Talk:Palestine Solidarity Campaign

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 October 2021. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

mergeHistoricist (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the PSC

Why is there no mention of any of the reports of antisemitism in the PSC in this article? [1], [2], [3], [4] and here is someone from the PSC saying that they have a problem with antisemitism in the Palestinian solidarity movement, [5] surely something of a few sentences can be added into this article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: There are indeed RS speaking about anti-semitism within the movement. I added a new section for it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court Ruling

I can't edit this article as I have less than 500 edits. Can somebody please include the successful legal challenge PSC brought against the UK Government? They challenged Government guidance which attempted to restrict Local Government Pension Schemes from divesting "contrary to UK foreign and defence policy". Sources below. Thanks. --DSQ (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.palestinecampaign.org/palestine-solidarity-campaign-defeats-uk-government-over-pensions-divestment/

https://www.ft.com/content/00c619b2-59f9-4354-967a-620a1d7019ee

WP:SOAP and minor WP:NPOV

There's a major problem with sources here. Most info on this page seems to come from the group's website or other associated group's websites.

Does anyone want to help clean that up, replacing it with info found on independent reliable sources, and removing some of what cannot be found in independent sources?

Also, does anyone want to help add some criticism which can be found in reliable sources?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a number of cite-need and non-primary-source-need tags. What I've tagged is not a comprehensive list of the problems. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Chronicle as a source for article

@Nableezy: You deleted content[6] under the claim that the Jewish Chronicle is an "unreliable source"?

However, this disagrees with established consensus. The perennial list of sources has it "green" as there's consensus that it is a reliable source. There's an indication that some editors feel it's biased, but there's only a recommendation to put an in-text attribution. That was already done. The text was written as someone else's opinion and research, not in wikipedia's voice.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misreading that established consensus. There is a rough consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is biased for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics. Beyond that, it is entirely based on a blog by an non-notable and unreliable source, David Collier. There is no indication that Mr Collier's views merit any weight whatsoever. We dont repeat smear campaigns because some biased source refers to them. nableezy - 15:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some indication that David Collier's views merit some weight:

He wrote at least one opinion piece for the Jerusalem Post [7]
Times of Israel wrote an article about his research [8]
BBC refers to his research and uses his blog as a source [9]
Irish Times mentions his report [10]

That's more than enough justification to include his opinions as an opinion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC does not use his blog as a source, the BBC says his blog made a number of accusations and that the councillor was suspended. It does not in any way confer any reliability on Collier except to say his blog exists and he made those accusations. Writing an op-ed does not make notable, having a report "mentioned" by the Irish Times does not do so either. We dont include rumor on the basis of "its just his opinion", and as Collier is not an established expert in this field he does not merit mention. nableezy - 22:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They did use his blog as source: "Mr Collier's blog says she left the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign over a decision to screen Perdition on Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD)."

From the BBC article, his accusations weren't "rumors" they were factual, the counselor was suspended and apologized. He's done research into PSC. His research is referred to by international press. More than notable enough to give an opinion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is reporting on what the blog says, not using it as a source. And no, if he were notable he'd have an article on him. But he is not. Finally, please see WP:ONUS. When there is a good faith dispute about content, you are required to show consensus for its inclusion. You know full well there is no such consensus here. nableezy - 23:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a blog. It's a 79 page report covered in detail by a RS. That merits inclusion. Period. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One source, with a consensus of being biased on the topic, repeating charges by a non-notable blogger does not merit inclusion. I can say "period" for effect too. nableezy - 23:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source covered it in depth. That's all we need. You originally claimed that the source was "not reliable"; That was false, now you seem to keep moving the bar to try to keep this out of the article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not false, and you can keep ignoring the rest of what RSP says, but it does not even matter. One biased source repeating one non-notable blogger is not worthy of any weight whatsoever. There is no indication that Collier's criticism carried any weight with sources not known for a bias for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians. WP:WEIGHT requires giving due weight, not including anything any source with an axe to grind on a topic reports. And given that Collier's criticisms of PSC have been largely ignored outside of this one source that is not sufficient weight to merit inclusion. nableezy - 01:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you think that criticism of the org deserves absolutely zero weight. Got it. ;-) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats more than a little dishonest. David Collier deserves zero weight. If there are better sources for criticism then include those. But so far you have chosen to make things up instead. You claimed Spedding was a member for 10 years and wrote an op-ed about PSC's problem with anti-semitism. Neither part of that is true. The op-ed contains one mention of PSC, that at one meeting one person said "Arabs are Semites too". And from that you create a "controversy" about the organization. You wrote that Greenstein "vocally criticized" the movement for anti-semitism, and below admit that no source supports that. Im actually tempted to take that little piece of tendentious editing to AE, but cant really be bothered to at the moment. But kindly dont misrepresent what Ive written, it is incredibly dishonest and makes me less inclined to take anything you write seriously. nableezy - 02:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of us are perfect. However, if I make any mistakes, I'm always happy to correct them. You just didn't give me enough time before deleting everything. As for weight, I'm willing to compromise. With the current length of the article and the totally stripped down lead there is no need for any criticism in the lead. But, I 100% stand by the idea that an 80 page report about this group, covered by RS, belongs in the criticism section. And I also believe that the updated controversy section now precisely reflects what's said in the sources. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. that was covered by one source, a biased one, and has no demonstration that it has gained any significant coverage elsewhere. B. Review WP:ONUS, you may not repeatedly reinstate material subject to good faith challenges absent a consensus for that material. C. You again returned things that are simply not relevant. PSC said they have no ties with Atzmon. Booth criticized them for that. Greenstein responded to that. The material on Spedding is likewise insignificant, he reported one person at one meeting said something. He did so in an op-ed. Nothing about Spedding makes him a noteworthy commentator on this topic, and op-eds generally are not reliable sources or show any weight. I am again reverting this insertion, and if you continue to violate our policies will be asking for sanctions. nableezy - 20:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nableezy's rationale here. Mujinga (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nableezy, too. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on the "Criticism and Controversy" section

The two sources used in the "Antisemitism allegations" section are mostly talking about the Palestine solidarity movement. The implication for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign is unclear from the sources.

The first source describes Tony Greenstein as "a fierce critic of anti-Semitism in the Palestine solidarity movement, in particular the supporters of Gilad Atzmon". Is this relevant to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign? Are the "supporters of Gilad Atzmon" within the Palestine Solidarity Campaign? The source does not say.
Gary Spedding says he has "campaigned in both the Palestine solidarity movement and in the fight against anti-Semitism for over 10 years". His bio at the bottom of the article does not say he is a member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. We describe him as an "activist with PSC for 10 years".
The article by Spedding mentions the Palestine Solidarity Campaign once in relation to an experience he had at one of its meetings. Other than that reference, the article is talking about the Palestine solidarity movement. Again it is unclear to what extent his comments apply to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Regarding the "Lanning's ban from Israel" section:

The article on Hugh Lanning says the Israeli Embassy in the UK stressed the PSC’s support for the BDS campaign and added he “is associated with the leaders of Hamas". We only mention one of these items when explaining why he was barred from entering Israel.
Is the sentence "The article in the Jewish News, shows a photo of Lanning standing on a stage along with Ismail Haniyeh, one of Hamas' senior political leaders" appropriate? It is an editors description of a photo that appeared in the article. The photo is not discussed in the article.

Burrobert (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any proposed fixes? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Greenstein issue, it does not say that PSC has participated in antisemitism, and the link to Atzmon is entirely irrelevant. Absent sources saying that PSC has these issues and not that somebody finds fault with the wider Palestinian solidarity movement, it does not belong here. nableezy - 21:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the entirety of the antisemitism section and the sentence in the lead should be removed. They quite simply are not related to the article, the op-ed by Spedding mentions an incident when one Arab at one local meeting said "Arabs are Semites too" and then makes no other mention of PSC. Material on wider Palestinian solidarity is not relevant here. Will be removing both. nableezy - 22:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The info about Greenstein does seem to be supported currently by any source, so that should go. But I'm going to replace it with this:

Tony Greenstein ... wrote on his blog: "PSC needs to take decisive action to root out, once and for all, those who evince sympathy for racism - of whatever description. Gilad Atzmon is deeply antisemitic. He subscribes to every myth and libel that has ever been written about Jews, from the world Jewish conspiracy theory, to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the Holocaust itself." [11]

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your zeal to find anything that has PSC and "antisemitism" in the same article is misplaced. That article is about Lauren Booth attacking PSC for doing what Greenstein said. That does not say that PSC is antisemitic, it says that Lauren Booth attacked PSC for not associating itself with people such as Atzmon. This isnt an article on Atzmon either. Thats over there. nableezy - 22:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of PSC's members was a deeply antisemitic conspiracy theorist, promoting hateful bigotry of Jews. A co-founder of PSC asked PSC to remove him and others within the movement who share such views. That's absolutely relevant, and it's covered by RS. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt supported by any part of any source cited here or in the article. Certainly not the article about PSC saying that Atzmon is not a member. nableezy - 22:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the quote above, Greenstein is speaking about rooting out anti-semitism from PSC and mentions Atzmon in that context. Here it is again:

""PSC needs to take decisive action to root out, once and for all, those who evince sympathy for racism - of whatever description. Gilad Atzmon is deeply antisemitic. " -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a response to Booth criticizing PSC for publicly disassociating itself from Atzmon. It does not say that Atzmon was a member, it does not say that a co-founder asked for PSC to do anything about him. nableezy - 23:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source issues

I just removed the promo banner, but left up the issues with sources.

PNN - Does anyone know if PNN is a reliable source or not?
Lexis - I have no idea what this is referencing behind the paywall.
Independent Catholic News - I'm almost positive this is an unreliable source. But I posted it in RSN to get more input before deleting it.

--Bob drobbs (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PNN is OK for this subject matter but I added the actual Trust report as primary source for verification.

Re Lexis, this could go out, its old and PSC organizes lots of demos, frequently at the Israeli embassy https://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?imgt=0&qt=Palestine+Solidarity+Campaign Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating tag

The thought occurs to me that the simplest way to update this article is to take a look at the Israel attack dog site https://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/palestine-solidarity-campaign/ where one can find an uptodate list of atrocious antisemitic anti Israel things that PSC gets up to :) Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, the appropriate way to adjust weight in this article is probably by adding info from RS, some of which are listed in the AFD instead of just deleting any and all criticism. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are proper rs to be found for most of the ngomonitor hitlist items. I don't mind adding criticism from serious sources and I am afraid the person currently subject of the AfD doesn't fit that description (actually, anyone who describes the United Nations as "a rabid Jew-hating forum" likely doesn't qualify, although I respect anyone's right to say such things). We have had a similar discussion already at the BDS article. Do some believe PSC antisemitic, sure. What is depressing is the dismal sourcing for this assertion.Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2021

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

This edit must be reverted. User talk:Nableezy., in his talk page, erroneously accused Bob_drobbs of "making things up" when the sources clearly corroborate everything that Bob_drobbs wrote. RafaelJC12 (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. The source does not in any way relate to the PSC. This is covered in the sections above. The Spedding piece makes one remark on one local meeting, and as such it fails WP:WEIGHT to include here. nableezy - 19:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

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

Citation no.2 does not support the claim made in text. 51.187.87.91 (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have tagged the content that failed verification. Leaving this open for now. M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Lemonaka‎ 13:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this was closed. Pinging the most active editors on this talk page: @Nableezy, Bob drobbs, Selfstudier, and RafaelJC12: could you please check the tagged content and see whether it's worth keeping? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

removed. nableezy - 14:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Thanks for the reply. Is there a reason why you kept the rest (in the "Boycott Israeli goods campaign" section)? M.Bitton (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just didnt see it. Removing that now too. nableezy - 14:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]