Jump to content

Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What BDS is based on

[edit]

Wikipedia's 2nd parapgraph is based on what the BDS describes their movement based on. But it more based on the Nazi movement targeting Jewish business. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/will-bds-lead-to-the-next-kristallnacht/ Right now Wikipedia is accepting a POV descrition as opposed toa NPOV. Unselfstudier (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Times of Israel blogs are unmoderated and written by random people on the internet. Sorry, but that is not a reliable source and it merits no further consideration. Oliver Jack Melnick is free to believe what he likes, we dont however have to take his beliefs seriously. nableezy - 15:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And we don't have to take the statement of the BDS at face value {BLP infraction removed}.Unselfstudier (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you think we should take the statement of some bloke on a blog at face value & that should take precedence? 🙄 The BDS movement itself is the best source for describing what its own movement is based on within its own article. Anything else is opinion. Regardless, those dissenting opinions are contained in the 3rd paragraph of the lead and throughout the article. Incidentally, your comment about Omar Barghouti looks like a BLP violation to me, note the rules around making potentially defamatory statements apply to non-article space, not just articles. I suggest you get your comment removed.--DSQ (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No the BDS self description is not the best way to describe them I am sure Hezbollah, Al Quada and antifa don't describe themselves as terrorists. Having a newspaper like the Jerusalem Post the leading Mideast newspaper is a much better source.Unselfstudier (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such a random selection. Erm, who apart from the far-right in the US describe antifa groups as terrorists? That's a crazily marginal viewpoint. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Antifa in the same sentence with Hezbollah and Al Quada is ridiculous. Comparing BDS with the 1,600 synagogues ransacked and 300 set on fire in one night is beyond the pale and an insult to Holocaust survivors. Please lower the level of hyperbole. This does not convince. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not basing it on their self-description. We cite multiple academic sources for that, which themselves do not attribute the view to BDS but state it as objective fact. And, as people have pointed out to you above, a random person's opinion posted in a WP:NEWSBLOG hosted by the Jerusalem Post is not the same as it being posted by the Jerusalem Post itself; the source you presented isn't even an WP:RS. Obviously we cannot weigh an opinion from a blog equal to a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Rice-Davies applies or not?

[edit]

Reading the opening description and other parts of the article, would Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies apply here? Obviously, they would say they are a human rights movement and deny that they are anti-Semitic. Maybe because this discussion involves academic debates it goes beyond MRD, but just reading I could at least see the argument for it, but I can also see the opposite of Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply. Thoughts? I personally lean towards the point in not of "If we do not accompany an accusation with its denial, then our readers by and large will not assume the existence of one. This is especially true of readers who also are accustomed to the journalistic standard of including denials." However, if someone has a different opinion, I would be open to change. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could equally consider whether Mandy also applies to the accusation by BDS critics and the Israeli government that the movement is anti-Semitic. Generally we should not say that anyone denies being something, as that gives more weight to the accusation than the rebuttal. It would be more neutral to omit the word "deny" and write that the BDS movement says the accusation is an attempt to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism. Burrobert (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

[edit]

Change: “Some critics accuse the BDS movement of antisemitism, a charge the movement denies, calling it an attempt to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism.”

To: “Organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League have labeled the BDS movement antisemitic, a charge the movement denies, arguing such critiques conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism.” 2603:6011:C222:4BAA:5E6:DF01:9B60:8D81 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: I'm not sure why we'd single out the one organization. This line is summarizing body content on criticism from multiple people and groups. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think "Some critics..." is better, forcing readers to parse the refs to find out who these "critics" are. 142.126.188.216 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They can parse the refs if they'd like, but it would be better to just read the body of the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

[edit]

remove the comma before "could cost the Israeli economy" bit (Impact section, Economic subsection) Hypermoddie (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Shadow311 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

spelling mistake

[edit]

"Puma signed a for-year sponsorship" should be "Puma signed a four-year sponsorship"

I can't edit the page so I thought I would put it here Timsmsmsm (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EI is not a reliable source about BDS

[edit]

Per the RfCs, I/P is an area with significant bias for the source, and using them here is not appropriate. Please revert your edit. FortunateSons (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons: Joseph Massad is a subject-matter expert and would be usable as a source even were he self-published, per WP:EXPERTSPS. It would be wise to better familiarise yourself with our content policies on sources before proceeding with any more hasty removals of standing content. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, I missed him, he can stay. What do you think about Alys Samson Estapé, is she involved enough to be considered aboutself? FortunateSons (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bias has nothing to do with reliability. Making that premise invalid. And Alys Samson Estapé is the European coordinator for the BDS movement, making her also a usable source even if self-published. nableezy - 20:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on why that article should be included?
Bias is generally not an exclusion criteria, but a source with a history of both bias and poor reliability where it has bias is probably not a good fit for a place where it has such a significant bias. FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Israel's strongly pro-Palestinian cultural community"

[edit]

I'm a bit skeptical of this statement and the sources it purports to be based on, which may be out of date. What is it even meant to be "strongly pro-Palestinian"? (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natan Sharansky's 3 Ds

[edit]

Natan Sharansky's 3Ds have been associated with the BDS movement. With repeated reverts of this point, how to restore NPOV? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have now inserted this material 3 times after reverts by 2 editors. I would suggest you cease edit warring and btw, 1R is not an allowance. Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024

[edit]

The statement "Some of BDS's opponents have said that it has ties to militant organizations." needs to have a reference to back it up. User montu (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done... It appears that the entire section that starts with that statement is full of references backing up that statement, unless I am reading it incorrectly. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2024

[edit]

Regarding this sentence: "It quickly racked up over 700 signatories,[25][26] among them Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins, who said they could no longer "in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions, including universities."[27]"

The sentence is false because Blakemore and Dawkins did not endorse that statement. The Guardian article has a correction at the bottom to clarify this mistake:

"To try to clarify as succinctly as possible: what Oxford professors Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins endorsed with others was the call for Europeans to suspend scientific grants and contracts until Israelis "abide by UN resolutions and open serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians". We wrongly listed them as signatories to a separate declaration by the Open University's Steven Rose and others who say they "can no longer in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions including universities"."

I suggest you delete their names from the sentence. 173.3.71.235 (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]