Jump to content

Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Add reliable sources that support the current definition of "weaponization of anti-semitism" or remove it


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Find a reference for the leading definition sentence or outright delete it: The weaponization of antisemitism, also described as the instrumentalization of antisemitism, is the use of the charge of antisemitism or the deployment of antisemitism and antisemitic sentiments.

  • Why it should be changed:

- The definition of the main article topic must be based in a reliable source that directly defines it (WP:VER).

- Though the current sentence is already difficult to parse, my understanding is that the proposed definition says that the use of any charge of anti-semitism for any purposes and in any circumstances is a form of the "weaponization of anti-semitism". This is a very strong and sweeping definition, and must be backed up with reliable sources. In fact, it is so sweeping that it arguable falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY, so multiple reliable sources should probably be used.

spintheer (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

References

You're right that the opening sentence is wrong and confusing, containing within it a vestige of earlier attempts to include in the article's scope a verbiage applied to Russian/Belarusian propagation of antisemitism. And indeed this definition includes any "use" of the charge of antisemitism.
Why don't you go ahead and edit it? This is an unprotected article, so you should be able to. Let me know if you have difficulty with that. Zanahary (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR applies here and this is not an edit request. Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m on mobile right now—is this article extended-protected? The template seems to say it isn’t. Zanahary (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Currently, the page is not ECP, which the edit request wizard detected and hence added the tag above instead of the edit-request tag. Happy to make the edits myself or for someone to ECP the page and we go through with the edit request. spintheer (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Since the page is not protected, and your first request (sourcing a definition that no source would use) can’t be done, I encourage you to change the definition yourself. Someone has to, and we can work from what you do. No pressure. Zanahary (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I only made this edit request because I thought this is an ECP article. If it's not, then I would skip trying to improve it altogether. Instead, I claim that this article very clearly falls under reason#6 in WP:DEL-REASON: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms. More specifically from WP:NEO - Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
Even using the quotes search test that @Selfstudier mentioned in another discussion, I couldn't find a RS that directly discusses (let alone defines) this phrase. There are other (I believe) compelling justifications to delete this article, but I think this one is the most clear-cut. spintheer (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
In order for this to be considered, you must start and Articles for Deletion nomination for this article. Do you know how? Zanahary (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Not permitted by WP:ARBECR. Archiving this discussion to prevent further ARBECR breaches. Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it easily passes WP:GNG including wide WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. --Onceinawhile (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Eladkarmel comments

@Eladkarmel:, you wrote in your edit comment: WP:FRINGE, based on non reliable partisan sources, POV content, POV title, pov caricature. Are you suggesting that some other reliable sources believe there is no such thing as weaponization of antisemitism? I can't even find any unreliable sources which claim there is no such thing as weaponization of antisemitism... Onceinawhile (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The 2010 David Hirsh article I just added to the bibliography provides an important perspective - that some people who claim that anti-semitism is being weaponized are themselves anti-semitic and the "weaponization" claim is itself a bad faith argument. This point of view needs to be incorporated in to the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I just had a brief read, these sources for this sentence are questionable:
The Palestine Chronicle and Mondoweiss.
"It has been claimed that Anti-Palestinianism is a foundation of such actions,[15] and has been compared to similar actions taken during apartheid South Africa.[16]"
As far as I was aware these are heavily biassed. Chavmen (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. They should only be used as opinions, hence the "It has been claimed" caveat. Further in-line attribution can be added if helpful. FYI:
  • Mondoweiss is a notable organization and the writer of the cited article, Faris Giacaman, is their Managing Editor
  • The writer of the piece in Palestine Chronicle, Ronnie Kasrils, was a senior member of the South African government for many years, so his opinion is notable on the topic
Onceinawhile (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
According to the WP:RSP Mondoweiss is WP:OPINION, so a further in-line attribution would be good.
So just to clarify, if someone notable writes for an opinion based magazine or online publication, its useable on Wikipedia? Chavmen (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, will add more specific attribution. Re your question, yes a source like that is reliable for representing the opinion of the person writing the op-ed. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ostrovsky's description

In 1995, former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky described an example of how such actions worked in practice:

My second book was not reviewed in any newspaper in North America. Now that’s a record. None! No, I’m sorry. I think the guy in the Phoenix Gazette. The people from B’nai B’rith walked in and asked for him to resign. Yes, because he is an anti-Semite. I know what they do because I used to ask them to do it. When I was in the Mossad and we had a guy that gave us problems in the US, and he was speaking out, and he was talking like people talk, and said, “Israel is bombing Lebanon with cluster bombs.” We say, “Who’s that guy?” Pete Macockey [Pete McCloskey] we use to call him, yeah, which is Pete the Cockroach. He makes a lot of noise and you can’t get rid of him. So what you do is get in touch with a guy in the station in New York or in the station in Washington and tell the guys at B’nai B’rith to label him. And of course the campaign starts and before you know it the guy is labeled, and he is an anti-Semite, because that is what we say he is. That is one stain that you cannot wash. It shames me as a Jew to tell you that. But that is the fact, and it is wrong.[1]

References

  1. ^ Ostrovsky, Victor (1995-09-01). Mossad Influence on U.S. Policy (Television production). C-SPAN. 26:57 - 28:25 minutes in. Retrieved 2024-01-08.

Hi @Zanahary: your edit comment regarding the above said Undue, and original research (source doesn’t identify this in relation to the concept of weaponization of antisemitism) This is clearly related to the topic of the article, and may be the best available source to providing an explanation of some of the mechanisms used from someone involved in this. There is no question that the quote relates to the topic of this article.

Could you explain your concern in more detail?

In the meantime, note that your edit counted as a second revert in the last 24 hours, which means it breached the 1RR restriction on articles in this topic area. I suggest you self revert - you are welcome to remove it again once the 24 hour period is up, assuming we haven't reached some form of agreement by then. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry—how did I breach the 1RR? Zanahary (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Got it. Reverting. Zanahary (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
My concern is that this is a primary source, which does not connect this specific account to the broader concept of a phenomenon of weaponized accusations of antisemitism. If it hasn’t been invoked in a secondary source relating to the article topic, then it’s not Wikipedia’s place to independently assess the account’s relevance and due weight (with no secondary reporting to go off of).
This is like including in the Race card article an example directly from some minority’s memoir where they relate an anecdote that seems to fit the concept. It’s original research, and doesn’t belong in the article.
the framing, too, of “described an example of how such actions worked in practice” is both original (no secondary source is cited for this analysis of the primary account) and non-neutral. Zanahary (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Another analogy: this would be like originally analyzing an anti-Zionist Jew’s writing as an “example of this phenomenon” and presenting it, unattributed (since it is original and only cited the primary source), on the self-hating Jew article. It reifies a contentious concept, presents an analysis without attribution or a secondary source to suggest due weight, and, of course, presents a fresh analysis (original research) in Wikivoice. Zanahary (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on whether this example should be included, but I am sure your reasons for excluding it are not valid. First, there is nothing in the rules about primary sources that helps your case. Second, it is completely obvious that Ostrovsky is describing the phenomenon that this page is about. There is no requirement that sources have to use the same words as in the article title; they just have to be about the same topic, which this is. Zerotalk 04:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOR. To me, it's obvious that a Wikipedia article cannot substantiate a concept with original analyses of primary accounts. Especially with the verbiage "...described an example of how such actions worked in practice". Again, this is like presenting first-hand accounts of what an editor deems to be expressions of self-hating Jewishness for the SHJ page. Sources, especially those from which gigantic block quotes are drawn, need to be strong, very much secondary, and have an indication of due weight from secondary reporting and citation. Zanahary (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Ostrovsky presents it as an example of weaponization of antisemitism. That's the whole point of his anecdote. And your emphasis on "primary" has no backing in policy. If a reliable source describes an event, we can report that the source describes the event. We do that every time we cite a news report (for example). We don't need a second source describing the first source describing the event. Zerotalk 07:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
A news report is a secondary source. Zanahary (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
When a journalist observes something and describes it in an article, that's a primary source. It's hard to think of anything more primary than information passed direct from the observer to us. In any case, there is no rule that forbids use of primary sources. Zerotalk 09:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The definition of a primary source, on which we seem to disagree, is beside the point. The WP:ONUS is on the editor who seeks to include this passage. I think it’s undue for inclusion, because no secondary source identifies it or reports on it. Zanahary (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
If Onceinawhile chooses to put it back, he can. One editor can't determine consensus against multiple others. Zerotalk 02:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
A claimed anecdote, never independently verified or confirmed (as much of the drivel Ostrovsky says), from a disaffected guy who spent less than 2 years as a trainee in the Mossad almost 40 years ago until he was was fired (per Benny Morris, a historian the editors here know is a RS) is embarrassingly weak and WP:UNDUE. Ostrovsky has a long history of making things up and is absolutely not a RS here (or pretty much on anything). Longhornsg (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Some RS on Ostrovsky's penchant for sensationalism: [1], [2], [3] Longhornsg (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@Zanahary: re your edits to the lede:

  • Repeating criticism of the concept in various places in the lede is undue. There is really only one point in there and it should be made once in the lede.
  • Hirsh’s term ”Livingstone Formulation” relates to this topic in a niche British context, in a specific time period. It does not pass the significant test in WP:BOLDSYN.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Onceinawhile!
  • I see the structure of the lede as first introducing the concept in a few sentences, and then starting to expand. The introduction includes that the concept is criticized, and then the end of the lede expands on those criticisms.
  • The name is applied to contexts outside of British politics, including in specific non-British cases, and in general referrals to the rhetorical device in discourses about Israel and antisemitism, writ large.
Overall I think the prominent academic criticisms of this rhetorical formulation, particularly given that it’s one relevant specifically to the context of debate, are duly weighed in the lede. Zanahary (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Citing Hirsh in 5 different paragraphs in the article is excessive and can't stand. You also cite Klaff in 3 places and Schraub in 3 places. Basically you peppered the article with repetitions of much the same criticism. An appropriate amount would be 1-2 consecutive sentences in the lead and one paragraph later. Zerotalk 10:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I’ll diversify the citations today. Zanahary (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
No, the criticisms are all essentially the same so you have to place them together no matter how many citations you can find. Zerotalk 06:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. The “testimonial injustice” analysis and Glavin’s criticism are both distinct criticisms that weren’t first made by Hirsh. Zanahary (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Are the RS divided about how to characterize this subject, or are WP:BESTSOURCES describing it in a similar way? Llll5032 (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I WP:BOLDLY moved some sentences cited to individual advocates out of the top. WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:INDY say that instead following the emphases given by the best available independent sources helps to preserve neutrality and prevent content disputes. More WP:GREL sources are needed in this article. Llll5032 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Russia-Belarus charge is not in scope

The two concepts covered here haven't been linked by any source, and are quite different. A bad-faith rhetorical strategy of identifying antisemitism is not meaningfully similar to the actual propagation of antisemitism. They may both have been referred to as weaponization or instrumentalization, but they are clearly different.

I've removed the Russia-Belarus content in the meantime, per WP:BRD Zanahary (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The entire section is well-sourced in the article. The term "weaponization of antisemitism" does not just mean charges of antisemitism. RS frequently use the term regarding Russia in the academic context, so we include it here. Kindly request that you self-revert and restore the RS. Longhornsg (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
They're not the same concept, or even similar concepts. The two concepts have never been linked in any source. While sources may have referred to Russia as "weaponizing antisemitism" by deploying antisemitic propaganda against Jews, that has nothing to do with a phenomenon of bad-faith accusations of antisemitism. The Russia info belongs on a different article. Zanahary (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Correct, "weaponization of antisemitism", the title of this article, refers to two distinct concepts. Both should be included in this article if the name remains, otherwise we are failing to include all meanings of this term. A term can have two meanings in different contexts. Did you read the RS you deleted, where "weaponization of antisemitism" and "instrumentalization of antisemitism are explicitly used? If not, we are violating WP:NPOV by not including a mainstream use of "weaponization of antisemitism" in an academic context. Longhornsg (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Then perhaps the issue is with the title of the article. But as it stands, titling this as "weaponization of antisemitism" and arbitrarily excluding other contexts of this term is erroneous. Longhornsg (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not a terminological article; it's a phenomenological article. The phenomena are unrelated subjects. Zanahary (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
If reliable sources have used the phrase "weaponization of antisemitism" to mean both things, then I agree with Longhornsg that both meanings would need to be included in some way. Llll5032 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Does the applied Russian-Belarusian concept of simply propagating antisemitism meet the notability guidelines? I see no reason why that should be here and not on articles about antisemitism, both broadly and locally. Zanahary (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Not really. This isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are organized by concepts, not by terms. I'm sure there are sources which describe Nazi German strategies as "weaponizing antisemitism". That doesn't mean it should be in this article; that should be treated as an example of antisemitic populism.
The Kyiv Post source is an opinion piece that refers to antisemitic incitement. The U.S. DoS source is actually relevant. The Gershovich source is, like the KP source, about actual propagation of antisemitism. The JTA source does make reference to false-flagging and bad faith charges.
The two good sources can be included. But including actual propagated antisemitism in this article just because of similar, but semantically/contextually different, verbiage, does not make sense to me. Zanahary (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
We're talking in circles. I agree the concepts are different. However, there is an entire academic context, with a healthy amount of material going back decades and predating and dwarfing the literature in the I/P context, around "weaponization of antisemitism" in the propagation aspect, which could be argued is the rightful owner of the "weaponization of antisemitism" phraseology for Wikipedia purposes. All the sources I provided are in this context.
So our options are either -- A) sharpen the title of this page to focus just on the charges of antisemitism, such as Weaponization of antisemitism (charge) and creating a separate page on Weaponization of antisemitism (propaganda) B) recognize that "weaponization of antisemitism" has two conceptual definitions in the literature depending on the discipline and represent both here. Longhornsg (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
A 10 minute Google Scholar search turned up a litany of sources, in addition to the ones deleted from this article, that discuss the "weaponization of antisemitism" in the propaganda context, uses that predate the use in the I/P context by decades. Again, kindly request you self-revert, as the propagation context is accurate, until we figure out a way forward. My preference is option A.
Longhornsg (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, kindly request you self-revert

This is your first request that I SR. I did, but if no consensus for the inclusion of antisemitism unrelated to rhetorical weaponization of charges is formed, then it should be removed. The prose in the lede also definitely needs to be neutralized. Zanahary (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I did here, appreciate you doing so. Longhornsg (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Info about political instrumentalization of actual antisemitism is completely within scope for articles relating to antisemitism. I don't think it belongs on this article. It's just a less common/more specific and precise verbiage used to refer to antisemitism. It is not a separate, notable concept from the scope of existing articles on antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Great, so this article needs to be renamed. If I don't dwell in Israel-Palestine land, and I search for an article weaponization of antisemitism, I would fully expect to read about attempts by states such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Union to do so. If I search weaponization + antisemitism + Russia/Soviet/Tsarist I get far more results than if I conduct a similar search in the I/P context.
Again, the charge of antisemitism does not have a monopoly or ownership of what is known as "weaponization of antisemitism". Longhornsg (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to propose a move Zanahary (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the Russia paragraphs as unrelated, per Zanahary. These paragraphs refer to "Exploitation of antisemitism" whereas this article refers to "Weaponization of claims of antisemitism". Longhornsg, perhaps you could create first a new article Exploitation of antisemitism? Once a version of that article is written it will be easier to discuss whether the title of this article requires disambiguation.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The RS above use the term "weaponization" and "instrumentalization" of antisemitism, not "exploitation". Why would the specific usage on this page own the monopoly on this phrase? Perhaps we should rename this page as "Weaponization of claims of antisemitism" and disambiguate "Weaponization of antisemitism". Again, there are two distinct uses of "Weaponization of antisemitism." Indeed, the use on this page has less of a scholarly basis than the weaponization of antisemitism by the regimes above. The first sentence in this article, defining "weaponization of antisemitism" does not only apply in this context. This is what RS say.
Thus, this article should be renamed to reflect the specific scope of "Weaponization of claims of antisemitism".

Longhornsg (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources don’t call it that. They call it “weaponization of antisemitism”. Zanahary (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Plus the Russia usage referenced by Longhornsg is a fringe usage. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term “weaponization of antisemitism” is overwhelmingly refers to the weaponization of claims of antisemitism. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Some neutral methods are listed at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY to assess the prevalence of RS using each meaning. Do they lead to a clear conclusion? Llll5032 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree with the assertion that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on the RS. It's complete nonsense to say that the Russia usage is fringe. Based on what? If an editor believes it fringe, take it to WP:FTN. Longhornsg (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography, RS and synthesis question

The Bibliography includes some sources that are not usually considered independent RS, including a Medium post and some advocacy sources. At least one of the other sources cited does not describe the issue as weaponizing or instrumentalizing, which could amount to a synthesis problem if the title of this article is not changed. Should some of those sources be removed or better sources found? Llll5032 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition, including POV opinion pieces, especially from conspiracy-peddling outlets like WRMEA is wholly WP:UNDUE for an encyclopedia article attempting to inform and strive for NPOV. Longhornsg (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Most editors in the RSN discussion in 2012 appear to agree that WRMEA should not be cited for facts, so I removed it from the Bibliography. Llll5032 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I have added the WRMEA sources back to the bibliography. That RSN discussion agreed that such a source can be used for the opinions of the author. I propose keeping these two in the bibliography (they are not currently used in the article) as representing the opinions of Allan C. Brownfeld. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile, how do you interpret WP:ABOUTSELF #2 and #3? Llll5032 (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
If we use these Brownfeld articles we will be using them to explicitly describe Brownfeld's view. That is what #2 and #3 are intended to allow. It is standard procedure, and the rules are written to allow it because Brownfeld is a reasonably notable person. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
It is not "standard procedure" in articles about general topics; rather, it would be a very large loophole to WP:ABOUTSELF #2 and #3, WP:RSN, and the reliable sources requirement. Many sources are unreliable but notable; would you really favor citing those routinely about general topics in an encyclopedia, without mediation by secondary reliable sources? Llll5032 (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Brownfield is a reliable source for Brownfield's views. End of story. The question we should be discussing is whether his views are notable, versus the notability of other people’s views stated in this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
No, there is little reason to use non-RS (as rated by WP:RSN) on either side of the argument, unless a RS mentions them. The WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for inclusion. Llll5032 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. This discussion has been running for almost a month, and there isn't even an actual proposal for where to move the article yet, or any other article highlighted that it might be ambiguous with. There is some support for a move, but also other comments saying that the status quo is fine. As such, there isn't any consensus to move and we stay where we are. Informal discussion can continue if editors wish, and if there's a more concrete and clearer proposal then it can be brought back in a fresh RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Weaponization of antisemitism → ? – There are (at least) two distinct meanings of the phrase "Weaponization of antisemitism"/"instrumentalization of antisemitism" as used in sources. One is the subject of this article, the potentially bad faith use of charges of antisemitism. Notably, none of the scholarly sources in this article use the word "weaponization" except in the context of advocacy. It is mostly WP:BIASED sources here that prefer the charged term "weaponization" in the meaing we write about here, so this title as it stands is arguably a POVNAME. The second meaning is the use of antisemitism by regimes such as the Soviet Union to undermine political opponents. Indeed, it is in this latter context that the phrase "weaponization of antisemitism" has a longer and more mainstream basis in scholarly literature ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], among others). Thus when saying "weaponization of antisemitism", the current article fails WP:COMMONNAME. For NPOV, we must present a reader, scholar, or observer looking for "weaponization of antisemitism" with both options and not default to this much weaker case. Thus it is important, and more accurate, that this title is more focused to reflect the specific context the article refers to, with a second page on the other context. Simply put, it defies RS and is flat incorrect to say "weaponization of antisemitism" only refers to the use of the charge of antisemitism. Open to other ideas such as Bad faith charges of antisemitism, but the current title cannot stand for NPOV and accuracy reasons. Longhornsg (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, this discussion would be better done after you have created an article covering the other topic you are referring to. It is too challenging for the community to find consensus on disambiguation without having real clarity on what we are supposed to be disambiguating against. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Does any policy say that before an article's name is changed, a different article must be written? Llll5032 (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Current title most definitely cannot stand for NPOV reasons - it's flatly presumptive of intent of use and invocation.
In addition to "Instrumentalization of Antisemitism" (overly technical but appropriate, I guess), the article - if I recall correctly - also listed previously listed "Politicization of Antisemitism", which is also an appropriate and more neutral title. Could also be "Political use of anti-semitism"
Understand the approach re: "Bad Faith Charges of Antisemitism" but perhaps may be too limiting re: the topic, as well as still making bad faith presumptions when this may be needed to cover general instrumentalization and use of the topic/theme for rhetorical and argumentative purpose. Mistamystery (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Am I correct to understand that you want to change the scope of the article? (or write an additional article with a much wider scope?) Onceinawhile (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I don’t see how this article is different from criticism of new antisemitism Drsmoo (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree. This matter gets complicated and nested, since this article, for instance, contains a charge of bad faith regarding a charge of bad faith regarding a charge of bigotry. Could this article be merged with new antisemitism or a similar article? Zanahary (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I’m confident that this is the right move. This article’s contents belong on the new antisemitism and anti-Zionism articles. Zanahary (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
That may be a better approach, unless more WP:BESTSOURCES start to use the title in their own words. Llll5032 (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
That would be a very different article. This article is about how anti-semitism charges may be weaponized for political purposes. Utilisation of the concept of "new antisemitism" is just a component of that. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Considering that every source here talks specifically about allegations that certain criticisms of Israel are veiled antisemitism, it is only relevant to new antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
That is not correct – you have it the wrong way round. The sources all talk about how antisemitism claims can be used to stifle criticism of Israel. That is not the same as saying that all such claims are made using the antisemitism = anti-Israel linkage made by New antisemitism. As such, very few of the sources in this article talk about "New antisemitism", so would be inappropriate in that article.
Either way, the New antisemitism article is 134kb, which is already WP:TOOLONG. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
What is your analytical basis for the assessment of the relative prevalence of the different usages of the term? When you search for the term on Google Scholar, the top results based on prevalence appear to be exactly the subject of this page. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The title is well sourced and in books as well, put it in quotes and do a search. What is it? Take something and allege that it is antisemitic in order to try and shut down discourse on some matter, such the subject of this article, for instance. Those engaging in this kind of thing are frequently associated with Israel and trying to temper criticism of it. A well known example is the (mis)use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in order to stifle legitimate discourse around Israel. No need to change the title or merge the article anywhere. Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-protected restriction

I see that this page has been marked as falling under the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and thus subject to the ARBPIA restrictions. I know this topic is "broadly construed", which I understand leaves some lines blurred, but I don’t think that this article should be designated as an Arab-Israeli conflict-related article in its entirety. The topic of the article is a phenomenon of bad-faith levying of the charge of antisemitism. This is not specific to the Arab-Israeli conflict. While it is often (but not fundamentally) related to criticisms of Israel, it is still not limited to criticisms pertaining to the conflict, even within the “criticism of Israel” scope.

As I understand it, the ARBECR restriction still allows for (stipulates that?) content related to a contentious topic to be protected (manually, via revert) within articles that are not completely related to a designated contentious topic. I think this is the right solution for this article, since the topic is not an Arab-Israeli conflict topic.

Those are my thoughts, looking forward to hearing others’! Zanahary (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You already enquired about this at my talk page. If it's a CT, then ARBECR applies, protected or not, that part is simple. Protection is not autoadded, it usually follows some sort of disruption.
As for whether this is AI related, I would say yes, under the heading of "broadly construed", and looking at the active editors here, pretty sure I am right in that assessment. Selfstudier (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
For context, I enquired at SS’s talk page to ask how and when this article had been protected (I’m pretty unfamiliar with the protocol). The purpose of this Talk discussion is to gather comment from other editors on the matter of whether this article’s subject is AIC-related. Zanahary (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
That's not what you asked at my talk page at all. The relevant section created by yourself is entitled "Weaponization of antisemitism ECR" and you asked "why did you archive a non-EC editor’s comments, citing ARBECR? As far as I can tell, that article is not extended-protected" and I explained there as I have just done here as well, that protection is a separate matter. Afaik, this article is not protected. Selfstudier (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I asked several questions at your talk page. One was whether this page was partially protected. Is this relevant though? I’m opening a discussion to get editor input on whether this should be considered an AIC-related article. Zanahary (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
If an editor thinks a page should be protected, they can ask for that, its not automatic and usually follows some sort of disruption such as persistent editing by non EC editors for example. It is separate from CT/Arbpia question although not infrequently, protection will ensue on an Arbpia/CT page. As for whether this page should be subject to Arbpia, I answered that above. Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand. I have your take on whether it should be subject to ARBPIA, now I await the opinions of others. Zanahary (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Since the Arab-Israeli conflict is mentioned on this page repeatedly, and has high relevance to this page, the applicability of ARBPIA is obvious in my opinion. Zerotalk 04:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Restorations of irrelevant content

Hi @Onceinawhile, why did you restore the content I removed as out-of-scope? Those removals were done because the sources are not in the scope of the article (the weaponization of charges of antisemitism; or the bad-faith rhetorical employment of charges of antisemitism). Zanahary (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Because you have not reached consensus on your proposed narrowing of the scope, which I strongly disagree with. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I didn't narrow the scope—that's the scope as described in the lede. Zanahary (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
You are proposing a literal rather than conceptual interpretation of the scope, which is not how Wikipedia articles work. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Without reliable secondary sources to guide us (that would look like a non-opinion source describing, generally, the weaponization of charges of antisemitism for political purposes), we cannot just invent our own scope of seemingly related ideas from seemingly tangential sources. Zanahary (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
There are many such reliable secondary scholarly sources here.
Please define exactly what you mean by “opinion source”, so we can clearly differentiate. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
For example:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1268680
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/29/steinberg-weaponizing-antisemitism/
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/israel-palestine-antisemitic/
https://www.thejc.com/news/former-israeli-negotiator-daniel-levy-tells-expo-event-antisemitism-weaponised-to-silence-palestinian-struggle-qhd9t619
https://www.972mag.com/one-state-israel-trump-netanyahu/ Zanahary (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
That is a list, not a definition. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
These are all published as opinion-editorials. So, that certainly falls under "opinion". Exception being the JC source, which reports someone else's opinion with attribution (meaning that its content needs to be attributed on Wikipedia as well). Zanahary (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
See my comment above at 01:41, 2 March 2024. Let’s finish this conversation there. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
What is the scope? Zanahary (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Zanahary, I just read all the “relevant” tags you added. Have you read the sources more widely, or just the quoted sections? If you do so, you will see that they are all discussing this subject explicitly. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

this subject

Please define it. You claim I am narrowing scope. Please define for me this article's scope. Zanahary (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Zero has done that well in his comments above. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Please quote him or link to the comments. Zanahary (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Please answer the question above. Otherwise your tags will have to be removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Yep, read them. I maintain their irrelevance. You could better argue this if you defined the article's scope. Zanahary (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
And note that your removing of my tags would violate the 1RR Zanahary (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
A number of your tag-note claims that certain sources don’t relate to the topic of this article are clearly incorrect. That is clear from reading the sources more widely. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, if you want to argue relevance to the article's topic, please define the topic and scope of the article. Zanahary (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
From the start the scope has been: …the bad faith use of the charge of antisemitism against a person for political purposes, notably with respect to criticism of Israel.
Zero above questioned the use of the term bad faith, which I am content to remove. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, those tags I maintain are attached to irrelevant content. There's detailed reasoning in the metadata of each one. Zanahary (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Your metadata comments seem to have missed the fact that all of those sources explicitly relate to the topic of "the bad faith use of the charge of antisemitism against a person for political purposes, notably with respect to criticism of Israel.". Onceinawhile (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Add reliable sources that support the current definition of "weaponization of anti-semitism" or remove it


(resubmitting edit request and forcing the {Edit extended-protected} tag this time)

  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Find a reference for the leading definition sentence or outright delete it: The weaponization of antisemitism, also described as the instrumentalization of antisemitism, is the use of the charge of antisemitism or the deployment of antisemitism and antisemitic sentiments.

  • Why it should be changed:

- The definition of the main article topic must be based in a reliable source that directly defines it (WP:VER).

- Though the current sentence is already difficult to parse, my understanding is that the proposed definition says that the use of any charge of anti-semitism for any purposes and in any circumstances is a form of the "weaponization of anti-semitism". This is a very strong and sweeping definition, and must be backed up with reliable sources. In fact, it is so sweeping that it arguable falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY, so multiple reliable sources should probably be used.

spintheer (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done. You need to use a “change X to Y” format for your request. If you write text to replace the sentence you want out, then that request can be considered. Zanahary (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Shadow311 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This user’s earlier edit request was reverted citing ARBECR. Zanahary (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Please see [[10]] for details spintheer (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
The above is not an edit request, which is all that is allowed per WP:ARBECR, see the talk page/edit notices, this article has been classed as CT. A request can be made to add a cn tag to any sentence if desired. If an ECR editor wishes to undertake the same argument in their own name, then they can do that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Citations to WP:BESTSOURCES for the first sentence are a reasonable request per WP:NEO and WP:LEADCITE ("Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations"), so I added a tag. Llll5032 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Llll5032: I see you just returned to the lede sentence to the undiscussed and incoherent version added on 31 January. There is no consensus for this version, and it doesn’t even make sense. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that that version makes no sense, but I think yours is problematic, too. They seem like original analyses of a phenomenon that is apparently present in sources, but is not actually explained in them. Zanahary (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps tagging unsupported claims in the current text would be a good path to consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 08:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
A more efficient way forward would be for you to propose a redraft. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The current first sentence has been in the article for the last month, as you pointed out, so it may be closer to consensus than other options. Would you like to tag unsupported claims in it? Llll5032 (talk) 08:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
It clearly does not have consensus. Multiple editors have criticized it. No editor is explicitly supporting it. No editor can explain what it means. Including yourself. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
So far, nobody has supported your revert except for you. But if you help ensure that all claims are clearly supported by WP:BESTSOURCES, and identify any claims that are not, then you may achieve more of what you want. Llll5032 (talk) 14:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
is the use of the charge of antisemitism or the deployment of antisemitism and antisemitic sentiments This part is unclear, I am not at all sure what it is supposed to mean. Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Selfstudier, I am tagging a portion of the first sentence for citations needed. @Longhornsg: You added that language in January; can you cite RS that clearly support the language? Llll5032 (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Do the sources currently cited in the first sentence use the word "weaponization" mostly in the context of far-right and right-wing use and appropriation for their own purposes? Llll5032 (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Plitnick & Aziz relevance

The content sourced to Plitznick & Aviv (Presuming that Muslims or Arabs criticizing Israel are motivated by antisemitism was described as Islamophobic in 2023 by ReThinking Foreign Policy president Mitchell Plitnick and Rutgers University law professor Sahar F. Aziz. is about the assumptive interpretation that criticisms of Israel by Arabs or Muslims are motivated by antisemitism. It is not apparently relevant to the article's topic of bad-faith charges of antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

An article about bad-faith charges of antisemitism against Arabs and Muslims is not relevant to bad-faith charges of antisemitism? I'm afraid that the quality of your arguments is not improving. Zerotalk 08:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The source doesn't identify charges of antisemitism as being in bad faith, it identifies an ethnic/religious assumption of antisemitism (not specified as being earnestly believed or expressed in bad faith) as being islamophobic.

I'm afraid that the quality of your arguments is not improving.

WP:NPA. Zanahary (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I've replaced the irrelevant content with relevant content from the same source. Zanahary (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The whole source is an accusation of bad faith. Don't trust me, trust them: "As a result, legitimate efforts to combat antisemitism are disingenuously co-opted to undermine Palestinian aspirations for self-determination and human rights, as well as to defame Muslim and Arab human rights defenders as inherently antisemitic."(p3) "The harms caused by such bad faith, scorched earth-tactics by Zionist groups and individuals extends to the Jewish community."(Conclusions). You should go to antisemitism and see how far you get applying the same "earnestly believed" vs "bad faith" dichotomy that you want to apply here. I still hold my earlier opinion that "bad faith" should not be part of the definition of this page, because it makes for an artificial separation of things that belong together. Zerotalk 12:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
In the first sentence, would you suggest that the words "bad faith" be removed?
"is the making of bad faith charges of antisemitism for political purposes, particularly with respect to criticism of Israel" ->
is leveling charges of antisemitism for political purposes, particularly with respect to criticism of Israel? (say) Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but maybe there is nicer wording. What about "...refers to the levelling of charges of antisemitism for political purposes, especially to counter criticism of Israel"? The basic idea I have is that although practically every writer on the subject (other than those who don't think it exists at all) regards it as a bad-faith phenomenon, it is still their opinion and we ourselves don't have opinions (ha!). There is plenty of space in the article to bring expert opinion. If a reliable source thinks the phenomenon is real but the result of honest conviction, well, bring that too. Otherwise there is an artificial boundary that makes the article incomplete. Zerotalk 13:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
That seems logical, done. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Assuming that people's positions are based on prejudice is basically the definition of bad faith. This is extremely basic common sense. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Glubb relevance

I removed the Glubb source, which only describes the notion that critics of Israel are motivated by antisemitism and the subsequent “branding” of critics as antisemites; not relevant to bad faith. Zanahary (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This and the removal makes no sense. As mentioned in the edit summary, a source talking about "branding" someone with a "moral stigma" is obviously portraying it as a bad faith move. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
No it is not. It may imply the charges are erroneous or exaggerated, but it could apply to earnest belief that the target is antisemitic. Zanahary (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
It has been restored and I agree with that, the complaint is that criticism of the Israeli government rather than Jews or a generic Israel cannot be antisemitic so why should they be thus branded? Notice that the lead no longer speaks of "bad faith" but simply speaks about the leveling of charges for political purposes. Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The removal of bad-faith in the lede is unsupported by the cited sources, all of which pertain to bad-faith accusations. Zanahary (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
"political purposes" may include bad faith. One cannot say that not having something is unsupported by citations, only that said citations do not support what is there. Are you saying that? None of the given quotes use the words "bad faith". Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree the term bad faith is causing confusion. Weaponization of antisemitism undoubtedly includes "exaggeration" or "unproven claims" or any other thought process which could equally be covered by Hanlon's razor, so long as the motivation was primarily political. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
With what sources do you support this definition? Zanahary (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weaponization_of_antisemitism/Archive_1&oldid=1218120057"