Misplaced Pages

Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qualitatis (talk | contribs) at 18:12, 25 March 2016 (→Sourced material: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:12, 25 March 2016 by Qualitatis (talk | contribs) (→Sourced material: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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 and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.
See discretionary sanctions for details
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.
WikiProject iconIsrael
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Archiving icon
Archives

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


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 13:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Israeli Reaction/Effectiveness of BDS

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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.


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

Thanks

With respect to your first request (concerning Hawking), another editor changed the article to better summarize what the sources say.
With respect to your second request (concerning Israeli Apartheid Week), this article repeats what Misplaced Pages's article about Israeli Apartheid Week says.
Finally, the question of whether Gaza is still occupied by Israel is not as straightforward as you suggest, and is beyond the scope of this article. If you're interested, you can read the third paragraph of Gaza Strip and the section of that article titled "Military occupation", as well as the many sources cited. Israeli-occupied territories may also be of interest to you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Right, due to the large number of accounts created to further the denial of Palestine, the occupation, and promote Israel's view over the rest of the world's view, WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 was enacted. Please make 500 edits on articles not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before discussing or editing any article related to the conflict. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith

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

I agree and restored the more accurate term. I challenge anyone to show the Arab League or anyone else was talking about boycotting Israel in 1945, which as I'm sure we all know is not going to happen. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The sentence already stated that the 1945 boycott was against "Jews of Mandatory Palestine", the first part of the sentence talks about "ongoing" boycotts which target Israel as a state. Sepsis II (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
There must be a way to make it clear that the debate in 1945 (and arguably today) targeted Jews living within the borders of Israel/Palestine. I look forward to a reasonable suggestion. --GHcool (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the last comment, and will also attempt to formulate a sentence which conveys this. But it is misleading to refer to "a wide ranging boycott of Jews", since this was not directed at Jews in general, but at the (Zionist, settler) Jewish community in Palestine; the Yishuv before 1948, the state of Israel subsequently. RolandR (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Whatever it was, it was not, and could not have been, against Israel in 1945. I see Sepsis has already edit warred what we all know is false back into the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This book uses the term Palestinian Jews. This one says "Jews in Palestine." This one says "the Jewish community in Palestine." All are acceptable to me. --GHcool (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
All would be acceptable, but I would prefer "the Jewish community in Palestine", which clarifies that the boycott was of a national community, rather than of individual Jews. RolandR (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Certainly. Boycotting Jews collectively seems somehow more acceptable than boycotting Jews individually.  ;) --GHcool (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Mandate era boycott

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

It does not belong in the article without consensus. It was added recently without discussion and boldly removed with the following edit summary - "This is not background about BDS at all, but a fork of another article". That is a reasonable view that may or may not find consensus. The next step is to discuss the content and gain consensus. Instead it has been aggressively edited warred back into the article for invalid reasons (which is why I reverted) - "sourced, relevant, longstanding text". It's sourced, it's relevance has already been questioned and it is not longstanding text. So what you need to do is self-revert and make a case for inclusion. Others will make their case for exclusion no doubt. Lots of tools are available to help find consensus. That is how it is supposed to work. I will not be participating in the discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
History/background sections are normative on 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.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I asked you to self-revert and explained why you should do that. You have not done so. Why ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I did not create this material. I happened on it and deem it to be a well-sourced and appropriate part of the page. In fact, it is so appropriate and so well-written that I assumed it had been a long-standing part of the page, which certainly needs a section of this sort. If you have a policy-based reason to delete, feel free to share. But beware WP:OWN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. My question is not about what you think of the content. I can understand why some people would like to connect BDS to Jewish boycotts, or Nazis or whatever. I can understand why some people might like to go even further back and try to attach the entire history of anti-Semitism to the BDS movement. But I'm not interested in such things because as someone who supports BDS I have a conflict of interest. I would like to know why you will not allow the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle to be reset to the correct step so that it can proceed as designed.
  • The content was added 2016-01-31T05:50:30‎ Enthusiast01
  • Removed 2016-03-08T15:51:16‎ Qualitatis
  • That is where discussion should have started.
  • Restored 2016-03-10T02:00:08‎ No More Mr Nice Guy
  • Removed 2016-03-10T07:35:36‎ Qualitatis
  • Restored 2016-03-11T02:31:38‎ No More Mr Nice Guy (with an inaccurate edit summary)
That is edit warring.
My edit tried to set it back to where it should be. It hasn't worked so far. But why ? What is preventing that from happening? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A. As you know since you argue this often, editors who edited the page but did not remove the content implicitly consented to its inclusion (that's over 10 people. They may argue differently now, but that's the implication of their leaving it there). We are past the BDS cycle.
B. If there's an edit war going on and you make a revert, you're participating in the edit war.
C. here is a pro BDS source connecting boycotts before Israel was established to current BDS. There are of course many many others. So kindly cut out the "I'm not going to participate in the discussion but let me just accuse my political opponents of playing the antisemitism card, as is their wont" bullshit. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
At least 10 different editors made at least a couple dozen edits to the article for over a month between the time this information was inserted until it was removed. The BRD train has long left the station. Sean accusing others of edit warring as he edit wars is about par for the course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
That argument is nonsense. I was one of the people who edited the article in this period. The fact that I did not remove this text emphatically does not mean that I consented to its inclusion, or that I consent now. I chose to make a different edit, and not to edit-war on this text. But I strenuously object to this attempt to pose me as a supporter of the edit. RolandR (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I have no intention of editing this article, but the thing I notice about the disputed text is how biased it is. The mandate period in Palestine was a time of mutual boycotts between Arabs and Jews. Presenting it as a one-sided phenomenon enforced by violence is outrageous. Where is the Hebrew labor movement mentioned? Or this, from the 1936 report to the League of Nations: "A mutual boycott of considerable stringency between the Arab and Jewish communities broke out after the end of the strike. It provoked isolated instances of violence and intimidation and continued to be observed until the end of the year." 1939-ish mention by Hurewitz, Struggle for Palstine p161: "he prevailing economic boycott of Arab products and labor". Also Hope-Simpson Report. Also Hyamson Palestine under Mandate: "obstinate and long-persisting trade boycott of Arabs and Jews mutually". And so on, lots of sources. If you want "background" do it properly at least. Zero 22:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hebrew labor and related movements are entirely tangential to BDS. --GHcool (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

BRD is an essay. You should really stop talking about it as if it is some kind of policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I also don't see any connection between the boycotts by a set of groups nearly a century ago which had to do zionism, imperialism, racial conflict, nationalism, etc, and BDS today which is an international movement about ending the occupation and supporting human/civil rights and international law in the area. Sepsis II (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The BDS movement is clearly pointed at ending the Israeli occupation and colonization. As such, it has no roots in British Mandate boycotts any way. Thus, an introduction into historic boycotts is inappropriate, especially in this article, especially in the background section.
I would even go further. All what is left until "During the Second Intifada ..." should also be removed, as it is about boycotts against the existence of Israel as such, not about the issue that is central in BDS, thus also not background of BDS. For the Julie Norman and Rhea DuMont paragraphs: These are very academic essay-like pieces and I don't think they make any sense in elucidating the BDS movement.
And per Malik Shabazz: Even if some like to connect BDS with British Mandate boycotts, it is still not background of the BDS movement. --Qualitatis (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Once again, here is a reliable source, a pro BDS one no less, that makes the connection between pre-Israel boycotts and BDS. Do you guys have any policy based objection to restoring this? The section is reliably sourced and the connection between it and the topic of this article is reliably sourced. I mean, I understand you DONTLIKEIT, but that's just not enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Just because two sections, one on the origin of BDS, and another on historic boycotts in Palestine, are in the same book does not mean they are closely related. Do you have any policy based reasons for keep this unrelated material in this article? I understand you like it, but that's just not enough. Sepsis II (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read more closely. He is explicitly connecting the two, going so far as to use the terms "boycott, divestment and sanctions" for pre-Israel boycotts. Here are another two pro-BDS authors making the same argument. Do you have any actual policy based objection to restoring this? It obviously meets WP:V. By the way, I enjoyed your imitation - sincerest form of flattery and all that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

I support the inclusion of the Mandate era stuff. The pro-BDS reliable sources referenced are pretty clear that BDS is historically related to pre-1948 boycotts against the Zionist/Jewish community in the region. --GHcool (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I support the retention of the Mandate era examples of boycotts. The material is reliably sourced and relevant.Enthusiast01 (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The historical scope of an article is somewhat arbitrary and can be negotiated. I don't think the rules force us to either include or exclude the mandate period here. The existence of sources that make a connection doesn't require us to make the same connection. Authors decide the scope of their books but we decide the division of that information into articles. On the other hand, we don't get to decide whether to obey NPOV. We don't report the Spassky-Fisher match without mentioning that both players were making moves. Likewise it would actively misleading and therefore an obvious neutrality violation to mention only one side of a mutual boycott campaign. The actual text currently fought over is thus unacceptable without modification. Count me as opposed unless this deficiency is corrected. Zero 08:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you seriously arguing it's ok to remove text because some editor might not find it NPOV enough? This is a very dangerous precedent, but as usual I will follow you guys' lead. There's a lot of stuff I could remove if this is they way we do it now, rather than have the editor who thinks information is missing add it where appropriate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Strongly oppose This is an article about BDS, not about boycotts in general. I have a very good reason to say it is misleading to compare British Mandate period boycotts with BDS in the background section. They differ fundamentally. While the first were Arab anti-Jewish boycotts, BDS is a pro-Palestinian movement (or pro-Arab for Palestinians-deniers) with completely other purposes. It would be wrong and non-neutral to put in the background the suggestion that the two are comparable. WP should not promote wrong myths and distortions of history. It may rather be correct to put a paragraph about the comparison in the opinions section. (And BTW, I haven't seen a strong source to support such connection, yet.)
If there is concensus that BDS is a movement that pursues the end of Israel's occupation and colonization of Palestinian land and the Golan Heights, the scope of the article should be the anti-occupation (and pro equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and respect for the right of return, as currently stated in the lead). Therefore, I propose to limit the scope to the period from 1967, and refrain from mentioning previous Arab anti-Jewish boycotts in both, the lead and the background section. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zero0000: If the purpose of some editors (not you) is to water-down the article, to make it unreadable for common readers and divert from the subject, including the discussions you propose is the right way. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see any consensus, infact strong opposition, for the inclusion of this hardly-related material in the background section. As with all material it needs consensus to stay and this tag-team edit warring needs to stop. If we need more background information to replace it with if that is the issue then I would suggest adding a few sentences on the very similar boycott of South Africa. Again, these boycotts are being pushed by liberal western university students and human rights groups who wish to see Israel improve and have no relation to the pre-occupation boycotts that certain governments created for largely ethnic/religious reasons many decades ago. Sepsis II (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Currently, there are 3 opposes (hopefully Zero will clarify) and 4 supporters of including this material. If we don't solve this within a couple of days, I'll just start an RfC. I can't imagine uninvolve editors would support censoring this information which is amply sourced both in terms of relevance and in terms of content. I'm just trying to save some time for everyone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Opinions of 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 Joseph Massad publishing in Al Jazeera article: ]. Pro-BDS, socialist books ; this Ilan Pappe interview on Electronic Intifada . The link is extremely sturdy and well-sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
To quote your source, "Today, it is the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and its international solidarity network that is the champion of a boycott of the racist Israeli settler colony. Like its noble predecessors, from African American boycotts in the 19th and 20th centuries, the Indian boycott of British goods, the Jewish anti-Nazi boycott, and the international boycott of Rhodesia and South Africa, the BDS movement insists that its call for a boycott should be heeded until Israel sheds all its racist laws and policies and becomes a non-racist state." Sepsis II (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Joseph Massad is an outspoken opponent of Jewish statehood. My point is that anti-Zionists like Massad, reliable scholars, and BDS supporters have all published essays and papers connecting the anti-Jewish boycotts in Mandatory Palestine, the Arab boycott of Israel, and the modern BDS movement, as Massad does in this essay when he states: "The Palestinians countered Zionist separatism with boycotts of their own, targeting the Zionist colonies and their products during the British Mandate years. The Arab League of States would issue its own boycott of Zionist and Israeli goods that would go into effect in 1945." The material belongs in the essay precisely because writers across a board spectrum of political opinion have agreed that these boycotts form a closely related series.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarifying the dispute

May be, there is a lack of knowledge here.

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

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

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

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

Too long

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

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

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

According to GHcool, the article is too long. According to the standard measure, the page has 58 kB (9180 words) of "readable prose" (the main body of the text, excluding material such as footnotes and reference sections, diagrams and images, tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, and formatting and mark-up). Misplaced Pages's size guideline 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".

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

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

Malik Shabazz' concerns confirm my impression after the first reading of the article. It is surely due to the controversial character of the subject. It invites to insert every single view of every single group in every single country in all details. A solution may be to put them in a "crap page": Views on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement. Furthermore, the layout and headings, and the absense of quotes are important for readability. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The views of the movement are an integral part of understanding the movement. It cannot be removed from the main page, but it can be summarized and paraphrased better. --GHcool (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, but not the views of the whole world. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that a lot of the views could be moved into sub-pages. The suggestion of a greater number of country-based BDS pages (ie BDS in Europe, BDS in the US) would allow for a lot of trimming down of individual campaigns, targets etc from those sections. A greater degree of secondary analysis would be useful, but the problem is there's not very much written in the way of analysis that isn't partisan. News articles at least tend to be more neutral towards the goals of BDS. TrickyH (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you want to invest time and energy, you do not need to wait until the page is unprotected again. It makes sense to list chronologically in History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement rather than by country, because it gives much more coherence and historical context. Keep apart the Israeli responses, including Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions#Israeli individuals and organizations (if the latter are not merged into the specific sections), in Israeli reactions on BDS is, however, useful.
Personal views (if relevant at all) should not be sorted by country and usually fit, together with criticisms, in a section views and comments.
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions#Academic response is undue and wrong place.
Furthermore, quotes are mostly undue and unnecessary. --Qualitatis (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
You don't think Israeli reactions to BDS could fit in a Views of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement page? That would allow us to truncate a lot of the content of this page, alongside the History one. I'll get started on drafting both of these soon. TrickyH (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The Israeli views will always be part of the general articles, also be present in the main article (in summarized form). But if there is a specific Israeli page, the sections in the main articles need not to be unduely large. E.g. the US views would normally be in the main article in full, but as editors made it unduely large, it has become to big for the main article, so it has to be summarized and details moved to a subpage. --Qualitatis (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the article include a background section that discusses previous boycotts by Palestinians?
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."

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. This easily verifiable information should be included per NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • 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. Sepsis II (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
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? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 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. Sepsis II (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll just let your last comment stand on its own. Thankfully, Misplaced Pages has editing policies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 Omar Barghouti, 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. Enthusiast01 (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Careful, Enthusiast01, 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? TrickyH (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
In fact the boycotts go back to 1922. Enthusiast01 (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. British Mandate boycotts are only mentioned to place BDS in a negative context. My explanation is already given above.
Let me now focus on the function of the background section:
- The background is meant to clarify the broader context of the subject of the article. Do the British Mandate boycotts explain the origin and nature of BDS? Clearly not. Do they have any connection? Clearly not, not even indirectly.
- The background has to reflect the content of the article as a whole. It may focus on one or two main issues that are the core of the subject and the article. It may not focus on a minor issue, as the section is the background of the article as a whole. Yet, the British Mandate boycotts are not even a minor issue of the BDS movement.
- The background should definitely be uncontroversial, without disputes. Disputes belong in the sections that cover the subject. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
None of what you say above is grounded in Misplaced Pages policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed events are not connected to BDS, and not a relevant part of its background. BDS relates to the occupation and settlements. The historical boycotts being proposed here predate both these issues. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
If the proposed events are not connected to BDS as you say, why do the sources explicitly connect them? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a full section as undue. Accept a sentence in "Background" — The proposed section strikes me as inspired by interest in making a POV essay-like introduction to the topic. You'll note that despite the numerous parallels, there's no background section on the divestment and sanctions movement that targeted South Africa, just free-standing sentences (too many, by the way, since they are a bit redundant) that mention the topic. So, mention the earlier boycotts in a single sentence in "background," using such sources as are presented here, but don't make a larger editorial decision designed to encourage readers to believe that 1930s era efforts and those in the 21st century are driven by all the same dynamics or motivations.--Carwil (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
No one claims that the "dynamics and motivations" are "the same". The claim in the sources I have read and made by editors here is that there are connections between the 3 eras of antiJewish state boycotts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Similar claims have been made re: the South Africa and Burma boycotts. (BDS is explicitly advocated as an "anti-apartheid" pressure campaign.) But that doesn't mean we need to explain those boycotts at length here.--Carwil (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly support For two reasons that I laid out above - at length and with sources. 1.) Because historical background sections are normative on wikipedia, and this background provides important context, and 2.) Because neutral, anti-BDS, and pro-BDS sources are alike in linking the Palestinian Arab boycotts of Jews the early 20th century, post-1948 boycotts of the Jewish State by Arab states, and the modern BDS movement. At Misplaced Pages we follow the sources in determining what to put on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Far more sources link the movement with the Anti-Apartheid Movement. Will we have as much space or more to also talk about the success of that movement and its history of boycotts as we will about boycotts of the Zionist movement before the state of Israel existed? This article is already pushing length and needs breaking down. TrickyH (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is going to be very difficult to write a history of Palestinian boycotts without getting sucked into POV and historical subjectivity questions. Almost anything written will, almost inevitably, miss out other stuff and other perspectives and end up with endless edit wars. Not necessary. It is obviously factual that there have been other Palestinian boycotts, so that can be stated. And I think it may well be valid to have pages discussing those historical boycotts - if sufficient WP:RS exist. But this page already has its work cut out trying to write something sensible and objective about the current BDS campaigns without trying to write a doctoral thesis about its place in the cultural history of Palestinian resistance. JMWt (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ctiticism section

Shouldn't the criticism section come right after the support section? That seems way more NPOV than after the reactions of such international heavyweights as Romania. I'll move it in a few days barring any policy based objections. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I object. There are above enough pending suggestions for a major rewrite. Moreover, there is a general consensus on WP to put criticism sections at the end of articles. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Kindly point me to this "general consensus".
Until that rewrite happens, if ever, I'm going to move the criticism up to where it belongs, right after the support section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I have been working on a draft of History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, had another page to get online first but that's been done now. That would allow us to move a lot of the examples out from the nation-by-nation breakdowns, and focus a little bigger-picture there. Likewise moving some of the congested content from the "supporters" sections to other relevant pages, and a lot of the criticism from where it is to a page of Views of the the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Have a look at discussion topic 6 above, "Too Long".
That being said, I think moving the criticism up at the moment is an attempt of poisoning the well. As it stands each national page already has a "support" and "oppose" section, so there's plenty of criticsm of the movement throughout the article. That could really stand to change anyway with the spinning out of pages, having a country-by-country breakdown seems like not the neatest structure. The lead reflects criticism of the movement, so it's not as though it's buried. It's fine where it is, pending the above edits. TrickyH (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please explain how putting the criticism section right after the support section is "an attempt of poisoning the well". I mean, I get how to BDS supporters any mention of criticism might be viewed as something nefarious, but why do you think it makes more sense to have it at the bottom of the article rather than support/criticism sections following each other in an NPOV manner. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Criticism, which is an essay, recommends integrating criticism throughout the article, which it recommends arranging chronologically or by theme, instead of using a separate "Criticism" section. WP:NPOV, in its section on "Article structure", also advises against segregating all the criticism into its own section. I think that approach ought to be tried here but—as I've written before—I think somebody should do some research and find secondary sources about BDS and its critics. Nobody wants to read endless quotes from advocates and opponents of BDS. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I regard ignoring a discussion about the reorginazation of the article and start another one a form of disruption. Joining Malik Shabazz, I think that integrating criticism into sections like Academic and Allegations of antisemitism will solve the problem. --Qualitatis (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Reading through those guidelines, it would seem we should aim to incorporate the criticism, then, rather than just move sections around. Although all the linked pages do give some relevant options where separate criticism sections or subpages are appropriate - ie relating to organisations and corporations (check) or political topics (check). A prime example being Criticism of Amnesty International.
In terms of restructuring this article to fit the integrated approach, though, then it would require some major restructuring efforts to ensure NPOV. Right now we seem to have evolved into this structure to satisfy pro- and anti-BDS editors/sources, and spinning one single part (ie supporters or criticism) off as an article probably constitutes a WP:POVFORK. I suggest that restructuring the "criticism" and "supporters" sections into topic-based sections like "Academic boycott", "Cultural boycott", "BDS within Israel", "Allegations of antisemitism" would be the most logical way to incorporate criticism throughout the article. We want to make sure that due weight is given to criticism, though.
While taking care to make sure it's not a Pov Fork, I think a restructure in that way could only really be used effectively alongside a Reception of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement page. That way we could preserve, or even expand on, the current number of supporting & critical voices about the movement in an NPOV way. As I suggested above, doing a side-by-side edit to truncate content relating to Academic boycott of Israel, Disinvestment from Israel, etc would also be beneficial, as well as moving a lot of the specifics that are listed under the countries or under specific "affairs" at the moment to a History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement page. TrickyH (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
In one way or another, a lot of text should be either deleted or moved to another page to make the article shorter. --Qualitatis (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Scope

This may have been discussed before, so please point me to a previous discussion if it exists. The question is should this article include cases where BDS activists claim something was done because of BDS, but the companies or whatever actually taking the action do not say it is because of BDS or even outright deny it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the article should include anything not reported on by independent secondary sources. That means cutting out all the press releases and citations of organizations' own websites.
With respect to your specific question, if a reliable secondary source makes the connection between a claim by activists and a counterclaim by a company, I think it should be included if there's consensus to include it. It may be insignificant or obscure, despite being reported by a secondary source. On the other hand, we should absolutely not include original research such as quoting opposing press releases. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
See this article for example. I think it illustrates some of the problems. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
That's why the threshold of "reported by an independent secondary source" is a bare minimum for consideration for inclusion. As I never tire of saying, the BDS movement is a decade old. It's time to stop adding every hiccup and fart to the article, and start using only quality secondary analysis, preferably by academics or other analysts. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I considered if we should distinct between BDS and non-BDS boycotts. I found that it would not be possible, because BDS promotes boycotts in general, so every boycott falls within the scope of the article. That is another reason why we should not mix it with pre-BDS boycotts. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sourced material

Sourced material is not sacred. No More Mr Nice Guy did not adress my summaries. The foolish cry about sourced content makes no sense. WP:ONUS: Sourced content that is inappropriate may be removed. --Qualitatis (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories: