![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The link allegedly supporting the claim that "BDS protests occasionally do turn violent" does not seem to work. Could someone from the community please replace it with a legitimate source or consider removing it along with the unsubstantiated claim? I'm not doing it myself for fear of getting into conflict. Thanks. 80.246.133.222 ( talk) 17:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Another dead link can be found under the supportive links section, "Australians for Palestine (Australian organization supporting BDS)." This website no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:418:7701:C0D0:8687:D28A:E294 ( talk) 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Another dead link ends the introduction section: "a comparison that the critics categorically reject on the grounds of dissimilarity of the regimes in almost every aspect.[8]" Which links to a StandWithUs page that no longer exists. I'd also recommend changing the wording as "critics" is too vague to be meaningful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saraabi ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
"In May 2014, co-founder of Microsoft Bill Gates sold a large stake of his shares in G4S... Advocates of the BDS subsequently claimed that this Gates' decision was the result... The Gates Foundation subsequently declined to comment..."
Can Advocates of the BDS be considered a RS? The fact other RS quote them, doesn't mean the original claim has any base. I would argue, unless the body who made the decision make a statement or maybe a market analyst, it be trusted. Especially not 'Advocates', who obviously want to declare victories and move more people act since they have more proof it works. There nothing stopping advocates from declaring any deal that fell through as their success. Ashtul ( talk) 00:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Almost every statement by BDS exponents claim that the movement originated in a July 9, 2005, “call… by Palestinian civil society organizations for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel and for academic and cultural boycott of Israel.” This is portrayed as a response to Israel’s unwillingness to submit to a “ruling” of the International Court of Justice condemning Israel’s security barrier. (Of course, the “ruling” was an advisory opinion, and Israel was under no obligation to abide by it, but that’s another story.)
This is not the truth. The BDS campaign is a product of the NGO Forum held in parallel to the UN World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, in August and September 2001. The NGO Forum was marked by repeated expressions of naked anti-Semitism by non-governmental organization (NGO) activists and condemned as such by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson who chaired the Conference.
The Forum’s final declaration described Israel as a “racist, apartheid state” that was guilty of “racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.” The declaration established an action plan – the “Durban Strategy” – promoting “a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state…the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel” (para. 424).
Therefore, this Wikipedia entry misrepresents the BDS history and should be corrected.
Sources: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_forum_at_durban_conference_ http://spme.org/boycotts-divestments-sanctions-bds/boycott-industry-background-information-analysis-bds-campaigns/16877/ (There are too many sources to list -- there is extensive mention of BDS before 2005 referencing the 2001 Durban Forum strategy.) LindaBG ( talk) 12:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
To me, this page is a complete mess. Support, opposition, reactions, criticism, replies to criticism, etc are all over the place. I think this page needs to be reorganized to make it seem more streamlined and logical. Also, since there is a "special" section for Jewish/Israeli support for it, I think there should be a section for Palestinian/Arab opposition to it.
Just to start it off, we can add these:
Gouncbeatduke (
talk) arbitrarily removed a paragraph that I contributed in the South Africa section. I have also added the following to this editor's
talk page:
I would appreciate it if you refrain from deleting my recent contribution (complete with citations) to the
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions page for no valid reason. Furthermore I do not appreciate your false allegation that my contribution is vandalism, nor do I appreciate your unwarranted name calling. I am neither banned nor a sockpuppet. Any further revisions of the paragraph by yourself will be referred to
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Clivel 0 (
talk)
23:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This new legislation will provide list of companies doing biz with .il. I afraid it will be rather 'certifaied' list of BDS targtets. http://lamborn.house.gov/2015-press-releases/congressmen-lamborn-and-desantis-introduce-legislation-to-prevent-boycotts-of-israel/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.5.99 ( talk) 06:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The sections Cultural and Cultural boycott are nearly identical. Can someone please delete one? 217.37.166.142 ( talk) 16:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I cant seem to edit the page, but if someone can edit the failures that can ...I think it would be good to note in failures quotes from these sources:
"a wave of anti-BDS legislation is sweeping the U.S. The most high-profile so far are the bipartisan amendments to congressional bills for Trade Promotion Authority. They establish the “discourage[ing]” of boycotts as one of the U.S.’s many goals in trade negotiations with European countries." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/18/illinois-passes-historic-anti-bds-bill-as-congress-mulls-similar-moves/
"The US Congress is preparing a counter offensive to the tsunami of boycotts against Israel" http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4648715,00.html
"...the Maryland legislation now condemns the BDS movement as “a discriminatory and racist movement,”" - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/maryland-financial-penalties#sthash.foQMQhxy.dpuf
"Far from being isolated, Israel's exports are reaching record highs and it attracts billions of dollars in foreign investment. In the weeks that Israel was supposedly under a boycott siege, Japan's Rakuten agreed to buy the start-up Viber for $900 million and Ireland's Covidien sealed a deal to buy Given Imaging for $860 million. China's Bright Food was in talks to buy control of Israel's biggest food maker Tnuva, and IBM, Lockheed-Martin and ERM all announced plans to open research and development centers in Israel. The Jewish state became the first non-European member of the nuclear research consortium CERN and was admitted as an observer to the Pacific Alliance, a free-trade bloc of five Latin American countries." http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303426304579402771597851680
These all seem to be included in the set of failures of the BDS movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.187.17 ( talk) 12:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The Olympia co-op case is listed in the achievements section. Today the court ruled that the SLAPP ruling was unconstitutional and the case will go back to a lower court - [1]. Not sure what to do with the text. Leave it in place and add this? Move it to the failure section (if the court ruling in their favor was an achievement, this is a failure) or what. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 01:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
So my question is, should this fact be put into the failure section, the section that lists the universities that have voted on it (such as saying "Despite student governments voting to divest from Israel, no university has actually done so as the resolutions are all non-binding." as an example), should it be put in both sections? What are your thoughts. I really believe that this distinction should be highlighted. Not doing so makes it seem like the "achievements" of student governments voting to divest has an economic impact, which so far, it has not. As for sources:
In the United States, Israel's closest ally, the decade-old boycott-divestment-sanctions movement, or BDS, is making its strongest inroads on college campuses. No U.S. school has sold off stock and none is expected to do so anytime soon. - http://news.yahoo.com/anti-israel-divestment-push-gains-traction-us-colleges-050637043.html
No university administration or endowment investment committee has agreed to withdraw funds from companies whose products are used in connection with the occupation. Divestment resolutions “have no practical outcomes in terms of university investment policies,” said Oren Segal, director of the ADL’s Center on Extremism. - http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.652673 Knightmare72589 ( talk) 21:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone please make the following edit for me? In the first section, the last sentence states "The effectiveness of the movement has been questioned. Reports from both in and outside of Israel has indicated that the movement has had very little impact on the Israeli economy, and won't for the foreseeable future." However, this is untrue. please delete this sentence and add "Amb Freddy Eytan writes 'Israel is rightly alarmed at the escalating scale of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign. BDS constitutes a concrete threat to the future of Israel’s economic, academic, cultural, sports and political standing.' - See more at: http://jcpa.org/anti-semitism-is-the-motivation-for-the-bds/#sthash.3086XngF.dpuf ". Thank you! Yk1948 ( talk) 10:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Really? I mean seriously wtf. Can somebody please explain to me how that image is appropriate in this article? nableezy - 04:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
the Nazi comparison should be in the headline comparison. There is too much comparison to South Africa when the Nazi closing of Jewish stores is far more accurate. Eclpise the left ( talk) 18:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The sources added by Hyperionsteel don't support the inclusion of the word "anti-Israel" in the first sentence. (Neither does NPOV, but that's beside the point.) Here's my analysis of the three footnotes:
1. The Anti-Defamation League describes BDS campaigns as "anti-Israel activity". Let's attribute their opinion the way WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says to: "described as anti-Israel by the ADL".
2. In her review of The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel from Inside Higher Ed, Elizabeth Redden writes that Kenneth L. Marcus's contribution to the book "situates the BDS movement within the history of prior anti-Israel and anti-Jewish boycotts". That doesn't provide support for this article to describe BDS as anti-Israel.
3. USA Today writes that the BDS movement is an "outgrowth of the Arab League anti-Israel boycott that began in the 1940s'. This, too, falls short of describing BDS as anti-Israel.
Unless objective reliable sources can be found that say explicitly that BDS is anti-Israel, I think it needs to be removed from the first sentence of this article. Also, in the absence of such sources it should not be stated as a fact, but rather attributed as the opinion of BDS critics. 66.87.114.158 ( talk) 05:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have tried to link within the citation "Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel" the word "existence" to the right to exist. User RonaldR claims I cannot link from within quotes, but there are numerous examples for this kind of citation, in this entry alone. For example:
How is this paragraph any different from the others? The right to exist is a relevant entry. ScottyNolan ( talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello RonaldR, you reverted my last edit, in claim of " A personal transcript of a YouTube video is not a reliable source". The transcript is not a personal interpretation, but the exact words that she says. If we cannot use speeches as reliable sources, then what is a reliable source? A personal transcript by a journalist? I am adding it again, feel free to watch it yourself (22:15 -22:38).-- ScottyNolan ( talk) 19:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised and disappointed that Enthusiast01 seems confused by my edit summary: "rv good-faith edits that do not appear to be supported by reliable sources; please see WP:No original research".
As I wrote in my edit summary, without reliable sources that support your changes, they are impermissible original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The section titled "effectiveness of BDS" is a misnomer, because the section relates to economic impact, which does not necessarily correlate with an impact on Israeli policy that would further the goals of BDS. The economic impact discussion should be integrated into the sections on "support", and the "Israeli Reaction" should be moved from the section on global reactions to a main section category of its own. The effect of BDS on the Israeli public is much more significant, as a measure of the potential for changing Israeli policy, than the effect of BDS on citizens of other countries in the world. Jdkag ( talk) 16:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
re: the following sentence -
"Dr. Hawking boycotted the prestigious Israeli Presidential Conference, held by Israeli president Shimon Peres, in protest at the Israeli occupation of Palestine.[46][47][48]"
... "Israeli occupation of Palestine" ... this phrase is inaccurate by any standards ... it would be more appropriate if it read ... "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank" or something similar.
The article also mentions an occupation of Gaza: "Israeli Apartheid Week is an annual series of university lectures and rallies against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza."
- Israel has fully withdrawn from Gaza: "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank" would be more appropriate.
These aren't political points as such, it helps on-going discussion if articles on this subject are as accurate as possible.
The article would benefit from an overview of what is considered "occupation" by the different sides & the international community. Ideally i'd make a suggestion regarding this/add additional suggested edits but i'm not really in a position to suggest longer edits at the moment, due to lack of previous edits. Palestinian Territories, though, were previously under Jordanian, British Mandate, Ottoman control - prior to being under Israeli control.
Happy to discuss any of this.
T23please (
talk)
19:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
This was not intended to be well-poisoning, although I understand why some might assume bad faith and claim that it was. It was intended to convey that Israel was not yet a state in 1945. I intend to revise with a less blunt, but more accurate description within the next couple of days. -- GHcool ( talk) 00:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I reverted deletion of material on British Mandate period boycott of Jewish-owned businesses to Background section. Background/History sections are normal and appropriate. This well-sourced material belongs in this article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
See WP:ONUS. Just because something has sources doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Inclusion requires consensus. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
<- The article has now been restored to the correct point in the BRD cycle with the removal of the content for which consensus has not been established. The discussion can now proceed to establish whether the content should be included. This is how things are meant to work. It should be obvious that the right thing to do is to proceed with the discussion from this point to try to establish consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, this is getting ridiculous. Can we see a show of hands as to who opposes this content and why? As far as I can tell from comments here and changes to the article, GHCool, E.M. Gregory, Enthusiast and myself support it. Sepsis and Qualitatis say it's irrelevant and a couple others opposed the restoration on technical grounds but haven't told us if they feel it belongs or not. As far as I can tell there's a consensus to include so kindly speak up if you're opposed and I didn't count you. Please note that I added two sources that explicitly connect past boycotts to BDS. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 05:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
My objection is not that it is a view I do not like. In fact, BDS is presented as another variant of anti-Jewish boycotts. The contested text is in fact implicitly, covered and manipulatively labeling the movement as an anti-semitic movement! It is as wrong and absurd as if you would put into the Background:
Anti-semitism in Palestine is not new for Palestinians and others opposed to Zionism. It dates back to the 13th century when Palestine was ruled by ...
Moreover, BDS is not simply a boycott campaign, as symbolized by S of Sanctions. Concensus is not simply counting votes without considering arguments. In any case, this discussion shows that it does not belong in the Background section. -- Qualitatis ( talk) 09:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit by GHcool is a 1RR violation. It's time for all the edit warring to stop. If it doesn't the issue needs to be reported and the page fully protected. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
May be, there is a lack of knowledge here.
Completely different era's, completely different aims, with no connection between the two. And unlike past Arab boycotts, yet supported and led by a significant part of the non-Arab world. By connecting them in the background section, it is suggested that BDS is a continuation, or a new variant of the past Arab anti-Jewish boycotts. It is, in fact, again an attempt to present the agressors as the victims and as already mentioned a covered attempt to label the movement as an anti-semitic organization.
Clearly, the BDS movement acts in the context of the current Israeli occupation and has no relationship with past boycotts. Even if sometimes the two phenomena in some sources are compared with each other or mentioned together, be it pro- or anti-Israel, it does not change the background and context of BDS.
To repeate my thesis, this should not be treated in the lead or the background section. Rather there may be a paragraph in the opinions section. To be clear, also in the latter option, it should be directly related to BDS, not a trick to insert unrelated stuff. - Qualitatis ( talk) 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Somebody wisely said that this article is getting too difficult to navigate. I propose doing the following to make this article shorter:
I intend on working on these ideas within the next couple of days unless I hear arguments to the contrary. -- GHcool ( talk) 04:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
According to GHcool, the article is too long. According to the standard measure, the page has 58 kB (9180 words) of "readable prose" (the main body of the text, excluding material such as footnotes and reference sections, diagrams and images, tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, and formatting and mark-up). Wikipedia's size guideline says an article with more than 60 kB of readable prose "[p]robably should be divided" and an article with more than 50kB "[m]ay need to be divided".
So what do other editors think? Is the article too long?
My own view, and I've expressed it several times over the years, is that the article is made up of too many news articles, quotations, and (poor quality) examples, and not enough secondary analysis from historians and other third parties. In my opinion, the problem isn't so much the length of the article but that there's too much crap in it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
On a bit of a reflection and read-over, I think shortening the sections of criticism (and response) and moving the meat of them to Views on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement is a good idea. There could be more written on the topic, particularly from world governments, although we should try and keep to notable opinions.
I also think we could create a page, History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement in which a lot of the campaigns, currently listed by country, could be listed chronologically. Alternatively, we could make History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement in the United States and History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement in the United Kingdom (or Europe generally), and that could help to trim down the "reactions" section considerably.
The long "Supporters - Academic" section could be seriously truncated and some text moved to Academic boycott of Israel, although it largely covers everything listed here already and is itself quite long. The same holds for "Supporters - Business" and Disinvestment from Israel, although it could also be split into a new section on Government support, since that's significantly different from business bodies such as pension funds disinvesting.
Then there's the matter of the Boycotts of Israel page, which seems to be duplicating large parts of this page, albeit with more history. I'm loathe to suggest moving content there, however, since it already seems to be pushing the limits of readable prose for a page, and it's confusing what having two such similar pages achieves. Perhaps some of its content could also get moved into the newly created pages, since it would logically function best as a kind of umbrella page? TrickyH ( talk) 10:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the criticism section come right after the support section? That seems way more NPOV than after the reactions of such international heavyweights as Romania. I'll move it in a few days barring any policy based objections. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 18:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:Criticism, which is an essay, recommends integrating criticism throughout the article, which it recommends arranging chronologically or by theme, instead of using a separate "Criticism" section. WP:NPOV, in its section on "Article structure", also advises against segregating all the criticism into its own section. I think that approach ought to be tried here but—as I've written before—I think somebody should do some research and find secondary sources about BDS and its critics. Nobody wants to read endless quotes from advocates and opponents of BDS. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 18:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This may have been discussed before, so please point me to a previous discussion if it exists. The question is should this article include cases where BDS activists claim something was done because of BDS, but the companies or whatever actually taking the action do not say it is because of BDS or even outright deny it? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 17:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I considered if we should distinct between BDS and non-BDS boycotts. I found that it would not be possible, because BDS promotes boycotts in general, so every boycott falls within the scope of the article. That is another reason why we should not mix it with pre-BDS boycotts. -- Qualitatis ( talk) 11:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
There should be a response to what the critics say about BDS in the lead, to establish NPOV. Examples include; the fact that they support a two state solution and that the organization consists of several prominent Jewish figures and NGOs. Makeandtoss ( talk) 19:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Sourced material is not sacred. No More Mr Nice Guy did not adress my summaries. The foolish cry about sourced content makes no sense. WP:ONUS: Sourced content that is inappropriate may be removed. -- Qualitatis ( talk) 18:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
While the paragraphs about Julie Norman and Rhea DuMont are neutral, they are way too general and do not explain anything about the background of BDS. They would suit for an introduction in a book, but not in this encyclopedia. And BTW, the Rhea DuMont part is not derived from DuMont, but from Norman, so it is all from Norman. I propose to delete all as being too general and academical for this article. -- Qualitatis ( talk) 09:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The link allegedly supporting the claim that "BDS protests occasionally do turn violent" does not seem to work. Could someone from the community please replace it with a legitimate source or consider removing it along with the unsubstantiated claim? I'm not doing it myself for fear of getting into conflict. Thanks. 80.246.133.222 ( talk) 17:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Another dead link can be found under the supportive links section, "Australians for Palestine (Australian organization supporting BDS)." This website no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:418:7701:C0D0:8687:D28A:E294 ( talk) 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Another dead link ends the introduction section: "a comparison that the critics categorically reject on the grounds of dissimilarity of the regimes in almost every aspect.[8]" Which links to a StandWithUs page that no longer exists. I'd also recommend changing the wording as "critics" is too vague to be meaningful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saraabi ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
"In May 2014, co-founder of Microsoft Bill Gates sold a large stake of his shares in G4S... Advocates of the BDS subsequently claimed that this Gates' decision was the result... The Gates Foundation subsequently declined to comment..."
Can Advocates of the BDS be considered a RS? The fact other RS quote them, doesn't mean the original claim has any base. I would argue, unless the body who made the decision make a statement or maybe a market analyst, it be trusted. Especially not 'Advocates', who obviously want to declare victories and move more people act since they have more proof it works. There nothing stopping advocates from declaring any deal that fell through as their success. Ashtul ( talk) 00:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Almost every statement by BDS exponents claim that the movement originated in a July 9, 2005, “call… by Palestinian civil society organizations for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel and for academic and cultural boycott of Israel.” This is portrayed as a response to Israel’s unwillingness to submit to a “ruling” of the International Court of Justice condemning Israel’s security barrier. (Of course, the “ruling” was an advisory opinion, and Israel was under no obligation to abide by it, but that’s another story.)
This is not the truth. The BDS campaign is a product of the NGO Forum held in parallel to the UN World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, in August and September 2001. The NGO Forum was marked by repeated expressions of naked anti-Semitism by non-governmental organization (NGO) activists and condemned as such by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson who chaired the Conference.
The Forum’s final declaration described Israel as a “racist, apartheid state” that was guilty of “racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.” The declaration established an action plan – the “Durban Strategy” – promoting “a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state…the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel” (para. 424).
Therefore, this Wikipedia entry misrepresents the BDS history and should be corrected.
Sources: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_forum_at_durban_conference_ http://spme.org/boycotts-divestments-sanctions-bds/boycott-industry-background-information-analysis-bds-campaigns/16877/ (There are too many sources to list -- there is extensive mention of BDS before 2005 referencing the 2001 Durban Forum strategy.) LindaBG ( talk) 12:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
To me, this page is a complete mess. Support, opposition, reactions, criticism, replies to criticism, etc are all over the place. I think this page needs to be reorganized to make it seem more streamlined and logical. Also, since there is a "special" section for Jewish/Israeli support for it, I think there should be a section for Palestinian/Arab opposition to it.
Just to start it off, we can add these:
Gouncbeatduke (
talk) arbitrarily removed a paragraph that I contributed in the South Africa section. I have also added the following to this editor's
talk page:
I would appreciate it if you refrain from deleting my recent contribution (complete with citations) to the
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions page for no valid reason. Furthermore I do not appreciate your false allegation that my contribution is vandalism, nor do I appreciate your unwarranted name calling. I am neither banned nor a sockpuppet. Any further revisions of the paragraph by yourself will be referred to
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Clivel 0 (
talk)
23:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This new legislation will provide list of companies doing biz with .il. I afraid it will be rather 'certifaied' list of BDS targtets. http://lamborn.house.gov/2015-press-releases/congressmen-lamborn-and-desantis-introduce-legislation-to-prevent-boycotts-of-israel/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.5.99 ( talk) 06:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The sections Cultural and Cultural boycott are nearly identical. Can someone please delete one? 217.37.166.142 ( talk) 16:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I cant seem to edit the page, but if someone can edit the failures that can ...I think it would be good to note in failures quotes from these sources:
"a wave of anti-BDS legislation is sweeping the U.S. The most high-profile so far are the bipartisan amendments to congressional bills for Trade Promotion Authority. They establish the “discourage[ing]” of boycotts as one of the U.S.’s many goals in trade negotiations with European countries." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/18/illinois-passes-historic-anti-bds-bill-as-congress-mulls-similar-moves/
"The US Congress is preparing a counter offensive to the tsunami of boycotts against Israel" http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4648715,00.html
"...the Maryland legislation now condemns the BDS movement as “a discriminatory and racist movement,”" - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/maryland-financial-penalties#sthash.foQMQhxy.dpuf
"Far from being isolated, Israel's exports are reaching record highs and it attracts billions of dollars in foreign investment. In the weeks that Israel was supposedly under a boycott siege, Japan's Rakuten agreed to buy the start-up Viber for $900 million and Ireland's Covidien sealed a deal to buy Given Imaging for $860 million. China's Bright Food was in talks to buy control of Israel's biggest food maker Tnuva, and IBM, Lockheed-Martin and ERM all announced plans to open research and development centers in Israel. The Jewish state became the first non-European member of the nuclear research consortium CERN and was admitted as an observer to the Pacific Alliance, a free-trade bloc of five Latin American countries." http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303426304579402771597851680
These all seem to be included in the set of failures of the BDS movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.187.17 ( talk) 12:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The Olympia co-op case is listed in the achievements section. Today the court ruled that the SLAPP ruling was unconstitutional and the case will go back to a lower court - [1]. Not sure what to do with the text. Leave it in place and add this? Move it to the failure section (if the court ruling in their favor was an achievement, this is a failure) or what. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 01:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
So my question is, should this fact be put into the failure section, the section that lists the universities that have voted on it (such as saying "Despite student governments voting to divest from Israel, no university has actually done so as the resolutions are all non-binding." as an example), should it be put in both sections? What are your thoughts. I really believe that this distinction should be highlighted. Not doing so makes it seem like the "achievements" of student governments voting to divest has an economic impact, which so far, it has not. As for sources:
In the United States, Israel's closest ally, the decade-old boycott-divestment-sanctions movement, or BDS, is making its strongest inroads on college campuses. No U.S. school has sold off stock and none is expected to do so anytime soon. - http://news.yahoo.com/anti-israel-divestment-push-gains-traction-us-colleges-050637043.html
No university administration or endowment investment committee has agreed to withdraw funds from companies whose products are used in connection with the occupation. Divestment resolutions “have no practical outcomes in terms of university investment policies,” said Oren Segal, director of the ADL’s Center on Extremism. - http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.652673 Knightmare72589 ( talk) 21:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone please make the following edit for me? In the first section, the last sentence states "The effectiveness of the movement has been questioned. Reports from both in and outside of Israel has indicated that the movement has had very little impact on the Israeli economy, and won't for the foreseeable future." However, this is untrue. please delete this sentence and add "Amb Freddy Eytan writes 'Israel is rightly alarmed at the escalating scale of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign. BDS constitutes a concrete threat to the future of Israel’s economic, academic, cultural, sports and political standing.' - See more at: http://jcpa.org/anti-semitism-is-the-motivation-for-the-bds/#sthash.3086XngF.dpuf ". Thank you! Yk1948 ( talk) 10:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Really? I mean seriously wtf. Can somebody please explain to me how that image is appropriate in this article? nableezy - 04:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
the Nazi comparison should be in the headline comparison. There is too much comparison to South Africa when the Nazi closing of Jewish stores is far more accurate. Eclpise the left ( talk) 18:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The sources added by Hyperionsteel don't support the inclusion of the word "anti-Israel" in the first sentence. (Neither does NPOV, but that's beside the point.) Here's my analysis of the three footnotes:
1. The Anti-Defamation League describes BDS campaigns as "anti-Israel activity". Let's attribute their opinion the way WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says to: "described as anti-Israel by the ADL".
2. In her review of The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel from Inside Higher Ed, Elizabeth Redden writes that Kenneth L. Marcus's contribution to the book "situates the BDS movement within the history of prior anti-Israel and anti-Jewish boycotts". That doesn't provide support for this article to describe BDS as anti-Israel.
3. USA Today writes that the BDS movement is an "outgrowth of the Arab League anti-Israel boycott that began in the 1940s'. This, too, falls short of describing BDS as anti-Israel.
Unless objective reliable sources can be found that say explicitly that BDS is anti-Israel, I think it needs to be removed from the first sentence of this article. Also, in the absence of such sources it should not be stated as a fact, but rather attributed as the opinion of BDS critics. 66.87.114.158 ( talk) 05:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have tried to link within the citation "Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel" the word "existence" to the right to exist. User RonaldR claims I cannot link from within quotes, but there are numerous examples for this kind of citation, in this entry alone. For example:
How is this paragraph any different from the others? The right to exist is a relevant entry. ScottyNolan ( talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello RonaldR, you reverted my last edit, in claim of " A personal transcript of a YouTube video is not a reliable source". The transcript is not a personal interpretation, but the exact words that she says. If we cannot use speeches as reliable sources, then what is a reliable source? A personal transcript by a journalist? I am adding it again, feel free to watch it yourself (22:15 -22:38).-- ScottyNolan ( talk) 19:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised and disappointed that Enthusiast01 seems confused by my edit summary: "rv good-faith edits that do not appear to be supported by reliable sources; please see WP:No original research".
As I wrote in my edit summary, without reliable sources that support your changes, they are impermissible original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The section titled "effectiveness of BDS" is a misnomer, because the section relates to economic impact, which does not necessarily correlate with an impact on Israeli policy that would further the goals of BDS. The economic impact discussion should be integrated into the sections on "support", and the "Israeli Reaction" should be moved from the section on global reactions to a main section category of its own. The effect of BDS on the Israeli public is much more significant, as a measure of the potential for changing Israeli policy, than the effect of BDS on citizens of other countries in the world. Jdkag ( talk) 16:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
re: the following sentence -
"Dr. Hawking boycotted the prestigious Israeli Presidential Conference, held by Israeli president Shimon Peres, in protest at the Israeli occupation of Palestine.[46][47][48]"
... "Israeli occupation of Palestine" ... this phrase is inaccurate by any standards ... it would be more appropriate if it read ... "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank" or something similar.
The article also mentions an occupation of Gaza: "Israeli Apartheid Week is an annual series of university lectures and rallies against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza."
- Israel has fully withdrawn from Gaza: "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank" would be more appropriate.
These aren't political points as such, it helps on-going discussion if articles on this subject are as accurate as possible.
The article would benefit from an overview of what is considered "occupation" by the different sides & the international community. Ideally i'd make a suggestion regarding this/add additional suggested edits but i'm not really in a position to suggest longer edits at the moment, due to lack of previous edits. Palestinian Territories, though, were previously under Jordanian, British Mandate, Ottoman control - prior to being under Israeli control.
Happy to discuss any of this.
T23please (
talk)
19:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
This was not intended to be well-poisoning, although I understand why some might assume bad faith and claim that it was. It was intended to convey that Israel was not yet a state in 1945. I intend to revise with a less blunt, but more accurate description within the next couple of days. -- GHcool ( talk) 00:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I reverted deletion of material on British Mandate period boycott of Jewish-owned businesses to Background section. Background/History sections are normal and appropriate. This well-sourced material belongs in this article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
See WP:ONUS. Just because something has sources doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Inclusion requires consensus. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
<- The article has now been restored to the correct point in the BRD cycle with the removal of the content for which consensus has not been established. The discussion can now proceed to establish whether the content should be included. This is how things are meant to work. It should be obvious that the right thing to do is to proceed with the discussion from this point to try to establish consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, this is getting ridiculous. Can we see a show of hands as to who opposes this content and why? As far as I can tell from comments here and changes to the article, GHCool, E.M. Gregory, Enthusiast and myself support it. Sepsis and Qualitatis say it's irrelevant and a couple others opposed the restoration on technical grounds but haven't told us if they feel it belongs or not. As far as I can tell there's a consensus to include so kindly speak up if you're opposed and I didn't count you. Please note that I added two sources that explicitly connect past boycotts to BDS. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 05:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
My objection is not that it is a view I do not like. In fact, BDS is presented as another variant of anti-Jewish boycotts. The contested text is in fact implicitly, covered and manipulatively labeling the movement as an anti-semitic movement! It is as wrong and absurd as if you would put into the Background:
Anti-semitism in Palestine is not new for Palestinians and others opposed to Zionism. It dates back to the 13th century when Palestine was ruled by ...
Moreover, BDS is not simply a boycott campaign, as symbolized by S of Sanctions. Concensus is not simply counting votes without considering arguments. In any case, this discussion shows that it does not belong in the Background section. -- Qualitatis ( talk) 09:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit by GHcool is a 1RR violation. It's time for all the edit warring to stop. If it doesn't the issue needs to be reported and the page fully protected. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
May be, there is a lack of knowledge here.
Completely different era's, completely different aims, with no connection between the two. And unlike past Arab boycotts, yet supported and led by a significant part of the non-Arab world. By connecting them in the background section, it is suggested that BDS is a continuation, or a new variant of the past Arab anti-Jewish boycotts. It is, in fact, again an attempt to present the agressors as the victims and as already mentioned a covered attempt to label the movement as an anti-semitic organization.
Clearly, the BDS movement acts in the context of the current Israeli occupation and has no relationship with past boycotts. Even if sometimes the two phenomena in some sources are compared with each other or mentioned together, be it pro- or anti-Israel, it does not change the background and context of BDS.
To repeate my thesis, this should not be treated in the lead or the background section. Rather there may be a paragraph in the opinions section. To be clear, also in the latter option, it should be directly related to BDS, not a trick to insert unrelated stuff. - Qualitatis ( talk) 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Somebody wisely said that this article is getting too difficult to navigate. I propose doing the following to make this article shorter:
I intend on working on these ideas within the next couple of days unless I hear arguments to the contrary. -- GHcool ( talk) 04:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
According to GHcool, the article is too long. According to the standard measure, the page has 58 kB (9180 words) of "readable prose" (the main body of the text, excluding material such as footnotes and reference sections, diagrams and images, tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, and formatting and mark-up). Wikipedia's size guideline says an article with more than 60 kB of readable prose "[p]robably should be divided" and an article with more than 50kB "[m]ay need to be divided".
So what do other editors think? Is the article too long?
My own view, and I've expressed it several times over the years, is that the article is made up of too many news articles, quotations, and (poor quality) examples, and not enough secondary analysis from historians and other third parties. In my opinion, the problem isn't so much the length of the article but that there's too much crap in it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
On a bit of a reflection and read-over, I think shortening the sections of criticism (and response) and moving the meat of them to Views on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement is a good idea. There could be more written on the topic, particularly from world governments, although we should try and keep to notable opinions.
I also think we could create a page, History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement in which a lot of the campaigns, currently listed by country, could be listed chronologically. Alternatively, we could make History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement in the United States and History of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement in the United Kingdom (or Europe generally), and that could help to trim down the "reactions" section considerably.
The long "Supporters - Academic" section could be seriously truncated and some text moved to Academic boycott of Israel, although it largely covers everything listed here already and is itself quite long. The same holds for "Supporters - Business" and Disinvestment from Israel, although it could also be split into a new section on Government support, since that's significantly different from business bodies such as pension funds disinvesting.
Then there's the matter of the Boycotts of Israel page, which seems to be duplicating large parts of this page, albeit with more history. I'm loathe to suggest moving content there, however, since it already seems to be pushing the limits of readable prose for a page, and it's confusing what having two such similar pages achieves. Perhaps some of its content could also get moved into the newly created pages, since it would logically function best as a kind of umbrella page? TrickyH ( talk) 10:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the criticism section come right after the support section? That seems way more NPOV than after the reactions of such international heavyweights as Romania. I'll move it in a few days barring any policy based objections. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 18:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:Criticism, which is an essay, recommends integrating criticism throughout the article, which it recommends arranging chronologically or by theme, instead of using a separate "Criticism" section. WP:NPOV, in its section on "Article structure", also advises against segregating all the criticism into its own section. I think that approach ought to be tried here but—as I've written before—I think somebody should do some research and find secondary sources about BDS and its critics. Nobody wants to read endless quotes from advocates and opponents of BDS. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 18:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This may have been discussed before, so please point me to a previous discussion if it exists. The question is should this article include cases where BDS activists claim something was done because of BDS, but the companies or whatever actually taking the action do not say it is because of BDS or even outright deny it? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 17:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I considered if we should distinct between BDS and non-BDS boycotts. I found that it would not be possible, because BDS promotes boycotts in general, so every boycott falls within the scope of the article. That is another reason why we should not mix it with pre-BDS boycotts. -- Qualitatis ( talk) 11:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
There should be a response to what the critics say about BDS in the lead, to establish NPOV. Examples include; the fact that they support a two state solution and that the organization consists of several prominent Jewish figures and NGOs. Makeandtoss ( talk) 19:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Sourced material is not sacred. No More Mr Nice Guy did not adress my summaries. The foolish cry about sourced content makes no sense. WP:ONUS: Sourced content that is inappropriate may be removed. -- Qualitatis ( talk) 18:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
While the paragraphs about Julie Norman and Rhea DuMont are neutral, they are way too general and do not explain anything about the background of BDS. They would suit for an introduction in a book, but not in this encyclopedia. And BTW, the Rhea DuMont part is not derived from DuMont, but from Norman, so it is all from Norman. I propose to delete all as being too general and academical for this article. -- Qualitatis ( talk) 09:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)