to the bottom, which is where new comments go. Please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. ezlev
_ctrbs 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There is another example of "state" for "stake" in the sentence "Veolia sold off its final investment in Israel, a 5% state in CityPass owned by its subsidiary Transdev." 24.212.193.227 (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Internet rando who hates typos

Fixed. Squeakachu (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

erroneous irrelevant tag

citations 54 and 55 are erroneously marked as irrelevant, despite showing their relevance on their face. The location in which they are cited declares that the UN/the international community has supported Palestinian Right of Return, against Israeli legal action. The Right of Return is enumerated in citation 54, though the link given in the citation is to the abstract of a larger paper (this should probably be corrected), which within its full text reads:

That this language meant the Palestinian refugees must be permitted to return if they so chose is made clear both in the intentions of the drafters, as well as in the discussions by the UN delegates when 194 was passed. Paragraph 11 also makes return, restitution, and compensation equally enforceable, according to the refugee’s own choice.6

This is, on its face, relevantly cited. Citation 55 is also relevant on its face, reading:

The Right of Return achieved customary status in 1948 when the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194(III) affirming the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and to obtain restitution and compensation. Like never before in the history of the UN, Resolution 194’s consistency with international laws and instruments was reaffirmed by the UN more than 135 times.

And further enumerates actions by the State Of Israel to circumvent the right of return:

It is illegal as a matter of international law to deny refugees of a particular race, color, national or ethnic origin the right to return to their homes. Yet, subsequent Israeli laws barred Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes in what is now Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories (Law of Return), sanctioned mass denationalization laws targeting Palestinian refugees (Nationality Law), and confiscated Palestinian private property and land-holdings (Absentee Property Law and Land Acquisition Law). While the Right of Return remains the primary remedy, Palestinian refugees are entitled to reparations of their homes and properties based on the UN Principles and Guidelines, ICCPR Article 2, and other instruments. Reparations entail restitution (including right to return), compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction of victims, and guarantee of non-repetition.

It is plain to see that these markups were either erroneous or malicious. 96.241.209.54 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

They are irrelevant to BDS. The citations do not mention BDS at all. They belong in an article about refugees, not an article about BDS. --GHcool (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ben and Jerry's

An editor reverted the insertion of properly sourced material, a logical continuation of material already present in the article and claimed the reason as "nothing to do with BDS". In order to make it absolutely clear I have restored the edit along with additional references. If said editor has anything further to add then he can do so here.Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Said editor has now breached 1RR as well as removing an RS with a false edit summary.Selfstudier (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Now we have a tag for a source commenting about itself, which is a simple case of WP:ABOUTSELF and doesn't need tagging.Selfstudier (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

GHcool was right to remove that. That paragraph is written in a way that make it seems like B&J supports BDS and that Israel was boycotted bc of BDS, which is unproven. (violating SYNTH and NPOV). And why include so many responses and quotes from ppl that nobody cares about? Also, Nishidani's careless "undo" reintroduced an error into the text. - Daveout(talk) 07:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This news is widely and reliably sourced. If one finds some discrepancy in text and sources, one tweaks to make the two gel. Removal is just suppression of information from dislike. The task therefore is to lay out why the text as it stands misrepresents the sources.Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Daveout got my intentions exactly right. B&J does not support BDS. Indeed, they specifically say that they will continue operating and doing business within Israel. The only party relating their political decision to BDS is Yair Lapid (foolishly, in my view, but that's irrelevant to the article).

Daveout is also right that Vermonters for Justice in Palestine is a group that nobody cares about. Anything that they say and do would violate WP:UNDUE unless/until they become a bigger part of the overall BDS movement.

I don't mind if the B&J kerfuffle is included somewhere in this article since Lapid was foolish enough to link the two. I object to framing the issue as though B&J is following a BDS "campaign" (as the heading indicates) or that BDS's decision is under BDS "activities" (another heading). A better place for some of this would be under the "Countering BDS" heading. If there is no objection, I will move it there within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The original edit was short, to the point and followed on logically from the material that was already in the article previously and the location was never objected to before (ie a BDS campaign). So why are you objecting to it now? I suspect it is just because of the outcome and nothing more. I disagree that it is framed as if BnJ is following a BDS campaign, where does it say that? VJP was also in the article previously and not objected to. Lapid is irrelevant, this is obviously BDS related, that's why it was in the article to begin with. So yes, I object to any attempt to downplay or otherwise dilute this material unless you have consensus for that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Vermonters for Justice in Palestine is a group that nobody cares about

Well, 'them arseholes whingeing about Pallies as if there were some problem with their wonderful lives under occupation'? In short, clearly, you couldn't give a fuck about them, which is okay but the business was founded and grown in Vermont, and that link made a group of Vermonters protest for many years, finally with some success. I can't see how any of your objections are anything more than dislike. The Israeli government has managed to persuade numerous state legislatures in the US to act against firms which join BDS boycotting. This company's decision effectively exposes it precisely to such retailiation. It is too precipitate to shift it out here, even were there some query about it, because it is BDS breaking news, and will be for a while. If there's work to be done, one tweaks. There's no policy objection above, so far.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani didn't respond to any of my point and his sarcasm is not helpful. His entire post can be ignored.

I addressed your post only you didn't care to notice. If Lapid, the Israeli ambassador in Washington, and at the United Nations state that the J&B decision will have political and ramifications and that pressure will be exerted on 35 states to apply to that firm the legislation Israeli advisors drafted as a template for laws explicitly framed to punish the BDS movement, then the connection is there and stated in several prime sources, (Ben Samuels, Wants U.S. to Enforce anti-BDS Laws Against Ben & Jerry’s. Will It Work? Haaretz 20 July 2021; Israel PM warns Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever of consequences over sales ban 20 July 2021; Lazar Berman Diplomat says anti-settlement decision by US ice cream company will encourages activists, as Lapid says he plans to address US governors of states that have anti-BDS legislation The Times of Israel 20 July 2021 )It is irrelevant what J&B think of BDS, or omit to mention it. Both the BDS movement and the Foreign Ministry of Israel state that the move is either supportive or connected to BDS, and this is precisely what the present article discusses. No amount of pettifogging can outflank those facts.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier's response was a bit more sophisticated and deserves an answer. I disagree that "followed on logically from the material that was already in the article previously." I agree, however, that B&J does not frame its decision as part of a BDS campaign. That is why it is not appropriate to place this kerfuffle under the "Campaign" heading.

Selfstudier's argument has prompted me to rethink my approach to Vermonters for Justice in Palestine. I don't mind if they are mentioned in the article. What I object to is treating their website as a relevant/reliable source for anything. If VJP is mentioned in ABC, etc. then by all means, put them in the article.

I don't want to downplay of dilute. I only have ~~three~~ two suggestions, both of which would improve the article in ways that ought to be acceptable by all sides:

Remove the one sentence that begins, "VTJP describes itself ..."
Move the entire B&J kerfuffle (from "On 19 July" to "anti-Jewish discourse") to the "Countering BDS" section. --GHcool (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That's two suggestions, not three and neither of them is any good:-

The objection to VJP has no foundation, it is only being used as a source about itself, aboutself specifically permits a source to comment on itself and the purpose here is simply to show that it says that it supports BDS, nothing else. It was described in the article previously as one of "a number of local campaigns have been created by BDS-affiliated groups and endorsed by the movement". So they like each other, that's all that says and it is entirely unobjectionable in the given context (ie their involvement in the campaign).

This has nothing to do with countering BDS. How you arrive at that is beyond me.

Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent addition to the lead

An editor has inserted directly into the lead "It has been noted that the BDS program seeks to ultimately eliminate the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland." This is based on the opinion of a Sherwin Pomeranz writing in the Jerusalem Post who is described thus "The writer has lived in Israel for 37 years, is CEO of Atid EDI Ltd., a Jerusalem-based business development consultancy, and former national president of the Association of Americans & Canadians in Israel." This individual who I have never heard of seems uniquely unqualified to say "The catalyst for this decision was the pressure exerted by a group called Vermonters for Justice in Palestine (vtjp.org) that is totally committed to supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, a program that seeks to ultimately eliminate the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland." That apart, that an editor would then, based on this, edit WP as if it were a fact is completely undue (as well as rather obvious POV editing). Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Now said editor has altered the statement to "BDS proponents have stated that the BDS program seeks to ultimately eliminate the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland" again without attribution and this time citing JVL unreliable source per this RFC which I have removed and another source of doubtful value (the Jewish Journal(Los Angeles)) which is a recycled piece of junk news that has been doing the rounds for years and the edit does not even properly reflect it anyway. Tagged.Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

In case I am still not making myself clear, I am content to take this to RSN for a view on this.Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

As the founder of the BDS Omar Barghouti has stated that his desire is the elimination of the State of Israel. That is sufficent evidence.2603:8081:6B04:5300:B061:6CEB:BCEC:3FE0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

ADL's views on BDS anti-semitism

The ADL is clear and nuanced in it's description of the ways that the BDS movement is anti-semitic:

"IS BDS ANTI-SEMITIC? - Many of the founding goals of the BDS movement, including denying the Jewish people the universal right of self-determination – along with many of the strategies employed in BDS campaigns are anti- Semitic." (link)

For unexplained reasons, editors want to wipe that any nuance about the ADL's views: (AlsoWukai,SelfStudier).

Instead of turning this into an edit war, can we get a clear explanation why a sentence explaining their views needs to be removed? And if there is no reason to remove my text, it needs to be restored.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Your acquaintance at the StandWithUS article is fond of pointing out the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include disputed content. At this point, you have been reverted by two different editors so you don't have consensus for your desired change. Perhaps some other editors will appear and support your position.Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: There is absolutely nothing disputed about ADL, a reliable sources, spelling out the ways they feel BDS is anti-semitic. The original reverter did so until a false pretense, it was not just a "ce". Your explanation is "it was fine as-is" is also not sufficient. Why did this text need to be removed?

And if you're going to continue to engage in your absolutely intransigent behavior, blocking changes, without any solid basis behind your actions then this may need to be escalated to incident reports. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Categories: