Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Requested move 21 April 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.

---

Weaponization of antisemitism → Weaponization of antisemitism accusations – To avoid any possible misinterpretation of existing title, notwithstanding usage in sources. Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Support per #Renaming the article discussion above. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This should be a comment per WP:RMCOMMENT, not a bulleted support. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per #Renaming the article discussion above. "Weaponization of antisemitism" does not historically exclusively refer to the bad-faith use of antisemitism in political discourse, and a renaming of this sort would constitute a hijacking of the term.

This RM is premature imo. I defer to the poll above (and encourage all to contribute their thoughts) so a clearer path toward consensus may be achieved based upon the diversity of the discussion so far and - if necessary - a more proper RM may be conducted. Mistamystery (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your concerns would be a reason to keep the existing title, "Weaponization of antisemitism", over the proposed title, "Weaponization of antisemitism accusations". Graham (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

At risk of speaking for MM, it seems like they think the RM is premature and the new title would still require another move. Zanahary (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Is that to suggest that you think that the outcome of this RM would be prejudicial to a future proposal? If not, I don't see the relevance. Graham (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support as I explained above. MM's objection seems to be that the article should include material that is not actually about the subject for which this page was created. This page is not about everything that people using these words might be referring to. The purpose of the proposed change is to specify the page topic more precisely. Zero^talk 13:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an awkward formulation (...of accusations of antisemitism would be better) and I prefer "weaponization" not be in the title, considering it's neither the common name nor a neutral description. I'll think on it. But certainly the proposed title is superior to the current one. Zanahary (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose while I understand this is an attempt to clarify that this is about the weaponization of accusations; but it could simultaneously be understood as accusations of weaponization, thus casting doubt on very concrete evidence of how antisemitism has been weaponized for defending Israel. Furthermore, it is not just accusations that are being weaponized but also antisemitism itself as a definition (and also as a historical guilt for Germany), since it is a real phenomena that triggers extreme reactions. Plus the current title is perfectly fine and is supported by most RS and even less reliable sources dealing with the topic per WP:COMMONNAME: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

"Weaponization of accusations of antisemitism" would solve the first problem (which I honestly don't see as serious). I think you are mistaken about your second point. Expanding the definition of antisemitism in bad faith is not an example of antisemitism itself being weaponised. The purpose of expanding the definition is to enable the accusation to be made. What is weaponised here is the definition, not the antisemitism. Zero^talk 14:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand but 1- the accusation doesn't have to be made in order for antisemitism to have been weaponized and 2- weaponization of antisemitism extends beyond the accusations.

Elaborating 1- fear of being accused (pre-accusation) of being antisemitic is already a weaponization of antisemitism under expanded definitions because it has led to self-censorship or not taking action. 2- weaponizing the memory of antisemitism and the Holocaust is enshrined in Israel's national identity (no accusations being made here either), taking the controversies surrounding the Yad Vashem museum for example [8] and elaborations in the works of Finkelstein The Holocaust Industry and Beyond Chutzpah. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have sources outlining a definition of weaponization of antisemitism? It would help to clarify these conceptual disputes. Zanahary (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Already had this discussion previously, we don't need a definition for the obvious. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You're asserting that no accusation needs to be made in order for something to be "weaponization of antisemitism" and that it extends beyond accusations. What is the basis for these assertions? Zanahary (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I asserted no such thing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand. What did you mean by this?
I understand but 1- the accusation doesn't have to be made in order for antisemitism to have been weaponized and 2- weaponization of antisemitism extends beyond the accusations.
Zanahary (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's Makeandtoss. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops, my sincere apologies. @Makeandtoss Zanahary (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Common Name argument does not hold. A bunch of op-eds that say "weaponizing" is not a basis to call this "weaponization of antisemitism". Zanahary (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Weaponization" is a very unusual and quite loaded way to describe the "bad-faith use of antisemitism." Marokwitz (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Is that a reason to oppose the move? Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn’t it be? Zanahary (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Ask them. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There were several better options provided in the poll above. Marokwitz (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: For some reason I can't notify WikiProjects about this discussion. Can anyone? RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support: with a view to the previous discussion and the concern that the base term is not precise and unambiguous enough (and my prior suggestion of the proposed title). As a side note, some of the objections above in relation to the base term appear to have little to no bearing on the current discussion, which is whether or not to add a further clarifying word. Objections to the move simply because users don't like either term aren't actually relevant to this specific RM; they're more like a form of (in this case pointless and irrelevant) filibustering, since this is not a vote, and reasoning not directed at the move in question is simply not pertinent. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: “Weaponization of antisemitism accusations” seems more correct that “Weaponization of antisemitism”. I can see the arguments for having an article on Weaponization as long as all the sources actually use the word “Weaponization”, “weaponized”, or similar. Otherwise using sources that don’t say “Weaponization” is technically WP:SYNTH.

One example is the Beyond Chutzpah book. There is no “Weaponization” used in the book [9] or “weaponized”.[10] Instead the author calls it “misuse of antisemitism”. “Misuse” is a broader term that “weaponization” falls under so I would support renaming to “Misuse” with a section on “Weaponization”, or removing all sources from the article that don’t actually use the word “weaponization”. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Except if it is clear from the context that it is weaponization, that is, misuse of antisemitism accusations for political purposes. Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That would be a non-neutral description compared to "Rhetorical misuse", "Bad faith", etc. And it's not the common name. Zanahary (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

See even “ misuse of antisemitism accusations for political purposes” is more clear than “Weaponization”, at least for me as reader. With “weaponization” I keep visualizing people brandishing clubs, paper swords, rifles, etc, labeled “antisemitism” hitting others on the head, etc., and that is not what the topic is about. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "weaponization" is just too rhetorical for an article title. I see we don't have any other articles with that formulation, even though there's lots of sources using the very POV-y and rhetorical formulations of "weaponization of whiteness", "weaponization of language", "weaponization of information", etc. Zanahary (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It says in the first sentence "When antisemitism accusations are exploited for political purposes,..", OK, exploited instead of misuse. And we're waitin on an RM to see if the title gets changed to include accusations. This idea that title is all is wrong, there is a scope and it says what it is right off the bat.

We can argue about the word itself but fact is it is used a lot these days and to cover all kinds of things but typically when a thing (food, whatever) is used in a non standard way to achieve some end, usually political.

For instance there is a current spat between Bernie Sanders and Netanyahu where the latter is making liberal use of the antisemitism accusation in relation to US universities and Sanders says that is using antisemitism to distract attention from Israeli government policies. At least to to me that is a good example of weaponizing antisemitism accusations for political purposes and I think many would agree. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The entire phrase "weaponization of antisemitism accusations" is incidentally used by Raz Segal in his very precient A Textbook Case of Genocide piece in Jewish Currents. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "Misuse" could help address the valid objections based on synthesis about including sources that do not specify "weaponization" or any other variations of the word "weapon". Llll5032 (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. What if I write instead:- I agree that "Weaponization" could help address the valid objections based on synthesis about including sources that do not specify "Misuse" or any other variations of the word "use".

They mean the same thing as long as the context is clear. Not liking the word doesn't mean that is wrong, especially since reliable sources use it in just the way it says in the scope. Selfstudier (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The few RS that use "weaponization" (sometimes in scare quotes) can be understood without OR to be referring to a misuse or the possibility of such, because misuse is a more general word. But misuses cannot be assumed to be a weaponization when a source does not say it. Llll5032 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

They can if the context is clear that the weaponization is misuse (or vice versa), simply debating the meaning of words is not what this is all about, may as well just give up on that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

What this is all about, as defined by the paragraphs that Selfstudier participated in compiling [11][12][13][14], is rarely called weaponization by RS. Selfstudier, if a RS of high quality carefully outlines the scope of the topic (per the use-mention distinction) while using your preferred language of weaponization for the title, then please make use of such a RS in the article. Llll5032 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

You are trying to make the scope match the title which is not a requirement. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Why should a scope and title not match? Llll5032 (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say they should, I said they need not. Example title - Gaza Strip famine, scope - "As a result of Israeli airstrikes and the ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel, which includes restrictions on humanitarian aid, the population of the Gaza strip is facing starvation and famine."

People are arguing that the title is wrong because there isn't a famine officially but so what, if sources are speaking about a famine, regardless of whether it is "official", then that is a legitimate title. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The term has been all over the news for the past six months. If you want RS explaining the term, take your pick. Even the Jerusalem Post has run a piece on it. I fail to see how it's rare. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's take Raz Segal in this article where he says "the weaponization of antisemitism accusations to justify Israeli violence against Palestinians".

Now, do you think that's something that should be in this article? And if not, why not? Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Or in the linked article "There is a growing tendency among both Jews and non-Jews to label those with whom they have profound political differences, especially on the subject of Israel-Palestine, as antisemitic" and goes on to explain how that works in practice. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This reads like nonsense. Sources only use "weaponization" when referring to misuse; if you're saying you've encountered "benevolent weaponization" as a concept in a source or scholarship, please do enlighten us. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The meaning need not be opposite of a source to be synthesis. The examples in the NOR policy make clear that a variety of other differences can be synthesis and not allowed. Llll5032 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Aren't you the one suggesting an OR opposite that doesn't exist? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis requires the drawing of a conclusion from separated sources not present in any one of them. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This may be the best sentence from SYNTH to address the question: "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article." If the title of the article is changed to "misuse", then consensus could improve for the use of the included sources that do not make arguments with words related to the more specific "weaponization". Llll5032 (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

How so? What if "weaponization" sources don't specifically say misuse? Taking the same rigid, non-common sense approach one would just end up with exactly the same problem in reverse. Thematically, what sort of example of a misuse would not be a weaponization? Iskandar323 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Answered above. Llll5032 (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Which passage of that essay do you believe is applicable? Llll5032 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If one wishes to argue synth, research it properly. Generally, what someone thinks is a valid synth argument, isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

So, which passage of that essay do you believe is applicable? Llll5032 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Iskandar323. The proposed title is more precise: it better and more accurately conveys to the reader what the article is actually about. As is, people (myself included) might plausibly click on this article and think they are going to be reading a historical overview of how antisemitism has been weaponized by antisemites against Jewish people (an article more like History of antisemitism, for example). That, of course, is not what this article is about. It's about false, weaponized, or misused accusations of antisemitism. The debate over "misuse" vs "weaponize" as the operative verb can carry on even after this aspect of the title has been clarified. Flip^andFlopped ツ 03:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment – I’m concerned that this could be understood as accusations of weaponization, as pointed out by Makeandtoss. I’d prefer something like: Weaponization of the term antisemitism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Titles about accusations themselves tend to start with "Accusations of", so re: our usual style, it shouldn't be a huge source of confusion. However, there's a chance that confusion could be passed onto the reader. One alternative is "Weaponization of accusations of antisemitism", but it's a bit cumbersome. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I thought of that first. And then "claims of" to reduce by three syllables. But two of's is awkward. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Awkward, but not as much as “…of antisemitism accusations”. Zanahary (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The name of this article must change, but the suggested title is not an improvement. I completely agree with User:Zanahary above, "A bunch of op-eds that say "weaponizing" is not a basis to call this "weaponization of antisemitism".", I will support other options. Galamore (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose under @Makeandtoss's argument. The proposed title is ambiguous. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment -- The name of this article is POV and adding accusation won't change that. Any adult reader understands that weaponization is an accusation, not a neutral term. Nobody describes their own behavior as weaponization. Better to have an article about the discourse of antisemitism in America (or are weaponization claims a global phenom?) or the uses of antisemitism charges, or the like. ProfGray (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There is an article on antisemitism. Are you saying that the term is not also used to falsely accuse others of antisemitism for political purposes? As for: Any adult reader understands that weaponization is an accusation, not a neutral term we use the term murder and a vast number of other negative terms in innumerable article titles. Please read WP:NPOV. Look, false accusations of antisemitism are harmful to Semites. Kinda like accusing the current president of running a Gestapo on Holocaust Remembrance Day. But, who would do that? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Our role is not to determine whether a term is "used to falsely accuse others" because we don't need to adjudicate False or True accusations. Our role is to figure how to write in NPOV style about charges of antisemitism, which is a subtopic of antisemitism. In Google Scholar, I see 671 hits for "accusations of antisemitism," 416 hits for "charges of antisemitism" and 29 for "weaponization of antisemitism" (sometimes in scare quotes, possibly for same concerns I'm expressing here).

I think it'd be best to have a section within antisemitism on this topic ("charges of antisemitism"), which itself should have a balanced title and gives balanced consideration to the institutionalization of such charges, their efficacy, and controversial aspects, such as (alleged) bad faith or unduly motivated accusations. ProfGray (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this well-written comment. Zanahary (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This is totally NPOV illiterate argument. Again, like others in this page, you're basing this partly on your own OR about how positive or negative the words feel. In reality, none of the words are positive, because it's not a "positive" subject. Misuse isn't positive. Instrumentalization (using antisemitism as a tool) isn't positive. Secondly, it is wholly irrelevant that no one self-identifies as performing "weaponization". As a very immediate analogy, what proportion of antisemites do you think call themselves antisemites? Answer: not a lot, and so, by that metric, "antisemitism" itself would not be NPOV. Wholly policy non-compliant logic. Self-definition alone is not a relevant factor. And finally, no, it's not a US phenomena, but a broad concept. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi. It's not a matter of "positive" per se (and did I not use that word?) but rather whether it is the most neutral term that we can find, avoiding loaded terms. That's why I check wording from scholars or reliable journalistic writing.

Your point about self-identification is worth discussing, though I'm not sure this is the best place. Generally, in a contentious situation, the more neutral and less loaded terms can be discerned by usage and reactions to usage. I train people to avoid calling individuals "antisemite" or "racist" because it is reifying and reductionist, unless self-identifying, and instead to label their statements or actions. Even then, I'd rather use less loaded terms when possible, since these terms are loaded (moral condemnation). ProfGray (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The name of this article is POV If that is an issue, resolve via an RM, not by way of an assertion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that my finding that The name of this article is POV will not itself resolve the problem. But I think the first step if for people to recognize the problem, so that's why I'd rather comment and try to persuade, rather than vote!. Moreover, I don't think an RM would suffice, alone. That's why I discuss, above, the importance of thinking through how antisemitism discourse (representation, accusations, etc) is first placed in the main article and then expanded into parent-child articles in a balanced, NPOV manner.

FWIW, I personally (morally) believe that "weaponization of" [accusations of unethical conduct] is a problem in the real world, so I want the content to be developing in a robust and thoughtful way in WP. ProfGray (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If the problem is instead the content, edit. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support – The article is not about antisemitism itself being used as a weapon. Additionally, I should note that many of the "oppose" comments do not seem to oppose the proposed title when compared pairwise with the existing title. Whether the title should include the word "weaponization" is a valid discussion for another RM, but those comments not addressing the pairwise comparison should probably be discounted in this RM. Graham (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer moving the article to Weaponization of accusations of antisemitism, as suggested by others, so as to avoid any misconception that we are referring to accusations of weaponization rather than the weaponization of accusations. That being said, provided that we are clear about our reason for the move, I would still prefer Weaponization of antisemitism accusations over the existing title. Graham (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposal is not a helpful improvement and 'tilts' the article that questions whether the term is ever really misused, which undermines the factbase presented (i.e. the term is misused). I have no problem changing the title (i.e. "Misuse/Abuse of the term Antisemitism"), this is not useful. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• I'm leaning oppose because I think the current article title is clearer than the proposed one. "Weaponization of accusations of antisemitism" is a satisfactory alternative and more clear than the proposed title. My first thought at seeing the proposed article title was that it would make the article about the accusation that antisemitism is sometimes weaponized. I tend to think "instrumentalization" may be a better word than "weaponization" though. (t · c) buidhe 15:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Although sometimes referred to as instrumentalization, there is some difficulty with using that word as part of the scope as it is quite frequently used to refer to matters that would be out of the intended scope. It is also something of an awkward word for the majority of readers I would think, for whom weaponization would be quite clear. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  By my count, we do not have any articles whose titles use “weaponization” to describe bad-faith engagement of any kind. It’s just not neutral language. "Bad-faith charges of antisemitism" could work. Zanahary (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  I refer you to Weaponization of everything "The phrase also implies understanding to what extent something can be weaponized." It is a part of everyday language at least where I come from and everyone knows what it means. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  That article is about a phrase, and its title is the name of the phrase. It is not a descriptive title, because obviously a Wikipedia article about “the weaponization of everything” would have a terribly polemical and unhelpful title. Zanahary (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  ? There is a WP article about the weaponization of everything, it's scope is its title and ""Weaponization of everything" is a phrase referring to an expansion of the definition of what a weapon is, and correspondingly the expansion of what constitutes a threat, attack, and defense. Again, most people know what it means.Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, an article about a phrase. It is obviously not a descriptive title. Zanahary (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  iyo. I beg to differ. Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Alrighty. Anyways, for the reasons above, I support a move to Bad-faith charges of antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  aka weaponizing antisemitism accusations. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  There's also Weaponized incompetence, which is also oddly applicable in this topic area. Seems to be one of the favoured civil POV-pushing strategies of socks, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  )

  Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  "is a concept in popular psychology" Zanahary (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Like I said, everyone knows what it means. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Think we have polluted the RM sufficiently now. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose seems arbitrarily more difficult and harder to understand though i recognize the intent. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I like buddhe's idea above of ""Weaponization of accusations of antisemitism" User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I don't mind any one of the three, the existing, the proposed or "Weaponization of accusations of antisemitism". The scope is the title plus the first sentence and imo it makes no difference which of the three in that sense. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak Support per Graham. Altorespite 🌿 17:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: not an improvement over the current title; makes it more cumbersome. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support while reliable sources use the term 'weaponization of antisemitism' the proposed move would be an improvement because it specifies the page topic more precisely. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support for the sake of greater specification, as others have stated above. David A (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

References

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.