Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Content not supported by RSes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2018

Update section 4.3.8 United States, by changing this:

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

to this:

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

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

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

Garbage logic, arguments & refs in Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samuel Neaman Institute study

We had:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaction section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Censored information in the academic boycotts section

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

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

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

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

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

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

A praise and a criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 05 February 2019

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

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

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

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

Link is dead

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

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

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

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