Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

excessive, poor, or irrelevant examples

I was looking at the tag at the top of the article about how "This article may contain excessive, poor, or irrelevant examples" and I am inclined to agree. Before removing the least relevant examples, I wanted to make my intentions known. The ones I plan on removing include:

• The "Calls for boycott" section
• The Veolia paragraph
• The NMEPC sentence/paragraph
• The John Collins sentence/paragraph
• The Limmud Oz paragraph
• The paragraph that begins "In April 2013, The Australian newspaper ran an article claiming that a BDS campaigner in Sydney ..."
• The "Shop-a-fada" paragraph
• The paragraph that begins "'Supporting the Palestinian BDS call from within' ..."
• The Park Slope Food Coop sentence/paragraph
• The United Methodist Church sentence/paragraph

If anyone has any problems with removing any of the above, I am happy to reconsider. --GHcool (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please explain in what way any of these is "excessive, poor or irrelevant" before removing material that other editors clearly consider to be relevant and proportional. RolandR (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody seemed to object (until now), I assumed my edit was uncontroversial. I'll explain:

1. The "Calls for boycott" section - all that is necessary is the first paragraph about the events of 2004. The other two paragraphs are not notable or they just reiterate the point of the first paragraph. Y
2. The Veolia paragraph - It isn't even clear that this is relevant to BDS at all Y
3. The NMEPC sentence/paragraph - One sentence about a group that doesn't even have a wikipedia article cited to a press release by the non-notable organization doesn't seem like it should be here Y
4. The John Collins sentence/paragraph - this is redundant with information peppered all over the article. It adds nothing new. Y
5. The Limmud Oz paragraph - It doesn't seem particularly notable to me that a Jewish conference would prevent non-notable people from participating Y
6. The paragraph that begins "In April 2013, The Australian newspaper ran an article claiming that a BDS campaigner in Sydney ..." - a lot of detail on an the Max Brenner episode that doesn't add a whole lot of information on BDS as a whole. Y
7. The "Shop-a-fada" paragraph - a cute, local program that doesn't add any information about BDS as a whole - Disputed by RolandR
8. The paragraph that begins "'Supporting the Palestinian BDS call from within' ..." - this paragraph details something that is not a factor in Israeli society at all. - Disputed by RolandR
9. The Park Slope Food Coop sentence/paragraph - a BDS failure. I'm willing to keep it if other people think its notable. - Disputed by RolandR
10. The United Methodist Church sentence/paragraph - a BDS failure. I'm willing to keep it if other people think its notable. Y --GHcool (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to remove this : "Although Noam Chomsky supports the boycott against Israeli companies that operate in the Occupied Territories,[82][83] he has stated that anything that targets Israel alone can be attacked as antisemitism and "unfortunately this is with justice".[84]". Pluto2012 (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree since it Chomsky's assertion that BDS is anti-Semitic is notable. --GHcool (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Does he really say so in the youtube video ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Ghcool: The quote comes from a you tube video. I wonder if you would be willing to consistently apply your judgement of notability across all articles in the IP conflict. Are any statements made by Noam Chomsky, verifiable by you tube posts, notable to be quoted in articles on topics related to the IP conflict. Dlv999 (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Dlv999, your argument is valid. I've removed the paragraph. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

GHcool, please explain and justify your proposed removals, and obtain agreement, before continuing with your serial removals. It's not sufficient to state "this is irrelevant", or to offer your own analysis of what is relevant. I have restored the passages you removed without sufficient explanation, and I urge you to discuss this properly, not to present other editors with an ultimatum over a holiday period. RolandR (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done just that. See above. I encourage you to respond to what I wrote above. If you feel so strongly that the three you reverted are so important, I won't re-weed them. I don't really have a big stake in this. --GHcool (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• The main problem I see with the recent edits are that the civil society calls for boycott divestment and sanctions that led to the BDS campaign have been lumped in with the Arab Boycott. They are not the same. the Arab boycott was a state led initiative that largely petered out in the 80's and 90's as the states signed peace agreements with Israel. BDS, the topic of this article, is a civil society campaign that began in the mid 2000's. The "excessive, poor, or irrelevant examples" material is that relating to the Arab Boycott, which is a separate topic to the topic of this article. That section should be reduced down to one paragraph at most. Dlv999 (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Y --GHcool (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Abbas and BDS

This is not Abbas' movement. The lead section should not give undue weight to him and should certainly not be written in a journalistic style by having an extended quote by him. BenjaminHold (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Abbas is the President of the Palestinian Authority. He represents the Palestinians. His views on the movement should be at the top of the article. Feel free to rewrite it as you wish, but don't consign his views to that of minor critics of the movement. --GHcool (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get into political representation of the Palestinians. I never meant to say he is a random joe off the street, but that there are way more critics of the movement than him who are of equal importance.BenjaminHold (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No, there are no critics of the movement equal to him in importance. Not a single one. The fact that the President of the Palestinian Authority rejects a boycott that is intended to help bring about a Palestinian state is of tremendous importance to the movement. It belongs at the top. --GHcool (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Abbas does infact support the boycott of goods coming from the settlements, though he did recently say he did not support the boycotting of Israel. The latter part was widely seen as realpolitik in that he fears retribution by the occupiers if he makes statements against them while he figures it's not necessary for him to make the statement as people don't acutally need to be told that they should join the boycott of Israel. I'm sure he's not the first leader of a nation under occupation to hold his tounge while waiting for the world to act. Sepsis II (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ghcool. The goals of the movement don't actually include creation of a Palestinian state. (1.Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; 2.Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3.Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.") I understand the movement is open on how these rights based objectives are achieved (though gaining rights in the existing (Israeli) state or creation of a Palestinian one. Also the movement was initiated by Palestinian civil society, not it's Palestinian state apparatus. It should also be remembered that Abbas has no democratic mandate, the last Palestinian elections were won by Hamas, so Abbass cannot be said to represent the views of Palestinian society. In my opinion his view is certainly notable for inclusion in the article, but I don't see a strong case for inclusion in the lead. Dlv999 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you both are well aware, what you guys are saying is absolutely absurd and extremely cynical. I'm going to add a brief summary of the controversy of BDS in the lead, just like the article on Zionism has a brief summary of controversy in the lead. --GHcool (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is "cynical" about my comments. I seem to remember you were blocked from IP for six months for misrepresenting sources and biased editing of this page, so perhaps you might consider the possibility that it is you that does not have the necessary objectivity to edit this page from a neutral perspective in line with the policies and purposes of the encyclopaedia. Dlv999 (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I was blocked because of the 1RR rule, not misrepresenting sources or whatever.

I retract my comment about cynicism. You're just doing your best, that's all. --GHcool (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's odd, the record states you were blocked for having "indeed misrepresented the contents of at least one source" and your "warrior-like and one-sided editing". Your above insult mixed with your breaching of 1RR and your moving of moving of the ludicrous argument by a polemic that BDS abets terrorism into the lead of the article shows that a indefinite topic ban is required. Sepsis II (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Danish banks

I wrote several Israeli companies due to the paragraph in the source which read: "The Danish bank had already decided to pull its investments from Africa Israel Investments Ltd. and Danya Cebus due to their involvement in settlements construction." It's your choice Hyperion whether to list them individually or write several or three. Sepsis II (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Noted. I've just corrected this.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC))

I'm fine all your edits besides the deletion of the statements by the notable Ali Abunimah andOmar Barghouti, I've heard many banned editors claim EI was non-RS, yet many others, myself included, deem it as notable and reliable as any Israeli media org, though really EI is not in question here as they did not write the pieces, they only published them. It hasn't been half a year since another editor was banned for trying to delete articles written by notables with the excuse that EI published them. Sepsis II (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti

I don't understand the removal of the work of these two clearly notable figures. Neither of the given reasons, because they are BDS supporters or because they were published by EI are close to being acceptable. Sepsis II (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing material (e.g. NYU was subject to particular criticism) based solely on opinion pieces by BDS supporters in a non-RS source (Electronic Intifada) is not acceptable in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC))

To put this in perspective, one could easily include material taken from opinion pieces from Pro-Israel sources taken from any number of similar non-RS websites (this of course, would be unacceptable as well).

Perhaps just as important is the fact that Omar Barghouti and Ali Abunimah were the only commentary added to the subject of the condemnation of the boycott by University presidents. Before, there was no commentary on this subject at all (which suits me just fine). If we are going to allow opinions from Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti, who express their opposition to the condemnation of the boycott by University presidents in non-mainstream sources, shouldn't we also allow opinions from Pro-Israel figures praising the University presidents for their condemnation of the boycott? (I hope not)

This is why the current version, which simply states that University presidents condemned the boycott, is the best option.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC))

You must have missed the second paragraph in that section, the bit with Israeli Judea Pearl condemning the boycott.(added by Sepsis II)

Except in that case, Judea Pearl's comments are clearly identified as her own opinions, whereas Ali Abunimah's opinions were presented as being factual statements.

However, Judea Pearl's comments, which appear to be sourced only from an editorial in a print edition of an independent, community-sponsored newspaper, probably aren't notable enough to be included either. If you want to remove that citation, I won't object.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC))

I'll think on the matter, besides there's still a lot missing from this article, and some events are given too much weight currently. Sepsis II (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Misspelling in "Methods" section of article

As an unregistered user I can not fix a misspelling I have found in the "Methods" section. In the sentence, "Sanctions are described as 'an essential part of demonstrating disapproval for a countries actions'", countries should be spelled country's, as it is in the source of the quote. 212.139.241.163 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, I've made the edit. Feel free to make an account so that you too can edit more vandal prone articles. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Universities of Michigan State and Witwatersrand: anti-Semitic acts by BDS supporters

I added paragraphs documenting the anti-Semitic acts of BDS supporters at the aforementioned universities. Although both incidents were sourced, the paragraphs were removed by RolandR on the specious grounds that "These are not 'documented incidents', but anecdotes in unreliable sources."
The source for the incident at Michigan State University is a factual news report, not an opinion piece reported in the The Washington Free Beacon which is no less a reliable source than for example The Electronic Intifada described by Wikipedia as a "pro-Palestinian" site "aimed at combating the pro-Israeli, pro-American spin its editors believe exists in mainstream media accounts", which despite its self described bias, is sited as a reliable source on this page.
The source given for the University of the Witwatersrand incident is the Wits Vuvuzela the official student newspaper of the University. The incident was also reported in South African mainstream newspapers such as the Mail & Guardian owned by the Guardian Media Group of London.
It appears therefore that RolandR has no valid reason for declaring that these news reports are "anecdotes in unreliable sources". Clivel 0 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

These claims need WP:RS and your sources don't come up to scratch I'm afraid. Dlv999 (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You have no justification for claiming that these source do not come up to scratch, that is only your opinion with no basis in fact. Besides which, where is the WP:RS for the The Electronic Intifada a web site whose mandate is to combat the pro-Israeli and, pro-American spin that its editors believe (note the subjectiveness) exists in the mainstream media.

As for the Wits Vuvuzela it is the official student newspaper of the University of the Witwatersrand which is why it was used as the source, if you are unhappy with that, then feel free to change the source to the Mail and Guardian - Shoot the Jew report which reported the same facts independently of the Vuvuzela, or do you also consider that the Guardian Media Group does not come up to scratch? With either the Vuvuzela or the M&G as source, you have no justification for deleting this paragraph Clivel 0 (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> On Scarlett Johansson and 'Blood Bubbles' >> Scarlett Johansson defends SodaStream amid criticism >> Is 'Brand Israel' under threat? *>> US mulls bill punishing Israel boycotters (Lihaas (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)).
Oxfam Has Legally Problematic Ties to Terrorist Group PFLP >> Jimmy Carter says BDS goes too far Clivel 0 (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hyperionsteel

Your unexplained removal of content, violation of 1RR, purposeful misrepresention of sources, and deletion of The Electronic Intifada sources are unacceptable. If you continue in any such fashion I will have to ask that you be banned from IP articles. Sepsis II (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Without diffs, blatant accusations are not helpful to any side. Where is that 1RR? Which "purposeful misrepresention of sources" are you referring to? Also, most objective editors would agree that the BDS movement's leader, Omar Barghouti, and The Electronic Intifada's opinions should only be given minimal and careful coverage here. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The article should simply reflect RS, so the weight given to the views of the BDS movements leaders opinions should be proportional to its coverage by RS with respect to the total coverage of the topic by RS. If people search for and sample sources properly and follow policy, everything will work out fine. If people try to minimize or maximize something, it won't. This is the article where readers should be able to learn about the views of the BDS movement's leaders within the constraints imposed by policy and without the content being compromised by editors who oppose or support the movement. The purpose is to build an encyclopedia, a task which actually has nothing to do with the BDS movement or Israel or Palestine or anything but building an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

To summarize my response below:

• I did not violate the 1RR rule, since the information which Sepsis II claimed I removed "again" on my "second" edit was not present in the first edit.
• Most of the information that I removed, because I believed it used unacceptably POV language, I subsequently (within the subsequent 36 hours) reinstated, albeit with non-RS sources removed and POV language changed.
• Regarding Sepsis II's accusation that I "purposeful[ly] misrepresent[ed]" sources, I simply cited a quote directly attributed to CUPE in an article posted on Canada.com, which is part of the largest media conglomerate in Canada. I felt that this source (along with a CBC article) were more reliable and slightly less POV that the EI, and were therefore more appropriate for Wikipedia (the EI is essentially an advocacy website for BDS). Again, Sepsis II's problem seems to be that Canada.com "purposeful[ly] misrepresent[ed]" CUPE by incorrectly quoting them - if this is the case, I recommend that Sepsis II contact Canada.com and ask them to correct their mistake. However, accusing me of misrepresentation simply because I used Canada.com and the CBC as sources doesn't really make sense.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC))

My Response to Sepsis II's false accusations

I've posted my reply to your false accusations on [1]. However, I will repeat them here:

Regarding this edit - 17:48 March 16 I removed the mention of CUPE's boycott because there was no mention of it in the source cited [2]. Sepsis II did provide a link to this article (CUPE Ontario and disinvestment from Israel) but he should have also cited a secondary source to support its inclusion.

What Sepsis II clearly didn't notice (or deliberately ignored) was that I subsequently replaced the information on CUPE with this edit [3] with more reliable sources (in my humble opinion). Rather then simply citing an extremely POV website (which is hardly a reliable source), I instead cited two mainstream sources [4] and [5]. I hardly feel this is an violation of Wikipedia rules (mainstream sources are preferred, rather than advocacy websites like the Electronic Intifada, which Sepsis II wants to cited almost everything from).

With regards to this edit, [6], it is actually the same one I cited above - yes I removed the reference to the Electronic Intifada because I felt that mainstream sources (rather than an advocacy site) were more suitable for Wikipedia. Clearly, Sepsis II is obsessed with citing EI, and can't accept that others would rather cite mainstream sources instead.

Regarding Sepsis II claim that I "purposeful misrepresentation and deletion of RS due to personal dislike of source," this is simply false. I used the quote "until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination" because that was the exact wording of a quote attributed to CUPE used in this article [7] on Canada.com. For Sepsis II to claim I purposeful misrepresented this information is utter nonsense - What Sepsis II seems to be claiming is that Canada.com purposefully misrepresented CUPE (he has determined this through his original research). If Sepsis II wants to contact Canada.com and accuse them of misrepresenting CUPE, he is welcome too, but accusing me of "purposefully misrepresentation" by citing a mainstream source (as opposed to his advocacy site) is either incredibly disingenuous or the result of a lack serious lack of judgment.

On the same note, I don't see how this can be a 1RR violation: I didn't remove any information twice - Sepsis II original edit [8] didn't even include the EI source (it included no sources, except for one which doesn't mention CUPE at all). In addition, this edit did not include Sepsis II's original quote from EI - he only added it later. In my second edit (as I already stated above) [9] I removed the EI source and substituted these [10] and [11], and cited a direct quote from CUPE that was included in the Canada.com article (admittedly I did reword Sepsis II's quote, but since this quote was not included in his first edit, it is not a 1RR violation). In other words, this is not a revert, but rather an edit made in good faith by citing two mainstream sources that I felt were more reliable than an advocacy site. I did not remove any information twice.

Finally, I did do a mass removal of information hereFebruary 3 because I felt that the language used was not POV and because some of the sources cited were not RS. What Sepsis II continently forgot to mention is that during the next 36 hours, I subsequent reinserted most of this information using NPOV language (for example, see edits [12] and [13]. For Sepsis II to make this accusation without citing the fact that I almost immediately reinserted most of this information using NPOV language is once again, either very disingenuous or indicates a lack of judgment.

Finally, I am aware of ARBPIA I make every effort to follow it (although I acknowledge that there are times that I need to be more careful).

I'm not sure why Sepsis II is making this false accusations. Based on his edits in this and similar articles, he clearly likes to parrot the EI and cannot the handle the fact that others may try to suggest alternate sources that are not advocacy sites. However, I take issue with all of Sepsis II's accusations, and his own misrepresentation of my edits and my intentions - whether this is the result of bad faith, laziness or simple incompetence on his part, I can only speculate.

In any event, if I have run afoul with Wikipedia's rules, please let me know - but for Sepsis II to selectively cite my edits to support his accusations, and to accuse me of "purposefully misrepresent[ing]" this material when I simply quoted a mainstream source (which in turn, quoted the subject) is both laughable and fallacious.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC))

Can you explain why you removed EI as a source but added the settler news agency Arutz Sheva and the "Jewish Telegraph Agency" as a source? Can you understand that including sources that cater specifically for the settler and Jewish perspectives but excluding sources giving the Palestinain perspective is not going to lead to nuetral articles. Dlv999 (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

For one thing, EI is an advocacy site, as indicated by its name if nothing else, and is run by a single person who is one of the leading BDS activists - therefore, its neutrality on this topic more than questionable. In contrast, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is actually relatively moderate in its political stance (although it's true that Arutz Sheva isn't the most objective source).

But More importantly, I did not remove most of the information in question, but rather, offered different sources that are more mainstream and alternative wording that was more NPOV (as least in my humble opinion). My concern was that in these cases, the EI was the only source used - and in some instances, opinion pieces from the EI were treated as factual information (that, I did remove). The problem was that Sepsis II refused to consider any alternative sources or wording, which is what led to the dispute above.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC))

Update: The Canada.com article was Correct - You owe me an apology Sepsis II

Update: With regards to Sepsis II's allegation that I (by quoting a Canada.com article) was engaged in a plot to "purposefully misrepresent" CUPE's statement regarding its boycott of Israel (by using the quote that CUPE has voted to join the BDS movement "until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination", it turns out that CUPE uses this wording itself on its website CUPE Ontario's Resolution 50, and that this was the wording quoted by Canada.com. I guess the source was right after all - granted, this wording is from the introduction to this document, rather than from the actual resolution itself. It's also interesting to note that this document is currently available on the CUPE website, while Sepsis II could only cite an archived page.

It is certainly true that Sepsis II's wording was accurate. However, the wording I used was also accurate - but mine was more appropriate because it was cited by mainstream sources (which are preferred by Wikipedia whenever possible). In summary, Sepsis II's claim that the Canada.com article incorrectly quoted CUPE Ontario is clearly wrong, as is his eristic accusation that I "purposefully misrepresent[ed]" CUPE Ontario's view on BDS.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC))

I'm still waiting for an apology from Sepsis II for his false accusation that I tried to "purposefully misrepresent" CUPE's stance on BDS. Since you suggested that I be banned editing IP articles and asked for Arbitration Enforcement based on this lie, I think you owe it too me to admit that you messed up.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

Allegations of antisemitism reorganisation

Although this section, if not the whole article, sorely needs reorganisation I have undone Engelo's changes for the following reasons:

1. There are numerous arguments for why BDS may be antisemitic, I do not think that it can be divided into only four as per Engelo.
2. He proposes that allegations of antisemitism are based on the watered down claim that "BDS judges Israel using idiosyncratic moral standards" .
3. One of the foremost proponents of BDS Judith Butler is given as the source for "accepting BDS objectives is detrimental to Jewish people" complete with a reference to an article where she refutes this very allegation.
4. Honorifics have been removed from those who allege BDF is antisemitic but the flowery Honorifics of those that disagree with this argument have been left. e.g it is now just "Alan Dershowitz" but we still have "Professor of Law George Bisharat"
5. Although Engelo added a new section "Replies to the allegations" intended to refute the allegations of antisemitism, he has not in turn removed counterarguments from the allegations section e.g the paragraph quoting Foxman is more about countering Foxman's argument than anything.

So, it would seem that instead of trying to improve the article, Engelo's changes actually had the effect of watering down claims of antisemitism while at the same time strengthening and highlighting counter-claims. Clivel 0 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I had no intention of "watering down", this was merely a modest attempt to begin to reorganize the section. Right now it is written as an unedited list of things various people said, with some arguments repeating themselves, arguments and counter-arguments mixed in a confusion. This is not an informative text but low-quality text.

It is possible, I am sure, to improve on the work I've done, but I am convinced that the section must be re-organized and it can be done so without "watering down" any of the arguments. I am aware that this is a delicate subject, and precisely because of this it is important to create a lucid and clear text. I am happy to do so in collaboration and/or as part of an long iterative process, but we need some kind of logical structure to guide the text. One obvious way to do this is to try to divide the section into arguments of those who make the allegations and those who respond to the allegations, and then reorganize each section. That's more or less what I tried to do. Another approach is to identify what the allegations are and how each such allegation is challenged by proponents of BDS. I look forward to your suggestions Clivel 0 (or anyone else), how to bring in some order to this mess Engelo (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I can easily amend the things pointed out by Clivel 0 and keep the structure I suggested. As to your comments:

1. If there are more than four issues, you are welcome to add as many as you please. I was careful not to remove any of the arguments that exist in the section, as it is now, and I think that they can be divided roughly into four main ones. However, if you think otherwise, I'm happy to discuss this.
2. I am referring here to the "singling out" argument, those who say that singling out the Jewish state is an anti-Semitic act. If you have a better name for this class of allegations, kindly suggest it.
3. This is because, in her article she quotes this as a relevant allegation. I don't see why the Butler's views makes her an invalid authority about the content of this allegation.
4. This is simply untrue. Have a look again at my last version before your role-back, Retired Harvard Law Professor stands there with all his flowers quite intact.
5. That is true, I must have overseen this, it is easily solved.

I don't see why the issues raised by Clivel 0 cannot be easily overcome with the structure I suggested. Then again, I am open to a discussion on the restructuring of this particular section. Thank you Engelo (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this section needs reorganisation, in fact I think the whole article needs restructuring but that would be an enormous task. I may not have phrased it well but I do believe that Engelo's intentions were good, but even if it wasn't intentional I do think that the end result was a watered down version, but that is probably because it is not an easy topic to edit. Regarding the mention of four issues, this is too closed, even if only four issues are actually presented for now, instead of writing "Those who allege antisemitism on the part of the BDS movement have four types of arguments:" it would probably be preferable to use a more open ended phrase, something like for example "Allegations of antisemitism are based on the following arguments:" Clivel 0 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything you write above. May I undo your revert and correct the mistakes? Again, I am sure this won't be an ideal text after the changes, but at least it will be a beginning of putting in some structure. I think what is important here is to move from the "X said this, Y said that" approach into an approach that says: "argument 1, argument 2". Is that ok with you? Engelo (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy with a reversion and corrections bearing in mind the points I have raised. The two points I have the most concern about, are using a Butler quote as an allegation of antisemitism, when in fact the reference is to her actually refuting the point, and the paragraph quoting Foxman which is more about refuting his point which admittedly exists in the current page, but if you are adding a new section "Replies to the allegations" then the refutation should be in there. Clivel 0 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Clivel 0, let's discuss the two points, using Butler's as a reference and the Foxman issue.

1. What Butler says here is that some believe that the third goal of the BDS movement, namely the return of the refugees, is detrimental to the Jews living in Israel. Now, the fact that many people believe this is, I think, uncontroversial. That's why Zionists oppose the right of return, because they believe that Palestinian refugees will "flood" the land and that this will be the end of the Jews there. The fact that it is Butler who is saying something that is completely uncontroversial does not, IMHO, make this uncontroversial claim problematic. However, if you don't like the reference I can put "citation needed" or something. I think Amos Oz made a comment about this, I can use him if you prefer - only he doesn't do this in the context of BDS but perhaps that doesn't matter.
2. The whole Foxman paragraph looks redundant to me. Basically he is saying that BDS is antisemitic without trying to argue for his claim. It is just another individual who repeats the claim, not an argument with any content. Jay Michaelson's reply is also completely irrelevant, I think. He is not saying why BDS is anti-semitic or why it is not anti-semitic. All he says is, that if the ADL keep using anti-Semitism they will lose credibility and "cheapen" the meaning of the word. This is an internal question about ADL's strategy, it is neither an allegation that BDS is anti-semitic, nor an argued refutation of any such allegation. Hence, I wonder whether we should remove this whole Foxman paragraph out of the section that deals with real arguments.Engelo (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Clivel 0, please see my attempt here, let me know what you think. I know there is still a lot to be done, but I tried to incorporate your comments I hope you think it's a step forward, out of the current mess Engelo (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Engelo Thanks, I think that you have made a considerable effort to try and provide a more balanced reorganisation of this section. Although I don't agree with everything you have written (you and I probably have diametrically opposed views of the Palestine/Israeli conflict), I think that what you propose is better than the current mess, so I would have no objection to you replacing it. Although I can foresee some of the paragraphs being edited in the future. Clivel 0 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.. Clivel 0 yes, I know things will be edited, that's alright, curious to see what happens when I throw in this text, like a fresh piece of meat into the lion's den... By the way, where is everyone? How come it's only us discussing this in here, I would have thought that with this kind of material, people would become vicious, but it's only us and we are both awfully civilized. What's going on? Engelo (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This reorganization is very problematic and now reads as a very ideologically slanted piece, especially regarding the American Studies Association. Before, there were at least some sentences after the baseless charges against the ASA that undercut and complicated the baseless allegations. Now that you end with several repetitions of the baseless allegations, you problematically reinforce them, thus repeating the attempted smear campaign. Several authors now have written about how those who will tolerate no criticisms of Israel whatsoever misrepresented the NYT quote in which Marez said "we have to start somewhere" and that the US has a particular responsibility because Israel is the largest recipient of US aid and that the ASA was responding to a call from Palestinian civil society that others around the world are also answering. The attack press cut the long quote back to 5 words, pretending that those 5 words were all that was said. In fact, every single article quoted here that implies the quote is anti-semitic are basing that charge on the truncated, incomplete quote that was manufactured by the attack press. While it is in fact true that we have to start somewhere in any struggle, the attack strategy of pretending those 5 words were all that was said was used again and again by those who will tolerate no criticisms of Israel to give the false impression that no other reasons were given. So you also give the wrong impression when you reproduce those charges without giving space for the counter-claims and ignore the numerous pieces out now pointing out that this was a smear campaign. This Wikipedia entry in fact now participates in that smear campaign. The comments of Roderick Ferguson and Jodi Melamed are apposite here: "In order to undermine the exercise of boycott as a form of witness, those who attack the ASA boycott must exclude Palestinian oppression from the debate as meaningless to academic freedom. This is the point our president, Curtis Marez, was making when he noted recently that the university presidents’ denunciation of the ASA has been silent regarding Israel’s abuses of Palestinian academics and Palestinian human rights in general. While he calls upon them to acknowledge such abuses, not to acknowledge them is the whole point for those who seek to narrow the field of permissible discussion about Israel/Palestine at U.S. universities. Having broken that taboo by questioning the legitimacy of Israeli occupation, the ASA leadership must now also be made excludable, by being painted as irrational, freedom-hating extremists and through baseless accusations of anti-Semitism." http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/academic-freedom-violence.html. Lloyd7777777 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand, Lloyd7777777. If you are saying that the whole section captioned with ""Double Standards" argument" is terrible, I agree and think it does not add much, and should be completely re-written, probably under a different caption such as the ASA affair or something to that effect. Other than that, what do you think about the allegations and replies sections? Are they slanted/biased in your opinion Engelo (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Recall, Lloyd7777777, that this section focuses on the allegation that BDS is antisemitic. It is not supposed to deal with arguments about academic freedom and the ASA etc... If you think that the whole ASA issue is irrelevant in this context, I would agree with you, there is no argument here to explain why the ASA might be considered antisemitic, except the double-standards accusation which is covered, both the argument and the various replies to the argument, in the sections above. So I would have no problem of excluding the entire section from the discussion about antisemitism.Engelo (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I included the material on the ASA because it specifically deals with the double-standards argument - i.e. that Israel is singled out amongst all other nations for being the target of an ASA boycott. I fail to see how this is not relevant to the article. As for Lloyd7777777 above rant about the "attempted smear campaign" that was "manufactured by the attack press" as a means of labeling the ASA "as irrational, freedom-hating extremists and through baseless accusations of anti-Semitism", it is a very well written rant, but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The fact is that the double-standards argument was invoked as a result of the ASA boycott (and even if the quote in question was taken out of context, it still doesn't change the fact that the ASA boycotts Israel and only Israel, so the double standards accusation would still be justified).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

To be fair, Hyperionsteel, I think the ASA case is irrelevant - here's just another body that supports BDS and is accused of double-standards and therefore of antisemitism. Besides the mudslinging exercise and name-calling ("thinly-veiled bigotry and bias", "morally dishonest double standard", "disproportionate hatred", "disproportionate silence" (whatever that means????) etc)... these are just very long quotes of people repeating the same idea again and again without actually adding any substance. Lloyd7777777 is right to say that this does not read as a disinterested, informative text but a piece of slander and demagogic rhetoric. Engelo (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

How can the ASA case be irrelevant. It is a primary and very visible example of BDS. As for mudsling and name-calling, call it what you will, but it is a factual quote of what was said by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and Roth. Clivel 0 (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Engelo doesn't seem to understand what "disproportionate silence" means (he uses four question marks to stress his befuddlement with this term) I will take this opportunity to explain it as best I can: "disproportionate silence" refers to the fact that while organizations such as the ASA condemn and hold entire conferences to drum up new ways to boycott Israel, they fail to conduct any similar events regarding any other nation on Earth. In other words, "disproportionate silence" refers to the fact that while many other nations in the world commit horrible human rights violations, the organizations such as the ASA remain silent, while at the same time denouncing Israel every chance that get. I'm glad I was able to clarify this for you.

You claim that this material "does not read as a disinterested, informative text", you are absolutely correct. What's interesting is that you seem to be implying that this material should be removed because it "does not read as a disinterested, informative text." I'm assuming you will therefore agree to remove all of the pro-BDS material that "does not read as a disinterested, informative text" (of course, I'm sure there's none of that on this page).

You state that this material consists of "slander and demagogic rhetoric." If there are legal concerns regarding this material promoting slander, defamation, etc., then please point them out. As for the charge of consisting of "demagogic rhetoric", that's a matter of opinion - again of course, I'm sure that there is no pro-BDS material on this page that could possibly meet this definition either.

Finally, I would argue that this material does have substance, in that the charge of applying a double-standard to Israel is supported by numerous prominent sources (e.g. the US Congress). As for Lloyd7777777's claim that about material being manufactured by "those who will tolerate no criticisms of Israel", the sources opposing BDS by using the double-standards argument clearly state that Israel is not exempt from criticism - rather, it is the ASA's boycotting of Israel and only Israel that is the issue at hand.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Thank you, Hyperionsteel and Clivel 0, for your comments, and especially for attempting to explain to me Dershowitz, but I'm afraid I still don't get it. I understand the "double-standards" argument (I got it, you needn't repeat it for the n^th time), but what does the term "disproportionate silence" mean? Silence disproportionate to WHAT exactly? I don't see how one's silence can be compared to anything else but another person's silence, but what is the meaning, what is the utility of this rambling about "disproportionate silence"? How is this informative to readers of Wikipedia? How does this idea shed new light on the double-standards argument? Clivel 0 is right to say that it is an actual quote, but quotes are useful if they shed some new light on an issue, not if they are simply wordy and unsubstantial rhetoric. I think the ASA section has only three informative claims, relevant to the anti-semitic allegations: (i) ASA decided to respect the BDS call (ii) it was accused of being anti-Semitic by X, Y and Z, and (iii) that this allegation is based on the "double standards" argument. The rest should be removed, especially the long and winding quotes, completely futile, written mostly in repetitive, impressionistic style, adding no further information or arguments to these three basic points. Moreover, there is stuff in there that is completely irrelevant to the heading that discusses anti-Semitic allegation. For example, the discussion of the "real architects" of the wall: whether the architects were Palestinians or Israel is an exercise in demagoguery - we know very well who designed and built the wall, that's not the controversial point. The controversy is whether it was necessary to be built in this precise way, along this precise route. But even this controversy is completely irrelevant to the issue of antisemitism. I propose to mention the three points I noted above (i)-(iii) under the antisemitic section, and move any extra discussion about the ASA to a separate section dedicated to the ASA affair, removing the mudslinging and name-calling and focusing on substantial arguments. With your permission, and taking into account Lloyd7777777 comments, I will do that today or tomorrow Engelo (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And another point for Hyperionsteel: I think that the list of four arguments supporting the allegations of antisemitism, as well as the replies to the allegations, are written in "disinterested, informative" style. They simply list the arguments and give examples concrete examples, in a concise and objective way. But if you find anything that you think does not fit the "disinterested and informative" standard, please point it out, just as I attempted to do on the ASA section Engelo (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Clivel 0 I undid your edits on the Butler reply. You changed it in a way that does not reflect the crux of the argument. If you have issues with the current formulation, let's talk about it here before changing. Thanks Engelo (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to move the ASA material into another section, that's fine. I included it in the allegations of Anti-Semitism section because this material dealt specifically with the double-standards argument. However, your statement that this material is "completely futile, written mostly in repetitive, impressionistic style, adding no further information" is incorrect - this material in fact demonstrates the substantial opposition to boycotts of Israel. In addition, you claim that this material includes "rambling about disproportionate silence." Really? This is only a single sentence which is clearly focused on the double standards argument - doesn't seem like rambling to me. Finally, Lloyd7777777's above comments simply consist of bunch of extravagant (and frankly, nonsensical) claims (e.g. the goal of the critics is to depict the ASA "as irrational, freedom-hating extremists and through baseless accusations of anti-Semitism") about the criticism the ASA has received for its decision to boycott Israel (and only Israel) and how this Wikipedia article is now officially part of a "smear campaign" by the "attack press" who apparently "will tolerate no criticisms of Israel whatsoever." Lloyd7777777 is certainly entitled to his opinions, but his long citation from a blog that rants along his line of reasoning shouldn't be a basis for editing this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

One more thing, if you still confused about the meaning of the term "disproportionate silence", I recently googled it and found that it this term has been used by many authors (some notable, some not) dealing with a variety of topics. Dershowitz is certainly not the first or only individual to use this term, so maybe looking at other examples will provide you with a better understanding.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

Right, thanks, Hyperionsteel, I respect the fact that you agreed to take the ASA stuff out of the antisemitism section and I added one sentence in the opening paragraph referring to the fact that ASA was accused of antisemitism. The text in the ASA section is, to my mind, largely vacuous, as it contains grunts and moans with many words and little substance, but I won't weigh in at this point, unless it becomes an issue again. Anyway, thanks, Engelo (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, the reason I added this material is because it specifically deals with the Double Standards argument. In fact, the reply to the double standards argument by George Bisharat originally appeared (and still does appear) in the ASA article, as it was a specific response to the aftermath of the ASA boycott of Israel. Anyway, I'm flexible to the layout of this article, and your current edit seems fine to me.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

Thanks Engelo (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

New section that distills the for/against arguments

We need a new section that gives the reasons why BDS is a good idea and why it is not. Just arguments for and against instead of a mess of quotes from various sources. For arguments could include: (1) Its objectives are to advance human rights issues (2) Educational/awareness purposes, (3) It has a good chance to succeed, e.g., it proved itself with in SA Apartheid, (4) It fosters debate, (5) It is a non-violent form of resistance to oppression, (6) Boycotting Israeli academic institutions is good because they are part of the oppressive system (7) It is fundamentally democratic in the sense that every individual and every organization can decide whether to boycott or not by "voting with their wallets", as it were, in a bottom-up instead of a top-down process.

Against arguments could include... (1) It works, in some sense, against freedom of speech and human rights (??) (2) It is anti-Semitic (but there are replies to that) (3) It works, in some sense, against international law that accepts the idea of a Jewish state (that's Finkelstein's argument) (4) it is not working, (5) Academic boycott is always bad, especially bad in Israel because the good guys are there and therefore it serves to weaken them, the opposite effect from the one BDS is trying to achieve (6) Boycotts are a form of collective punishment and therefore evil by definition Engelo (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I definitely support an integration of the criticism section into the article as done in articles like abortion and slavery per wp:crit. Sepsis II (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My edits,

I made several clean up edits though of course they get reverted by a sock. Anyways, I found much of the text in the criticism section to not be appropriate. As'ad AbuKhalil was not criticizing BDS, Madonna never criticized BDS, it's questionable to say if Abbas criticized BDS (he supports a boycott of settlements, but not one of Israel), the Cape Town Opera never criticized BDS, NGO monitor's part only say that they do criticize BDS (surprise!) but of course this article is not a list of organizations which do criticize BDS, but what the criticism actually is, "through inflammatory incitement" is quite sensational, POV, and unnecessary, the source did not say Israeli presence but said Israeli occupation and settlements, and lastly Mahmoud Abbas is the President of Palestine, has been for awhile, just because some sources actively delegitimize Palestine doesn't mean we should. Sepsis II (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Sepsis II, I agree that the criticism part needs re-organizing, and agree that - just like the work we've done on the antimetism allegation, we need to move from a "X said this, Y, said that" approach to an approach that says: "Criticism #1, Criticism #2" and then perhaps we can have a section on the replies to those criticisms. I think it is much more informative to work by way of a series of arguments than by way of a bunch of quotes. Engelo (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, As'ad AbuKhalil was being cited to support a criticism of BDS - specifically, that it's real goal (which is often unstated) is the destruction of Israel. But we can fix that in the reorganization.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

Read again what he says in the his op-ed, Hyperionsteel. He clearly supports BDS and is not critical of it. He believes that bringing down the state of Israel is a worthy goal, because, as he says: "Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel." The logic here is that BDS calls for the implementation of UNGA 194, and in the narrow interpretation of that resolution, it could bring about the end of Jewish demographic hegemony and with it the end of Israel as a state in which Jewish people dominate non-Jews. This is not a critique of BDS, but a support for BDS as compatible with the cause of justice and freedom. Sepsis II was right to remove the sentence that says that AbuKhalil is critical of BDS Engelo (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Either youdidn't read As'ad AbuKhalil's article close enough or you seriously misinterpreted my comments. I certainly never suggested that AbuKhalil wasn't a supporter of BDS - that guy likes BDS more than Popeye loves spinach. Rather, he was confirming one of the criticisms of BDS by opponents such as Norman Finkelstein - that the real goal of BDS is not simply "Justice and freedom for the Palestinians" but the destruction of Israel itself and its replacement by a state in which the now minority Jewish population is as mercy of the new Arab majority. (AbuKhalil's only (rather minor) criticism of BDS is that is the movement does not openly state this.) My point was that in your proposed allegations section, AbuKhalil's comments should be used to support the argument put forth by BDS opponents that the movement's real/ultimate goal is for Israel to cease to exist as a Jewish state and become the 23rd member of the Arab League.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

Ok, I see that I misunderstood your point when you said that Abukhalil supports the criticism of BDS, and I suppose it is important to be clear about what one means, when one points to this in the article. The issue here, I think, is not so much that AbuKhalil unveils some kind of hidden agenda of the BDS, it would be a kind of conspiratorial thinking to suggest that BDS has a "hidden agenda". I suppose what is at stake here is whether or not the concept of "a Jewish state" is in contradiction with internationally accepted standards of "justice". Many people - certainly most anti-Zionists, but also many staunch Zionists such as Michael Ben-Ari (see for example, Ben-Ari speaking here), believe that such a fundamental contradiction does in fact exist. From the POV of thesese people, justice and the dissolution of the Jewish-state are two sides of the same coin, rather than the former being a cover-up for the latter. Another way to say this is that there is a debate over whether or not the "dissolution of the Jewish state" is a "bug or a feature" of the BDS. For some it is a reason to be critical of BDS, for some it is something something to celebrate, for some it is an unfortunate but necessary price to pay for the implementation of justice, for still others this entire debate rests on a False dilemma, since they believe that it is possible to reconcile the objectives of BDS (=justice) with the Jewish state as it is. The bottom line is that there are many POVs, and saying that AbuKhalil supports the criticism of BDS implicitly adopts only one of those POVs, ignoring the others which are also legitimate. Engelo (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits

My recent removal/changes to this article included:

• removing promotional material taken from the Standwiththeasa.org website and placed in the first paragraph of the "Allegations of anti-Semitism" section (which is both POV and irrelevant - whether or not ASA membership/funding has increased since the boycott was implemented is not related to the charge of Anti-Semitism).

• changing "Several prominent Zionists, as well as Zionist organizations" back to the original wording "individuals, organizations, Israeli representatives, and scholars" (which is more POV);

• removing a citation of a report on inequality in Israel from the "Replies to Allegations" section, as it has nothing to do with defending the boycott (although it may be relevant elsewhere.

Engelo does agree with my changes and asked that I bring this to the talk page. I welcome any comments.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

Hyperionsteel You mean to say that I do NOT agree, I suppose? Engelo (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that Engelo.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

Regarding your three comments, Hyperionsteel, here are my answers:

• The ASA has been accused of being anti-Semitic, a charge that is thrown around all the time now. In fact, their decision to boycott Israeli institutions has been applauded. Several articles have already been written about their stand, most of them favorable. If you are going to put comments in about ASA, then a counter to the comments should be included. For example, this is just one of several articles about the ASA and spurious charges. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/.../os-ed-anti... If you would prefer this one instead of the ASA material, we would be happy to change that as well as adding several more links to articles defending the ASA
• Are you suggesting that these people are NOT Zionists? For accuracy, it makes more sense to call them what they call themselves.. Zionists. This also warns the reader that their POV is biased and not neutral in the debate.
• Yes, it has everything to do with the boycott, since Palestinians called for the boycott based on inequality in Israel, and we would like it added for additional information on reasons for calling an academic boycott. Tecspk@aol.com (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

My response:

Your edits states as a hard fact that "the accusations [of Anti-Semitism]] have not been successful." That's a pretty big claim. Why? Apparently because the ASA membership has increased by 700 people since the boycott was implemented. (I will point out that the ASA only had about 4000-5000 members before the boycott, so this is at most a 17.5% increase). Your only source: a website supporting the ASA. Do you seriously think that just because a pro-ASA website claims the charge of anti-Semitism has been unsuccessful that it should be treated as a hard fact? That's a bit a of a stretch - and based on the responses to the ASA from University presidents, politicians, media pundits, and numerous academics, the ASA's claim to certainty in this regard is a little far-fetched, if not fanciful. A NPOV version might belong here American_Studies_Association#Response_from_the_ASA. However, including it here as a reliable refutation is nonsense. (It is also repetitive - your edit states ASA's membership claim of 700 new members twice for some reason - but that's another issue).

(side note: As for your claim that "this is just one of several articles about the ASA and spurious charges", I can cite a lot of articles that take exactly the opposite opinion - shall I start adding those as well?).

For the second point, I am not suggesting that opponent of the boycott are not Zionists. Rather, to reflect the fact that they are involved in many activities (not just supporting Israel's right to exist), I think more neutral language should be used. As for you desire to "warn[s] the reader that their POV is biased and not neutral in the debate," any one clicking on the wikilinks to these organizations can see for themselves. Your concern for the reader's well-being is certainly touching, but I suggest you give the readers a little more credit. To put this in perspective, should individuals that support the boycott be listed as "Anti-Israel activists" instead of as "individuals, organizations, Israeli representatives, and scholars" in order to warn readers about their biases? (Of course not)

For the third point, discrimination in Israel (which is certainly a serious problem) has nothing to do with the claim "that BDS targets the state of Israel and its institutions, rather than individuals for their citizenship, or their beliefs." You may be trying to argue that racism in Israel is itself a justification of the boycott, however this would be original research (based on the source you have cited) and is not relevant to this argument. Alternatively, you may be trying to contrast Israel's discrimination against its Arab citizens to the BDS' discrimination against Israeli institutions; unfortunately, this would also be original research, and again, is not related to BDS' claim that they do not discriminate against individuals.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

As a temporary measure, I've reworded the material sourced from a pro-ASA website to avoid unsubstantiated and extremely POV claims (i.e. that the accusations of Anti-Semitism against the ASA have been unsuccessful simply because a pro-ASA website says so) and removed the duplication of information (the fact that ASA membership has increased by 700+ (or approximately 17.5%) since they started the boycott doesn't need to be stated twice. Again, this is a temporary measure; once this debate is settled, this material will probably be removed entirely or moved to American_Studies_Association#Response_from_the_ASA.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC))

As there have been no further objections/counterarguments, I have implemented changes to the material in question. I've rewording the section sourced from pro-ASA website to make it more NPOV. Regarding the second issue, I've changed the wording to "pro-Israel individuals, scholars and organizations." I believe this should still be sufficient to allay Tecspk@aol.com's fears that the readers of this article might not be "warn[ed]" about the disposition of the individuals/organizations in question. As for the third issue, I have removed it entirely - the report cited does not mention the BDS boycott and using it to form a conclusion (i.e. that the BDS boycott can't be considered anti-Semitic) is synthesis. Even if this is not the case (i.e. the report is being used to either a) justify the BDS boycott or b) compare discrimination in Israel to discrimination by the BDS), then it is still original research.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

TLDR, please follow WP:CLAIM and stop trying to delete information just because it doesn't suit your pov pushing. Sepsis II (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm POV pushing? I'm removed a ridiculous and unsupported claim that has been deduced entirely from a non-RS website and replaced it with more NPOV language (i.e. that the accusations of Anti-Semitism against the ASA have been "unsuccessful" simply because membership has increased by approximately 17.5% since the boycott was implemented). For you to accuse me of POV pushing is absurd, as well as hypocritical. If you actually think this the material as it currently exists is not POV pushing, then I'd love to hear you explanation. My edit also avoided duplication - please explain to me why the "700" figure needs to be stated twice? Are you concerned that stating this figure once isn't enough? Are there any other figures on this page that need to be repeated as well?

BTW, the websites cited [14] and [15] don't even cite the "700" figure. In fairness, there are websites that make this claim ([16] and [17]) but none are RS sources. And for both of these websites, their only source is an ASA statement. Anyway, here's some free advice: If you want to support the inclusion of material, you should at least check to make sure the references cited are correct, especially before you accuse others of wrongfully removing the material in question.

Here's where it gets really interesting: None of the websites cited above even make the claim that the accusations have been "unsuccessful." In other words, the claim that "the accusations have not been successful" appears to be conclusion made by a wiki editor simply, based solely on the reasoning that because ASA membership has increased by about 17.5% since the boycott was implemented, the accusations must therefore be false. In other words, not only is this nonsense, it is also WP:OR.

You accuse me POV-pushing and edit-warring - both of these accusations are false. I am making a good-faith effort to remove original research that is based on superficial and farcical reasoning and to introduce NPOV wording (the ASA's claims are still present, but they are presented as such: they are the ASA's claims, not hard facts).

Your excuse for not participating in the talk page (you use the acronym TLDR - which I will assume refers to " WP:Too long; didn't read", presumably means that either a) you feel I should write more concisely (but you lack the ability to politely ask me to do so); b) you feel that it is not worth your time to actually review the material in question (in which case, you have no right to revert it). I will try to make this simple for you: If you feel I am wrong, please explain to me: a) why this is not original research? b) why the same figure needs to be cited twice? and c) why a claim deduced by a wiki editor should be treated as a hard fact? I will again ask you to discuss this issue on the talk page before reverting my edits. I look forward to your responses (and hopefully not more acronyms) (Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

I think the article is an ok compromise as it is, though I do not like "pro-Israel". The controversy is not between "pro-Israel" and "anti-Israel" - this is not a football match, it is a confrontation between two political/ideological groups, Zionists and anti-Zionists, those who believe that Israel should stay a Jewish ethnocracy and those who believe it should not. So, with your permission Hyperionsteel, I will revert to the Zionist version. Other than that, I think it is a good compromise to move the ASA stuff out of the anti-Semitic discussion (accepting Hyperionsteel), but on the other hand to keep the fact that 700 additional members of the ASA is a sign that the attacks on the ASA were largely unsuccessful. These are hard facts, not some interpretation, nor an NPOV. Engelo (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The 700 figure may be a hard fact. However, the deduction by a wiki editor that this alone is sufficient evidence to state that the allegations of anti-Semitism against ASA have been "unsuccessful" is not a hard fact - it is pure OR - and doesn't belong is Wikipedia.

As for "Pro-Israel" vs "Zionist", I prefer the term "Pro-Israel" since many organizations/individuals do not necessarily believe that Israel "should stay a Jewish ethnocracy" (as you state) but rather simply believe that Israel has a right to exist. Many organizations/individuals believe that Israel isn't perfect yet don't believe it should be destroyed (through political, military or demographic means). You can be critical of Israel without seeking its destruction. As for your claim that this is a confrontation between "two political/ideological groups", you are essentially stating that there can be no middle-ground - that everyone cited here is either "Zionist" or "Anti-Zionist." If this is true, then I suggest you follow your own advice and begin placing the term "Anti-Zionist" in front of every individual who supports the boycott. Otherwise, I feel the term "Pro-Israel" is more appropriate as it is more NPOV.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

To put this in perspective, in an earlier edit, you state that "[Norman Finkelstein] is not against the existence of the state of Israel, nor is he against the law of return. Hence it is unclear in what sense he is anti-Zionist." If this is, as you say, a "confrontation between two political/ideological groups, Zionists and anti-Zionists" then Finkelstein has to be one or the other (although I suppose we could use the term "ambiguously Zionist" to describe him). My point is: You can't simply divide everyone in this article into "Zionists" and "Anti-Zionists" - using less POV terms (such as Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestinian, etc.) is, at least in my opinion, is more appropriate, given the wide disparity of opinions on both sides of the debate.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

"Scholars" is removed because a scholar writing on behalf of an advocacy group does not meet Wikipedia standards of Scholarship. "organisations" is changed to "pro-Israel organisations" because the three groups in question, ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Center and the JCPA all have advocacy on behalf of Israel as central to their mission statements. "Zionist individuals" also removed: who exactly in the cited sources is this referring to?Dlv999 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not referred to anywhere in the cited sources. Rather, these terms were added by Tecspk@aol.com because of their desire to "warn[s] the reader that their POV is biased and not neutral in the debate." Tecspk@aol.com should have more faith in the ability of wiki readers to judge sources cited in a topic such as this for themselves. I have asked whether or not readers need to be similarly warned about the biases of those supporting the boycott (unless Tecspk@aol.com is implying that all of the sources cited that support the boycott are not bias and are therefore neutral in this debate [insert laugh here]). The bottom line is that the original wording was fine, and this issue only arose because of Tecspk@aol.com insistence that readers need to be "warn[ed]" that the sources cited on this page which oppose the boycott of Israel also recognize Israel's right to exist. In my humble opinion, I think this warning is unnecessary. However, since Tecspk@aol.com is the one who wishes to add these terms, it is their responsibly to prove that this warning is necessary.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

Dlv999's changes look good so far. Hopefully, we can put this issue to rest.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC))

The part about Bill Gates selling stocks of G4S because of pressure from pro-Palestinian groups is completely unsubstantiated.

Bill Gates nor anyone affiliated with Bill Gates said he sold stocks because of any pressure. It was only the word of pro-Palestinian groups. Not only that, Israel is one of Microsoft's most important countries, and has just in recent days invested even more into Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/business/1.597003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

True but irrelevant. The text doesn't say that Gates or anyone affiliated with him gave the reason for this move, it just says that he sold shares in a company that is connected to Israeli occupation and that Palestinian groups said that this was the reason for this. The fact that Microsoft is investing in Israel has nothing to do with the fact that Gates is divesting from a company that is involved in Israeli occupation Engelo (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. The issue here is that there is no direct evidence that Gates' decision to sell his G4S shares was due to pressure from BDS (and given the number of scandals this company has gone through, it'd quite possible that Gates' decision to sell his shares was based on other motivations (e.g. money). While BDS can certainly claim that this was the result of their "pressure", there is no independent evidence to indicate this is true, so placing this material in the "Achievements" section seems a little premature and may even be promotional (this section is entitled "Achievements", not "Achievements claimed by BDS.") Anyway, let's keep a watch on this topic to see if new evidence becomes available.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC))

I've added a note (and it is sourced) pointing out that the Gates Foundation has not given any reason for its sale of the stock.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC))

Cleaned up/removed cites

Near the lead, there is a "critics say..." type claim regarding a link between BDS and the delegitimization of Israel. 2 of the 3 sources did not even mention BDS nor was BDS even part of the story at all. The 3rd takes this weasel claim to anot her level, again saying "critics say..." but it did feature a quote that made the connection, so I left it despite the fact that most of the rest of the article essentially says that's an extremely weak claim.

// — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.83.51 (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Achievements?

Is the Achievements section supposed to list any boycott of Israel? Or just those initiated or affiliated with the BDS movement? Because right now it is the former - a quick glance at the listed boycotts and their references shows that only about five (!!!) out of the fifteen or so examples mention "BDS" or "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" or the global campaign. I realize the conflict is an extremely contentious issue, so I wasn't feeling particularly bold. Otherwise I would have pruned the section and kept only those where a connection with the BDS movement is sourced. 89.176.87.169 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

The number of pictures in this article is increasing rapidly. I removed one picture of Neturei Karta Jews opposing Israel because there are already two similar pictures in the article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC))

I have removed several (with explanatory edit summaries). Some removals were probably contentious but I'm somewhat skeptical about the wisdom of editors sampling tiny parts an article body and effectively multiplying the weight of the content by orders of magnitude by using it as a caption for an image. The removal I was most conflicted about was Hawking, because that was all over the high quality mainstream media. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

On further analysis, there may be a more fundamental problem here: What do these pictures have to do with the BDS movement? Yes, they show people protesting against Israel, but that alone does not connect them to the BDS movement (e.g. How does protesting against Israeli airstrikes in Gaza connect the protesters to BDS? They are not holding BDS signs or paraphernalia, and the news articles mentioning the protest do not even cite the BDS movement as an organizer or participant (and even if the author of these photos claims this is the case, it is still original research)). The user who added these photos seems to believe that any protest against Israel automatically constitutes support for the BDS Movement, or at the very least, is aligned with the motives/intentions of the BDS movement. However, Wikipedia is not the place to promote or display this belief. Unless the photos clearly show the participation of BDS in the protest, they do not belong on this page.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC))

My Response

It certainly is interesting that two of the users above (Nickriemer and ProfJakeLynch) have only made one edit each to Wikipedia. I can't help but wonder if sock puppetry is at play here.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

Anyway, most of Mau Ro's information will have to be removed as it is taken from non-RS sources or is original research. I will do this piecemeal to clarify each deletion.

I strongly suggest Mau Ro review Wikipedia's policy on WP:Indiscriminate - "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources."

I will also strongly suggest that Mau Ro review Wikipedia's policy on WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects...[and] should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view."

Original Research

• "Support for the BDS call is a much more nuanced debate with a more diverse range of support than is often acknowledged by its opponents. While not all of these individuals and organizations actively support every aspect of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, they represent a multi-faceted approach to applying international pressure on Israel. Although BDS is often criticized as being anti-Semitic, various prominent international Jewish and Israeli individuals and organizations have adopted and promoted a range of methods that fall within the scope of the BDS campaign."
• "A number of Jewish and Israeli academics and organizations support BDS activities in forms other than the academic boycott (such as through a settlement boycott, support on the grounds of free speech, or in full support of the BDS Call), signifying that there are two forms of academic boycott at play; boycott motions from within the academic world, or boycotts targeted at academic institutions in Israel."
  • These paragraphs are completely unsourced and draw conclusions, which is original research as well (see: WP:SYNTHESIS). They will be removed immediately.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

• "In 2014 a wave of response to BDS sent several motions to court which aimed to prohibit academic institutions and individuals from engaging in boycotts of Israel. Effectively, a new flood of support has surfaced both from within Israel as well as from Jewish supporters outside of Israel, advocating for the right of free speech in the face of the anti-BDS bills."
  • This will also be removed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

UNDUE

I've removed the paragraph on NYACT sourced entirely from a single article in MondoWeiss. This group has not been cited by any mainstream media source and including it here is WP:UNDUE.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

External links

There are numerous violations of Wikipedia's policy on external links (see: WP:EXT: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." These will be removed as well.

Non-RS sources

There are huge portions of this material that are sourced solely from websites such as Jewish Voice for Peace's own website, the Mondoweiss blog, BoycottIsrael.info, jewssayno.wordpress.com, jews4big.wordpress.com, jewishvoiceandopinion.com, etc., These are not WP:RS for Wikipedia. Citing material from these websites likely also violates WP:Promotion. This material will be removed as well.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

Ok. I've removed the material that explicitly violates Wikipedia's guidelines. I may make further changes once I have more time to devote to this.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

Hyperionsteel deletion of large portion of text

Hyperionsteel, you make three brief claims in support of your deletion of an entire section I added. Those claims are as follows: “Removing Original research, unsourced information, and information taken from non-RS sources. (the BDS movement's website is certainly not a RS).”

The information I published cannot be defined as original research according to the Wikipedia guidelines because every source is cited inline or hyperlinked to a relevant and reliable website or document containing information or direct quotes used in my addition to the page. For further information see: Wikipedia guidelines on Original Research (OR): The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. -you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented -all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source -an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged -The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material.

Likewise, your claim of unsourced information is also incorrect. All information in the portion of text I posted is both researched and accurately sourced and cited. Furthermore, you will find that all information is verifiable and contained in the hyperlinks or notes provided.

Lastly, I would like to address your apprehension regarding information you claim to be taken from a non-RS source, bdsmovement.net. I can understand concern for the neutrality of such a source and have therefore replaced one of the bdsmovement.net sources with a more RS source. As for the second bdsmovement.net citation, I cannot find another source for the “Economic Costs of the Occupation” document, however, it is not actually published or written by bdsmovement.net, but by Alternative Information Center, and simply re-posted on the bdsmovement webpage. I therefore see no need to delete the source, and believe that the Wikipedia Guidelines on Reliable Sources (RS) do substantiate my claim on the reliability of my sources (including bdsmovement.net): “Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.”

And, “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.” I believe that this point on presenting significant minority views fully supports my reasons for posting this portion of text in the first place, considering that the only mention of Jewish or Israeli perspective on BDS on the current page is in opposition to the movement. This leaves out a growing and important group of Jews and Israelis who publicly and vocally support the BDS movement -voices which are clearly verified in the references included in the article. Intentional omission of these voices is thus a serious violation of Wikipedia’s NPOV principle

Regardless of the two bdsmovement.net sources, there is no valid justification as to why the rest of the section should be deleted. Your claim of unsourced information is entirely incorrect, as all of the information in the portion of text is well-researched and accurately sourced and cited. All information is verifiable and contained in the hyperlinks or notes provided. If this is found to be false, please direct me to any uncited or unsourced text.

I have thus re-posted my text to the page, albeit with the modified source in place of bdsmovement.net. I am open to modifications of the text if they are necessary and justifiable.

In future please ensure that all deletions of material are only carried out in accordance with the relevant Wikipedia policies. Mau Ro (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Mau Ro has a point here. Upon reviewing her additions I see they are in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines regarding being well supported by references, RS and clearly not just original research. This section also adds important balance to the page and makes important contributions to the NPOV of the page. I also note that Mau Ro has even attempted to address Hyperionsteel's concerns re: BDS movement site referencing and found alternative source of documents where possible. Hyperionsteel's edits don't appear to be justified and I think Mau Ro's edit should stay on the page.Paul Duffill (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hyperionsteel's edits are not justified. The original material is well sourced, clearly relevant to the subject, and contains information likely to be useful to readers of Wikipedia, both in its own right and as a valuable set of signposts for further reading if they wish to find out more. ProfJakeLynch (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There are no grounds for removal of the original content, which met the highest standards of research and substantiation, as Paul Duffill has clearly demonstrated in his comments here. Nickriemer (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The case made here by Mau Ro for retaining the original text is strongly based on wikipedia's own policies. Further, the original text was in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia, to connect with published sources in presenting a range of views on any particular event/topic/etc. Hyperionsteel's deletion, on the other hand, was not in keeping with the policies or spirit of wikipedia. I think the original material will contribute greatly to general understanding on this topic and will lead readers to important sources that can consider while forming their own opinion on the topic. Bennymill (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hyperionsteel's edits are not warranted and are politically motivated. The data is certainly useful to readers. It has been researched and is pertinent to the subject at hand. Rami Meo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.126.15 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As I noted below, why is it that almost all of the edits opposing my changes are from anonymous or newly registered users with a single edit? I can't help but suspect that sock puppetry is involved.

As for the claim that my edits are "politically motivated" (i.e. they are being carried out in the interests of a particular government or political party), I will state that I am not acting on behalf of any government or political party/organization. If my edits are interpreted as being pro-Israel, then I can't argue with that. Of course, by the same logic, any edit that can be interpreted as anti-Israel would also be "politically motivated."

Regarding the second point, the issue with Mau Ro's edits is not just WP:SYNTH, it is also WP:UNDUE. It is true that there are Jews and Israelis that support BDS. However, they are a minority and as such must be treated as WP:BALASPS - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." The material added by Mau Ro is grossly disproportionate, as evidenced by the fact that most of the information is cited from primary sources such as blogs and the organizations' own websites (which is likely WP:Promotion). It is certainly worth mentioning that some Jews and Israelis support BDS, but Mau Ro seems to be treating this article as a means to highlight relatively obscure organizations and individuals to support the view that there is "growing and important group of Jews and Israelis who publicly and vocally support the BDS movement." Mau Ro's view on this may very well be correct, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote this view.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC))

Criticism by artists and public figures

I think this opinion by a Pennsylvanian Senator belongs here. Here is the material that was removed: "Pennsylvanian State Representative Anthony Hardy Williams has called the BDS movement "racist". ShulMaven (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• What Williams actually states is "The Boycott, Divest and Sanction[s] movement against Israel is often seen as progressive — so it’s astounding to see its supporters turn to racism" with regard to comments made about Chloé Valdary by several BDS supporters (he specifically cites Zaid Jilani, Max Blumenthal and Richard Silverstein). Clearly, Williams believes that the reactions to Ms. Valdary's pro-Israel activism by certain BDS supporters (Richard Silverstein in particular) are racist, but interpreting this as Williams calling BDS as a whole racist may verge into WP:Original Research.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014

"BDS is often criticized as being anti-Semitic" should be re-inserted in the article where it was removed. It is relevant and easily sourced.

NOTE: USER: Hyperionsteel has been removing content that does not fit their anti-Israeli bias. Wikipedia should not be used as a megaphone by this user to disseminate propaganda. Wikipedia needs input from all reliable sources and walks of life in order to remain independant. Thank you.--Corpuskrusty (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Corpuskrusty Corpuskrusty (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: User blocked. Stickee (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)