Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Brookings is a reliable source
This edit seems wrongheaded. Is there really any debate about whether or not the Brookings Institution is a reliable source? I intend on restoring the information if there are no reasonable objections. GHcool (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for Iskandar323, but I don't think the overall reliability of Brookings is a major factor here. The expertise of the authors is, as is the question of how much weight to afford this particular view. I would be much more likely to support a summary of the piece if the proposal were For example, the analysis from the RAND corporation is given a much shorter treatment, and it's supported by an independent secondary source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a source for its own opinions, as any think tank is, but without any mention in secondary sources, due weight has not been established. However, my edit summary referenced what I presumed was being assumed here, which is that these Brookings personnel were being treated as subject-matter experts conceivably exempt from the usual restrictions on self-published content, as an alternative to secondary sourcing. I agree with the above observations above on length and placement too, but due weight is key. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Its not Brookings, its a blog, says so right in the url, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/01/26/how-much-does-bds-threaten-israels-economy/.
 * To qualify as attributed opinion, the authors need to be subject matter experts (on BDS? or maybe economists). I see no evidence for that. Selfstudier (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is my thinking. The Brookings institute has sufficient reputation that things like papers it publishes are reliable sources; but that doesn't apply to blogs, which fall under our usual restrictions for blogs. There's no indication that the Brookings Institute exerts any fact-checking or editorial controls over such blogs, so they're only usable when they're by established subject-matter experts. --Aquillion (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2023
Hello, I would like to submit a request to remove ACRI from the lists of NGOs that support the BDS movement. ACRI has never been in any private or public partnerships with the BDS movement nor have they publicly announced their support for the movement. Please remove ACRI from the list of supporters on this Wikipedia page. ACRIResource (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As it appears you have a conflict of interest with this article, I've converted this edit request to a COI edit request. Deauthorized. (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done. The article source says "Initially, the more established radical groups, such as Women in Black, ICAHD, ACRI and New Profile, issued statements supporting the boycott, and conferences were organized to discuss this method of resisting the occupation." whereas your statement is unsourced.Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2023
I want to change the zcomm.org references to znetwork.org since the website has changed its name. Ottosonny (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't find any, reopen and point to them.Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Please delete ACRI from supporters list
thank you Hila Livne (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Already dealt with above at . Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, this request deserves further consideration. The statement in our article that ACRI supports BDS is backed by a citation. I checked the source cited, Leonie Fleischmann's The Israeli Peace Movement: Anti-Occupation Activism and Human Rights since the Al-Aqsa Intifada. This does indeed state that "Initially, the more established radical groups, such as Women in Black, ICAHD, ACRI and New Profile, issued statements supporting the boycott, and conferences were organized to discuss this method of resisting the occupation". Knowing the positions and history of the ACRI, I was surprised by this, so I checked Fleischmann's source. She footnotes the statement with a link to Rachel Giora, Milestones in the history of the Israeli BDS movement: A brief chronology. This article, published by Israeli supporters of BDS, refers explicitly to support from Women in Black, ICAHD and New Profile. But nowhere in the article is there any reference to ACRI.
 * Given this, I would suggest that, whatever its other merits, Fleischmann's book - which apparently includes an invented claim not supported by the source she cites - should not be regarded as a reliable source for this challenged assertion about the ACRI, and that the specific reference to ACRI as a supporter of BDS should be removed from the article. RolandR (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to be careful before asserting that a living person has fabricated something. It is possible, is it not, that the author is saying this herself and not just relying on the footnoted source? As well, if it were the case, we would need to expunge the source and everything attributed to it as unreliable. This request is also strange (as well the apparent CoI request preceding it), we would usually respond to a request like this with a request for a source or evidence in support of the request and I would not expect an experienced editor to just flatly demand that material be removed without such evidence. Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We assert that the ACRI supports BDS. Two people have asserted that it doesn't, and asked for the statement to be removed. Our response has been to ask them for proof that the ACRI does not support BDS, which is extremely difficult to provide. If the ACRI had made a statement opposing BDS, this would be simple. But this is not what is being argued, rather that it does not explicitly support BDS. On investigation, the source asserting ACRI support for BDS is based on an article by a leading Israeli supporter of BDS which makes no such claim. In the circumstances, since the claim is contentious and challenged, the onus is surely on editors to find a stronger source (if one exists, which I doubt) to confirm this. The burden of proof should not be placed on those who disagree with a statement to disprove it, but on those who make the claim to prove it. I don't believe that this has been established here, and propose to remove the reference to ACRI. RolandR (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to attribution but I don't see any basis for outright removal. Let's wait a bit and see what other editors think? Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What I would suggest is to replace the link to Fleischmann with a link to the Giora article, omitting any reference to ACRI. Meanwhile, I have wrtitten to Fleischmann asking if she can provide any evidence that ACRI supports/supported BDS. RolandR (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * List of organizations that have endorsed the BDS movement also has ACRI with the same source. I understand what you are saying but it all seems a bit ORish atm. The Goria article lists many more supporters besides the 4 picked out by Fleischmann. I agree however that ACRI is not in BDS's list of those answering/endorsing the call as of 2005. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But Fleischmann did not pick out four supporters from the Giora article, since one name she lists is not in the article at all. RolandR (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say she picked them out of the Gloria article. If we replace with the Gloria article, we would have to pick, how would we do it? Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The most straightforward change is to say that the groups listed supported the use of boycotts when that method first started to gain traction. The source supports that, and not the current language. We can add that there was a split amongst Israeli activist groups between full support for BDS (a minority) and support for more targeted boycotts (e.g. of settler activity and those supporting it). We should avoid implying that the groups fully support BDS to this day, which is unsupported by the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone else can fix this mess now. Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I wrote to Leonie Fleischmann, to ask if she could shed any light on this. She has replied to me, apologising "with embarrassment" for the error. She did indeed intend to write AIC, as suggested above, and the error was not picked up. She adds that she does not consider ACRI to be a "radical group", and would not intentionally have referred to them as such. She does not expect there to be another edition of the book, so will not be able to correct the error.

I am aware that a personal email cannot be considered a reliable source, but since the proposal here has been to remove rather than include a challenged statement I see this as sufficient justification for removal of the mistaken assertion about ACRI. Is there any need to put a note in the article or footnote summarising this? RolandR (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

What BDS is based on
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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Mandy Rice-Davies applies or not?
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)
 * 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023
remove the comma before "could cost the Israeli economy" bit (Impact section, Economic subsection) Hypermoddie (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Shadow311 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

spelling mistake
"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)


 * ✅, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

EI is not a reliable source about BDS
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)


 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)