Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Wrong statistic

Under "Palestinian Reactions", it is written that "BDS enjoys overwhelming support among Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territories. In a poll from 2015, 86% supported the boycott campaign, 64% believed that boycotting would help end the occupation, and 88% said they had stopped buying Israeli products.[283]" However, going to the survey of that source, the question of whether they had stopped buying Israeli products is question number 63, and it is only 52% who has stopped doing so. I think in the summary they by mistake added "did stop" and "did not stop" to reach 88%. In addition, the question was about two specific Israeli companies, not a boycott of Israeli products in general.

This is also more in line with other polls, such as this one: http://www.miftah.org/arabic/Docs/Reports/2015/Other/PalestinianPublicOpinionPollNo51Ar.pdf

On the top of page four they ask the same question, and only 49% say that they don't buy Israeli products (while 8% only buys Israeli products and 36% don't care whether the product is Israeli or Palestinian and decide based on the quality alone).

So I propose we change that paragraph to reflect the actual findings of the polls, that while the movement enjoys broad support in the abstract, it is to a limited extent heeded by Palestinians.

NeffeG (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. For now, I removed the 88% altogether since the relevant q in the survey only applies to 2 companies (apparently, it's a bit unclear). I will take a look at the miftah survey later, ideally it would be better to find secondary sourcing so I will have a look and see if I can find some.Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

http://www.miftah.org/Doc/Polls/PalestinianPublicOpinionPollNo51.pdf is the English version of mifta survey rather than the Arabic.Selfstudier (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Lots of dubious sources, and other issues, too...

With respect to all involved, especially the single editor responsible for more than 60% of this page's text, I suspect that very few people coming to this page for the first time (as I have just now) could honestly claim that it relies on reliable, authoritative sources ("especially where the topic is controversial"); that it gives due weight to the major points of view; or, most of all, that it avoids advocacy. I have already stripped out one publication published by something called AK Press, which is apparently a fringe press with no peer-review process that is devoted to publishing "books, pamphlets, and zines", presumably with an anarchist bent (bonus points for the book's foreward by Cynthia McKinney!). But the scope of the problem far exceeds this. BDS isn't very important to me and I have no desire whatsoever to get stuck in on this, but I expect that serious editors will not in good faith assert that, for example, the following are reliable sources that should anchor large portions of the text (I have just looked at the first two main sections, a small fraction of the article):

Taraki, Lisa (19 August 2004). "Boycotting the Israeli Academy". ZNet.

Hickey, Tom; Marfleet, Philip (13 October 2010). "The "South Africa moment": Palestine, Israel and the boycott". International Socialism – A quarterly journal of socialist theory.

PACBI (27 December 2011). "What is normalization?". +972 Magazine.

There is also a worrying reliance on unpublished PhD Dissertations, and publications from Haymarket and Zed Press that are not clearly peer-reviewed (it seems some from Haymarket may be, but Barghouti's publication in their "Ultimate Series" is not, so far as I can tell? More to the point, as a general matter, why not opt for serious university presses and reputable peer reviewed journals? There is plenty out there on this topic!). If there were more high quality sources involved and a higher proportion of the text were sourced to them, the odd unpublished dissertation and non-academic press publication might be reasonable; as it now stands, considerably less than half of the opening sections of the article (a representative sample, I would expect) is sourced to what are conventionally agreed to be high quality RSS where controversial topics are concerned.

Most unusually, there are also some extensive passages based entirely on the BDS website itself, which contributes to the page simply reading like a promotion or a paid advertisement.

I understand the passion some may have for this page, but I think we can do much, much better here. If editors do not want to improve the quality of the sourcing, I think we should strip out all of the plainly unacceptable material, accept some amount of the unpublished PhD material and non-academic press material (where it is peer-reviewed), and then flag the page as having some important issues; alternatively, editors with a genuine passion for the topic might provide sources of the quality that Wikipedia and its readers deserve. As always, happy to discuss further in a calm and well-reasoned way. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

especially the single editor responsible for more than 60% of this page's text arrived at this page and said much the same thing as you are saying now. We all have a POV and given your editing at the David Miller article, it is clear that their POV (and to a lesser extent, mine as well) is likely the other side of your own. All of his editing was scrutinized, in particular by editor G H Cool and I watched all the back and forth as well. Since they haven't been around for a while and can't speak for themselves, I can assure you that this article is in a far better condition for their efforts, your insinuation notwithstanding.

If editors do not want to improve the quality of the sourcing, I think we should strip out all of the plainly unacceptable material That's amusing, you don't want to improve the sourcing yourself but will happily strip out material you don't approve of. That's not the way it works.Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, Selfstudier. In an ideal world, that's precisely what one would do, and the good news is that on this topic (unlike, say, with David Miller's sacking), one would also be in the enviable position of having at one's disposable a wealth of high quality, peer-reviewed publications from reputable university presses or solid academic journals with which to build up a good article. Since you bring up the David Miller page, which I think does have big problems, you'll remember that my first substantial intervention there was precisely to strip lots of material [1] that was not well sourced (in some cases salvaging key material where better sources, such as e.g. the BBC, The Times, or even the Bristol Post could be found) and, through a process of building consensus on the talk page [2], I was actually hoping to go further. But watching what happened there (and seeing how other episodes at I/P-related pages have played out do not) suggested that further efforts devoted to the page were unlikely to produce many improvements to it in an efficient way; unfortunately, and with respect, you were on more than occasion one of the main reasons (though certainly not the only one) to think that one would be more likely to get bogged down in time-consuming and bitter personal disputes without any clear benefit to Wikipedia users [3], [4]). Hope always spring eternal, however, and I have been working to compile serious, peer-reviewed sources to address another I/P page that also relies on substandard sources (and has other serious shortcomings), and, thankfully, has editors who have demonstrated a commitment to high quality sourcing; I am looking forward to having enough time soon to have a go at improving the page by adding in well-sourced and appropriate material.

For better and worse, I have a full-time job unrelated to these matters, and of course proper research and drafting takes a lot of time, which, unfortunately, I do not have at this moment (I'm sure you will understand [5]). In the meantime, however, we still have an article that is in quite poor shape in many ways. As a first step, it thus seems eminently reasonable and consensus-oriented: 1) to note that the current article much too heavily on substandard sources; 2) to take the first step of flagging this up as a problem on the talk page; 3) to appeal to editors who are invested in this page, appreciate the value of quality academic sourcing where it is possible (as on this topic), and want to make Wikipedia more like a battleground and more encyclopedic to improve it; and then, if necessary, 4) intervene in the article itself or add a tag (I'm sure you'll understand [6]. If you prefer, I am happy to skip to step four and follow your lead in noting failed verifications and clarifications that are needed. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding material is much better than deleting it as a rule. Arbitrarily deleting sources will certainly receive my close attention. Tag as you wish, just make sure to explain why they are being added. I see nothing else in your commentary that needs a response other than I think you meant to say "less like a battleground" rather than "more", Freudian slip perhaps? Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Columbia

On to the edits, the first of these re Columbia being the addition of "non-binding" (fails verification, not in given source), "Columbia rejected the resolution" (also fails verification); "explaining this decision" (what decision?), Lee Bollinger, the university's president, wrote that Columbia "should not change its investment policies on the basis of particular views about a complex policy issue, especially when there is no consensus across the University community about that issue."

So the only bit of this that is correct (but still incomplete) is [In response] "Lee Bollinger, the university's president, wrote that Columbia "should not change its investment policies on the basis of particular views about a complex policy issue, especially when there is no consensus across the University community about that issue." omitting that any decision would have to made via the Uni Advisory Committee. In other words, students said divest and Bollinger responded no change in investment policy without consensus across the University community. Also omitted was what the resolution called for, "to boycott and divest from companies that "profit from or engage in the State of Israel’s acts towards Palestinians,".

I will look at the rest of the editing later but if this effort is anything to go by, I am not hopeful.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Brown

The non-binding thing (again). "Brown rejected...". the letter from Paxson makes it clear that she is rejecting it, not necessarily Brown even if the effect is the same for now. Omitted is the 2020 Advisory Committee official recommendation "that the University divest from "any company that profits from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land," which I will add for balance. This is presumably a similar committee to that referred to by Bollinger above, so it would seem the matter is not closed as yet. Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

What is a "non-binding" student resolution anyway? No university considers itself bound by student resolutions, so it isn't like there is a distinction to be made. Zero^talk 13:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure if this is true; I haven't encountered any systematic study of the relationship between student government resolution processes and university decision-making protocols. Perhaps you have. Second, if you you are correct - and you may very well be - saying that a student resolution is non-binding would then be something akin to an analytic statement that, in this instance, provides invaluable context for those unfamiliar with the nuances of university administration (which is, I think, nearly everyone who is not involved in adminstering a university. I have spent a great deal of time at universities, and I myself had no definitive understanding of the obligations of a university to implement the demands of this sort of resolution by its students. That is because I have never actually seen this kind of referendum before, so I had even less to go by.)

The reason this matters is that when I first read the phrase In 2019, Brown University became the first Ivy league university to pass a divestment resolution, with 69% of the students in favor and 31% against, the conclusion I took away from this was that Brown had indeed divested or begun divesting; without any further context, that is, I think, the most reasonable inference. (I would hate to think that this had been done intentionally to mislead, and I'm sure that was not the case.) It is also incorrect, and so in order to avoid misleading our readers, it seemed some explanation that a) the student body passed this resolution (with, notably, just over a quarter of the student body voting for it), not some part of the administration, and b) that this resolution was non-binding and thus did not necessarily lead to Brown divesting, was in order. I hope this clarifies my reasoning and my intentions; naturally, I would welcome any improvements to the phrasing you might wish to suggest. (Incidentally, because it, too, provides further valuable context, I think the subsequent addition of the Advisory Committee on Corporate Responsibility in Investment Policies decision is also helpful - though the 'nevertheless' is probably not quite on the money, and it doesn't need to double the length of the entire paragraph...) Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The proper response to failed verification is to demonstrate the claim as wrong (which you haven't done) or else remove the OR.Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Source removal

Leaving aside throwaway commentary about specific sources in the article, two sources were removed, not one, Enforcing Silence:(Zed 2020)(Jeff Handmaker contribution) & We will not be Silenced (AK Press 2017)(Robinson & Griffin (eds) contribution). Your argument for the first is that the material in Zed Books is "not clearly peer-reviewed" and that AK Press is "a fringe press with no peer-review process". Please supply evidence for these assertions and explain precisely why this material is not due. And be so kind as to not remove any more sources without a discussion here first.Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS on those who want to retain the material. Both publishers are fringe and WP:UNDUE Shrike (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That is patent nonsense, Shrike. I regularly cite Zed Books on Wikipedia, always when they are quality academic works, and your's is the first challenge to it. It is a major venue for many I/P books written by scholars. Is that the problem. In any case, a large number of their academic works will in future come under the Bloomsbury Publishing imprint, which also no one challenges. Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Misleading text on article: "In 2019, Israel caused some controversy by denying entry to two BDS-supporting U.S. Representatives, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar."

They were not denied entry to Israel due to their BDS positions, but due to a request from the Trump administration to the government of Israel. AnonMoos (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The source says:

"Israel's decision on Thursday to bar two American Democratic congresswomen, Representatives Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, from visiting the country rests on a law passed just two years ago. Aimed at Israel's critics, the law has been used to deny entry to outspoken foreign supporters of a global movement to boycott the country, which has significant support in Europe as well as the United States".

The article later goes into detail about the law to which it is referring:

"Passed in 2017, the law was aimed at outspoken supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement who encourage individuals and institutions ... ".

The article also mentions Donald's opinion, but does not directly link Donald's statement to Israel's action:

"The announcement came hours after President Trump encouraged Israel to deny entry to the congresswomen, an extraordinary attempt to influence an ally and punish his domestic political opponents".

The article does state that, although these were the first two Americans banned under the law, a number of other people had previously been refused entry under the law.

Burrobert (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

That's nice, but https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/16/world/middleeast/rashida-tlaib-israel-visit.html and much other news coverage at the time placed a very different emphasis on this. The Trump tweet apparently used to be at https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1162000480681287683 , but of course can't be directly accessed now... AnonMoos (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I think both versions are true. The Israeli government cited Israeli law in refusing the two entry, but they did so after Trump had given them the green light. The Israeli press presented it like this and opined that Israel would never have taken the action without permission from the Trump administration. For example, in this article we find "According to Netanyahu, defending his decision, barring the entry of Representatives Omar of Minnesota and Tlaib of Michigan was defensible because in his words, 'Tlaib and Omar are leading activists in promoting boycott legislation against Israel in the U.S. Congress.' ... Originally, the Israeli government had determined to allow in the two congresswomen. But President Donald Trump pressured Netanyahu not to do so as an extension of his attacks on Omar and Tlaib...". Zero^talk 07:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)hj

I would suggest expanding that paragraph, using appropriate sources. Where there are conflicting versions in reliable sources we should include both in a suitable way.

• We should mention that the law was used to refuse entry to a number of people prior to the incident involving Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.
• We should mention the Israeli government's stated position linking the refusal to Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar's BDS activism. For example, we could use Netanyahu's statement quoted above.
• We should mention that some sources state that Donald's statement was reported to have influenced the decision by Israel. An example is the opinion piece from David Rothkopf quoted above.

Burrobert (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You're still kind of missing the main point -- The Israeli government was entitled by Israeli laws to deny entrance to Tlaib and Omar on the basis of BDS, and Netanyahu would have personally preferred to deny entrance to Tlaib and Omar on the basis of BDS, but they were NOT denied entrance until Trump placed his heavy thumb on the scale. Therefore the critical precipitating event was Trump, not BDS. AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Produce an rs saying exactly that or close to it (ie Trump instructed the IsGov what to do and they did it even though they didn't want to) and then we will see. NYT first line says "Israel relented...under pressure from President Trump" so that's clearly no use and Trump tweets are no use either.Selfstudier (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh? There probably won't be any source saying that Netanyahu (at least) didn't want to deny them entry, because he DID in fact want to deny them entry (as I said immediately above) -- but he didn't quite dare to exclude U.S. members of Congress until Trump conspicuously gave him permission to do so. And the "relenting" didn't apply to the original exclusion from the Congressional junket, but to a subsequent offer of a purely humanitarian trip for Tlaib to see her grandmother (this did not apply to Omar). You need to brush up on some of the facts of the case... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The article currently says "In 2019, Israel caused some controversy by denying entry to two BDS-supporting U.S. Representatives, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar". This seems an accurate, though not a complete, description of what happened. It does not, for example, explicitly say that they were refused entry because of their support for BDS. Why don't you suggest an alternative wording, with supporting sources. Then we will know what we are arguing about. Burrobert (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Burrrobert -- since their support for BDS is the only factor mentioned, therefore by what linguists call "Gricean implicatures" it creates the impression that their support for BDS was the only factor in their being denied entry and/or that BDS support purely on its own was sufficient to get them banned. That was and is true for other people at other times, but it was NOT true for Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in 2019 -- they would not have been denied entry to Israel at that time without the heavy-handed intervention of Donald Trump. So BDS was not the only and/or sufficient factor. The wording on the article would be just fine for some other cases of people denied entry to Israel, but it needs some clarification when applied to Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in 2019... AnonMoos (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No sources, just opinion. So here's a source:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-on-tlaib-omar-ban-israel-respects-congress-but-wont-tolerate-bds/

"Katz said that, with the visit drawing closer, Netanyahu met with cabinet ministers to discuss the matter and decided to bar the lawmakers. Katz denied reports that US President Donald Trump had pressured Israel to disallow the two congresswomen from visiting. He also said the decision to bar the two was made before Trump tweeted support of a ban on Thursday."

So that's the end of that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Israeli Foreign Minister denied that Israel had acted under US pressure. Why does that settle it? Wouldn't Katz say that regardless? Zero^talk 02:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Selfstudier is saying that the Israeli government made its decision prior to Donald's tweet, so the decision could not have been affected by the tweet. Anyway, I don't have a problem including all this in the article with appropriate attribution of the various opinions. We should also note that the law was used to refuse entry to a number of people prior to the incident involving Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. The existence and use of the law seems to be quite pertinent to the topic of this article. Burrobert (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would not pay that much attention to things said by IsGov but I don't really see what they would gain by deception in this case. The level of detail also suggests its true but if there are other sources denying that or saying something else, then of course we should include them as well.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

What they would gain is clear. It is bad press for any government to admit they acted under pressure from another government. But I have no objection to an attributed mention. Zero^talk 12:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How about using this as a source, it seems to cover all the bases.Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier -- Sure, that summary seems reasonable (though I'm not sure why there's a link to the Charles Koch foundation at the bottom of every page on that site). AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the status quo article text is fine. For an article about BDS, Israel's decision to bar sitting US Reps from entry, while citing an anti-BDS law, is relevant. The nuances of the decision do not help readers understand anything about BDS, though they are certainly informative about Trump, Netanyahu, and American-Israeli bilateral politics. Firefangledfeathers 18:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

However, BDS support on its own would not have been sufficient to get Tlaib and Omar banned in 2019 without Trump's intervention, so if the Wikipedia article implies that it would have been sufficient, then it's misleading. Of course, there are plenty of other people (not members of the United States Congress) whose BDS support was in fact sufficient on its own for them to be denied entry to Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

External links -> Official Website notably missing

On ADL wiki page: "External links Official website"

On this page: Nothing.

Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.99.105 (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The official site is linked, both in the infobox at the top of the page and the External links at the bottom. What exactly is your complaint? RolandR (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Jewish Virtual Library" removals

Iskandar323 When The Jewish Virtual cites sources, those should be checked and possibly cited directly instead. (have those been checked?) -Daveout(talk) 03:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The two statements both involved OR by JVL, a partisan source on a partisan subject, and the conclusions cannot be reproduced without replicating that OR. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"Israel has a terrible brand..."

This should be re-phrased. Drsruli (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

To what? Selfstudier (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Something understated and less personal. Passive phrasing is appropriate here. Maybe something like "Israel's brand equity has suffered due to..." Drsruli (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The source says "Israel's brand is by a considerable margin the most negative we have ever measured" and "If Israel's intention is to promote itself as a desirable place to live and invest in, the challenge appears to be a steep one." and "52% of respondents believed that Israel had a negative influence on the world while a Gallup poll among EU citizens in 2003 found that Israel was perceived as number one threat to world security." which has been summarized as "terrible". We could provide the direct quotes instead of a summary. Alternatively, do you have a source saying "Israel's brand equity has suffered due to..."? or else a source we could add saying it has improved since the dates given in that 2020 source. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Could also phrase it as "[Source] says that "Israel's brand is by a considerable margin the most negative" that they have ever measured." (As you say, using direct quotes.)

As far as what I suggested, I was paraphrasing what was already there. A brand is measured by its "equity".

(Presumably, if the brand is bad, then it has poor brand equity, that being the measurement of value of a brand.) "Brand equity is the measurable totality of a brand's worth and is validated by observing the effectiveness of these branding components." (Otherwise, would need to explain why it's "terrible" but yet has good equity.)

Drsruli (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Attribution and direct quotes as discussed. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

Extended content
OT
Wikipedia is stating that the BDS is modeled after South African targeting apartheid. That is POV and taking the BDS talking points as factss. Since Israel is a non apartheid state and Palestinians are not part of Israel is does not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.220.42 (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC) the BDS is modeled after South African targeting apartheid That's what the source says. If you have a source saying it is modeled after something else please bring it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC) That is what BDS claims. but the fact is that BDS targets Jews.204.9.220.42 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC) https://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/ny/bds-the-new-kristallnacht/2016/10/13/204.9.220.42 (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC) An oped by a politician is not a useful source. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC) And an oped by a right-wing politician in a Kahanist journal is never an acceptable source. RolandR (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC) As the source wikipedia is political, the Jewish press should be given equal weight. Suggest we put both definitions on the page so description is not the BDS POV. Say BDS describes itself as based on South African apartheid and detractors say based on Kristalchallant.204.9.220.42 (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Comparison with the Night of Broken Glass is extremely offensive to Jews and non-Jews alike. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this article antisemitic?

It says here that Israel invests a lot of money to shape the public perception of bds as antisemitic.

The german bds article states that bds is antisemitic. I asked them on their discussions page why they didn't include the facts that Israel runs a campaign against bds. They told me these accusations are antisemitic and I need to be more "careful".

So, is this english article antisemitic? 91.113.101.154 (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This article has material stating that some find BDS anti-Semitic whereas others do not. If German WP finds it convenient to reflect only one half of that material that's up to them. Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@91.113.101.154 Strange, because on October 10, this information is included at the end of the section Geldgeber (donors). Munfarid1 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

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

• shorter
• not placed weirdly in the middle of a discussion about Brown University
• supported by secondary sources that lend the analysis of Bahar and Sachs some additional weight

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)