Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

ICC arrest warrants

WP:NOTAFORUM ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
‘Unforgivable,’ ‘antisemitic,’: Israeli leaders react with anger to ICC decision That didn't take long: "Israel's hard-line national security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, dismissed the ICC as an "antisemitic court," while right-wing Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich described the decision as a "display of hypocrisy and hatred toward Jews."" Not weaponization at all, right? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Is this a discussion about article content or a WP:OR presentation of what you believe is the weaponization of antisemitism? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) It's an example. But the arrest warrants would have to be issued first and RS indicating that it's weaponization of antisemitism. And Ben Gvir isn't a great spokesman for such as a convicted supporter of terrorism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) The article says weaponization is "The exploitation of accusations of antisemitism for political purposes, especially to counter anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel". Seems that's what I am looking at. Of course, others may see it differently. To answer your question directly, both. It's potentially article content and it's OR (allowed on talk pages) to the extent that I personally don't see how one can call a court antisemitic without that being weaponization. And that's just for seeking the warrants (a decision approved by a panel of experts) dread to think what they might say if the warrants are actually issued. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC) What I'm getting at is posting what you think is an example, followed by Not weaponization at all, right? is really just needless provocation on a talk page already filled with arguing. This isn't the place to discuss if that is an example of weaponization of antisemitism. Please stick to discussion on how to improve the article rather than just raising the temperature. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) The Dreyfus affair is a good example of this. Let's stick to what sources say. Longhornsg (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Good grief, a century old case of antisemitism. Am I missing something, or did you miss what SFR said about raising the temperature? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Not sure how this is raising the temperature? It's a fact-based example of how a court and a court case can be antisemitic. Longhornsg (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Can this forum please wrap? I'm sure there's somewhere else enthusiasts can discuss whether it's possible for a court to be antisemitic. Zanahary (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Some recent videos on this topic

• Adam Horowitz; Raz Segal; Shira Robinson (2024-05-07). "Weaponizing Antisemitism to Stifle Criticism of Israel". YouTube.
• Kenneth Stern (2024-05-01). "He Helped Define "Antisemitism"; Now He Says the Term Is Being Weaponized". YouTube.
• Marshall Ganz (2024-03-25). "Weaponizing Anti-Semitism in U.S. Universities and Society". YouTube.
• Dena Takruri (2024-02-15). "How Israel And Its Allies Weaponize Antisemitism". YouTube.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I put a couple those above in section More sources to be added. Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I definitely don't think Horowitz or Ganz are sufficiently relevant/noteworthy/expert to be due here. Stern may be, but he's not talking about the weaponisation of antisemitism only of the weaponisation of a particular definition, so might be better placed in the IHRA WD article. Al-Jazeera and CNN are RS platforms while Massachusetts Peace Action definitely isn't and Jadilayya probably isn't. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Dueness of Livingstone formulation material

This business about the Livingstone formulation is undue, there is a lot of material in the article about issues faced by the UK labour party (I have tagged it as undue weight for the moment), why would that have any relevance for weaponization of antisemitism in general? Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. After reading the long paragraph about the "Livingstone Formulation," it still doesn't make sense to me. Suppose K.L., a critic of Israel, makes a statement that D.H., a defender of Israel, believes is antisemitic and K.L. believes is not. Suppose that the statement in question has nothing to do with Israel, and K.L. accuses D.H. of weaponizing antisemitism to defend Israel. D.H. claims this is illogical. But it obviously isn't, because the charge of antisemitism, like the charge of racism, is a way to discredit a person. If people believe that K.L. is an antisemite, they won't pay attention to his criticisms of Israel. Isn't this obvious? So I don't see what the "Livingstone Formulation" is all about. It seems like a fancy name for a nothingburger. I'd favor removing the paragraph per WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That you don’t understand the formulation, or find the concept unfair or problematic, doesn’t really matter—it’s represented in a breadth of reliable sources, and has been present in the article for months. Zanahary (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Not everything that is adequately sourced satisfies WP:DUE, and this is an example of a long paragraph that adds nothing of importance to the article. The concept either intrinsically has no meaningful content, or else is just poorly described in the long paragraph. In either case it is undue. NightHeron (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel it’s clear, but why don’t you try reading one of the many sources (cited or new) describing the concept in question and editing the article text for clarity? Zanahary (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, first things first, the Livingstone formulation, it has a name, so what is it? According to Hirsh 2011 paper:

"This paper is concerned with a rhetorical formulation which is sometimes deployed in response to an accusation of antisemitism, particularly when it relates to discourse which is of the form of criticism of Israel. This formulation is a defensive response which deploys a counter-accusation that the person raising the issue of antisemitism is doing so in bad faith and dishonestly. I have called it The Livingstone Formulation (Hirsh 2007, 2008).

There is the word "sometimes", then there is "particularly"..."criticism of Israel" (an AZ position usually), followed by an accusation of AS, followed by an accusation of bad faith and this last in the sequence is what is being referred to as the LF. It is not clear whether this is based on the equation AZ=AS always or it is just "sometimes".

Comparing a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard doesn't appear to have anything to do with the given sequence. I think we are mixing together different ideas in the paragraph I have marked as undue weight and we also shouldn't use the word weaponization if the sources don't use it, we need to relate the material directly to the definition of the formulation. Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

According to the sources, there seem to be at least 3 possible definitions of "Livingstone Formulation." The article David Hirsh, citing source [74] (in the "Weaponization..." article's numbering), defines it as (1) the claim made by those accused of antisemitism that the accusation is made in order to delegitimise their criticism of Israel. The long paragraph about it in the "Weaponization..." article defines it in two different ways: (2) as the charge of weaponization when the original allegedly antisemitic statement had nothing to do with Israel, and (3) as a charge of weaponization that claims that the charge of antisemitism was made in bad faith, that is, (quoting [75]) an allegation of a "lie" and "not an allegation of error, or over-zealousness." If definition (1) is correct, the concept deserves at most a 1-sentence mention that this is a name to the charge of weaponization that was given by David Hirsh after a dispute on the subject between him and Ken Livingstone. In the case of definition (2), it would be nice to have an explanation from a pro-Israeli RS as to why they think that when the charge of antisemitism against a critic of Israel concerns a statement the critic made that was not about Israel, the antisemitism charge could not have been made for the purpose of discrediting the critic. In the case of definition (3), it would be nice to have some clarification from a pro-Israeli RS as to how they distinguish between a charge of weaponization that is alleging that the antisemitism charge is due to lying vs due to over-zealousness. For example, in the case of Trump, many RS (such as the NY Times) describe him as a habitual liar. But the word lie generally means a falsehood that the person who lies knows is false. Often people who are passionate about something (Trump about his defeat in 2020, Zionists about Israel) have probably convinced themselves that the falsehood is actually true. In that case the falsehood can be attributed to over-zealousness rather than to deliberate lying. I don't see how one can meaningfully distinguish between the two in such cases. So how does definition (3) of the term "Livingston Formulation" distinguish between an accusation of weaponization that alleges bad faith vs one that alleges over-zealousness? Of the 3 definitions, the first one is clear, but (2) and (3) are murky without clarification from RS. Moreover, if Livingstone Formulation is nothing but a term thrown around by one side of the dispute that has no clear definition, then the whole paragraph is undue. NightHeron (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Your qualms with the concept (Hirsh never interacted with Livingstone, by the way) doesn’t really stand in the way of the many sources, from scholarly articles in sociological and legal journals to books on antisemitism published by academic presses, that refer to it. When so many reliable, high-quality sources cite the concept in relation to this article’s topic of bad-faith charges of antisemitism, it is simply due. Zanahary (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Not if it is claimed as a name that has no definition. Hirsh says in his 2018 book "Ken Livingstone is not responsible for the Livingstone Formulation, and he did not invent it; it is an honorary title rather than one which he really earned." Which is, to say the least, confusing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is Hirsh himself just recently on X and there he says that "the" definition can be found here, a 2016 book chapter (rather than his 2011 paper I mentioned earlier).

This version says "This paper defines the features of the rhetorical device which I have named the Livingstone Formulation. It is a means of refusing to engage with an accusation of antisemitism; instead it reflects back an indignant counter-accusation, that the accuser is taking part in a conspiracy to silence political speech. The Livingstone Formulation functions to de-legitimise scholarly or political analysis of antisemitism by treating analysis of antisemitism as an indicator of anti-progressive discourse. This mode of refusal to engage rationally with antisemitism is often facilitated by the treatment of antisemitism as a subjective sentiment rather than as an external and objective social phenomenon. This paper offers a large number of examples of the Livingstone Formulation taken from diverse public discourse; from both explicitly antisemitic and also from ostensibly antiracist social spaces." Which is not the same as what he had in 2011 termed the Livingstone formulation. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There are logical traps in the formulation, if someone makes an AS accusation, one must not question the accuser's motive (LF) but must instead prove the negative, that they are not an antisemite.

But this can be turned about, the accuser is equally questioning the responder's motives by making the accusation to start with.

What it means, when all is said and done, is that evidence should decide the issue and not the mere facts of the accusation and counter accusation. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Your qualms with the concept do not knock down its apparent notability, per a breadth of reliable sources. Zanahary (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Who said I had qualms? I merely wish to know what it is. Its definition appears to be a moving target.

What I am clear about is that your editing completely misrepresents the situation and I will remedy that in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You can check the sources! Zanahary (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed undue material and it has been restored against WP:BRD as well as against the consensus in this discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You removed long-standing material. Consensus has not been achieved. You need to explain based on policy how it’s undue; identifying “logical traps” in an argument is not a policy-based justification for a due weight removal. Thanks for restoring the tag, I didn’t mean to leave that off. Zanahary (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not remove long standing material, I removed recently added material per the above discussion which atm has a consensus that this material is undue and which is why I tagged it for that initially. I restored my own tag, having removed it after removing the undue material. You remain against WP:BRD and against consensus here. I am willing to wait and see what other editors have to say about that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You’re mistaken. You removed content that has been there for months. That was a bold edit. I reverted. Zanahary (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

All the material in this article is new, so WP:QUO doesn't apply (added with no consensus). In any case, QUO only lasts until the material is challenged, which it has been and the WP:ONUS is now on you to garner a consensus and atm, you are 3 to 1 against. Feel free to undo your restoration anytime. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please stop restoring challenged material. Also, it appears UNDUE to me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You’ll have to make an argument for that. Zanahary (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As was said above, the ONUS is on you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not; the content in question is old. Zanahary (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

First of all, there's a consensus (i.e., everyone but you) that the disputed content is undue. Secondly, the problem we're addressing is that your recent flurry of edits made the article unbalanced. That can be fixed by removing the content that's not particularly significant. That doesn't necessarily mean removing all your recent edits, since some of the content you added might be more relevant, recent, and significant than some of the older content. The basic issue is to fix the article so that it satisfies WP:DUE and WP:Balance. NightHeron (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like you’re confusing some content. The stuff boldly removed by SS is months old. Zanahary (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Since you are not going to self revert your restoration, which is what you should be doing, I have done it for you.

I already explained that ONUS trumps QUO, even if the stuff had been in the article for 10 years, which in this case it hasn't because this is a new article and everything in it is only months old. In addition, there is a consensus that the restored material is undue, why you would think it is due is quite beyond me.

In fact there is arguably still too much reliance on Hirsh and we may need to revisit that at some point. Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure whether or not the Livingstone F material is due in this particular article but I find it quite ironic that those editors opposing it here are making exactly the same points about it that have been levelled, with at least as much justification, against “weaponisation of antisemitism”; that it’s not a thing because it has more than one potential definition or that it is merely a term thrown around by one side of the dispute that has no clear definition. That’s precisely the problem with “weaponisation of antisemitism”. (Meanwhile, lots of RS media articles and academic papers refer explicitly to the “Livingston Formula”, but I believe its WP article was deleted long ago for very similar reasons to those used against this article.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

LF has one definition, that of its author, who varies it at the margins from time to time for whatever reason but the essence of it remains as I have summarized it in the article. Weaponization, being a description, has no author and no definition so the comparison between apples and oranges fails.

Nor has anyone has said that LF is not due (it's in the article) so that's another straw man.

If any editor thinks that an AfD would work, that option remains available. One merely wonders why this has not been attempted to date. The short answer is that while LF might have been deleted for lack of notability (assuming that was the reason), that isn't the case here, the trouble is more deciding what to include and then how to arrange the material in a sensible fashion, which is something we could get to once all the other matters are ironed out. Selfstudier (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I must have misunderstood you when you said "This business about the Livingstone formulation is undue" I interpreted you to mean that mention of it was undue in the article. If that's not the case, what's the actual dispute here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It began when I made these edits, clarifying what LF is and removing what I considered as excessive material related to LF. This was reverted and I opened the discussion here, subsequently deriving a consensus that the material is in fact undue. The reverting editor just added something else and that has been removed as well. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is generated using policy-based arguments. Just repeating "it's undue" is neither policy-based nor an argument, and exercises by editors in amateur rhetorician-logicianship to debunk widely-cited arguments and concepts do not make a policy-based argument relating to content's due weight.

Anyways, here's a bunch of (lazily link-formatted) good sources, by authors other than David Hirsh, that refer to the concept. Plainly due.

Excuse the link-mountain. This is not even close to all of the good sources referring to the concept. Obvioulsy I am not suggesting we ought to load the article up with all these sources; these are just to illustrate the breadth of the concept's application: it's quite widely-known.

The Livingstone Formulation is a greatly influential concept in the study of contemporary antisemitism and discourses relating to Israel and Zionism whose suppression in this article masks a major perspective on the article topic. Thus, due. Zanahary (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not argued that the concept is not due, so that was all a waste of effort, I have left due material in and removed the unnecessary and additional fluff " He terms this "crying Israel", as opposed to "crying antisemitism".", for example, and the stuff about Macpherson. The LF is really quite straightforward, that is if an allegation of AS is countered with an allegation of weaponization rather than dealing with the accusation on its merits, that's it, that's all, nothing more. All the rest is decoration. Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

What proportion of these sources use the words "weaponization", "weaponizing", or "weapon" regarding antisemitism? The question might be of relevance for DUEWEIGHT because it appears that only a minority of other sources in this article use those words. Llll5032 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

What proportion of these sources None of them. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You apparently did not look through them, because a number of them do. Still, as you correctly point out below, it’s not required. Zanahary (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

a minority of other sources in this article And as has been repeatedly stated, it is not required that they do. There are however, more than a sufficient number that do. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The dueness question is simple, what new information is being added to LF beyond it's definition by all these sources...answer, none. You seem to be confused about something, LF is defined (by its author) whereas weaponization is not, it is a description.Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You read all these sources?? Within them is contained a range of scholars’ perspectives on the concept and the phenomenon to which it refers, as well as a range of applications to different areas of society and patterns in discourse. Zanahary (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Answer the question, what new information is added to the definition? That is all that is due, a bunch of examples and rearrangements of it are not due, they would be due in an article called Livingstone formulation, why don't you write one and then link it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m afraid I can’t summarize every single source above. But I’ll add to the article, and you’re free to challenge any material you find undue. Zanahary (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As long as we don't get into disruptive editing against consensus, feel free yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are convinced, notwithstanding consensus, that all this stuff is due, then start an RFC and ask the question "Should... blah blah blah.. be included". Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I recognize that this discussion is hobbled by the lack of tertiary sources describing the phrase "weaponization of antisemitism". But does the Livingstone controversy appear to be the first frequent use of the phrase by advocates? Llll5032 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I recognize that this discussion is hobbled by the lack of tertiary sources describing the phrase "weaponization of antisemitism". You can keep saying that but its not the case, I am not hobbled in the slightest.

The Livingstone controversy is not the same thing as the Livingstone formulation.""Ken Livingstone is not responsible for the Livingstone Formulation, and he did not invent it; it is an honorary title rather than one which he really earned." (Hirsh) Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@NightHeron, how is one sentence from Deborah Lipstadt undue? And why did you restore the Netanyahu material? Did you look at the final sentence? It has no relevance to the article topic. Zanahary (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@NightHeron, how is one sentence from Deborah Lipstadt undue? And why did you restore the Netanyahu material? Did you look at the final sentence? It has no relevance to the article topic. Zanahary (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Idk why you have put the same comment twice but this is what I specifically asked you not to do, editing against consensus re the LF, who cares what Ken Livingstone said? As Hirsh has said "Ken Livingstone is not responsible for the Livingstone Formulation, and he did not invent it; it is an honorary title rather than one which he really earned." Why do I have to write this three times? Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Be respectful. A reliable source by an expert (maybe the contemporary expert) on antisemitism thinks it is important. Zanahary (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Like I said already, write the article about the Livingstone formulation and include it there. And how was I being disrespectful exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Generally, framing discussions as an exhausted series of commands, including finishing with “Why do I have to write this three times?” is hostile and unhelpful. Please find it in you to engage civilly, or don’t engage.

That a new article could be written about the LF does not preclude LF-related material from being included in this article. There’s also no apparent consensus to go against—this is completely new material relating to a concept that is already in the article. Zanahary (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached on that matter despite your editing against it and persistent arguing from a minority position of one. The only disrespect here is towards other editors, by yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Livingstone is not an important figure in this topic (despite the use of his name, which deserves a brief mention), while Netanyahu happens to be Prime Minister of Israel. NightHeron (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The first Netanyahu source is extremely weak (that he’s the PM of Israel is a reason to be discerning—we can’t put every noncommittal criticism made by activists writing op-eds of such a figure in the article); the second has zero topic relevance. I started a new section below. Zanahary (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Netanyahu relevance

There’s a new, undue bit about Netanyahu in the Description section (which is weird on its own). It cites a single sentence in an op-ed by a prominent activist. That sentence is the only one that has any relevance to the article topic. The bit also cites, for some reason, a completely irrelevant BBC story, which has nothing to do with this article’s topic. I removed it, and @NightHeron restored it. I tagged it, and @Objective3000 removed my tags and accused me of “shame-tagging”.

The removal of the BBC bit should take no discussion. How is it relevant? Zanahary (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

“Promiscuous use of antisemitism allegations” is what this article is about, particularly by politicians for political purposes. And accusing the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court with blood libel and as one of the "great antisemites in modern times” is stunning. When did the ICC accuse Jews of murdering Christians in order to use their blood in the performance of religious rituals? Seems quite DUE to me. I also think reducing Aryeh Neier to just some activist is unfortunate given his long contributions to human rights, philanthropy and civil liberties. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You may find it stunning, but the source doesn’t even allude to weaponization of antisemitism. Do you have any source connecting that comment to the article topic? If so, it must be added. If not, it is wholly irrelevant, and the content needs to go. Zanahary (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, one has to admire Neiers predictive power, at least. I don't see that whether he wrote one sentence or ten has any relevance, the pithy one liner makes the point well enough. The BBC article is obviously connected indirectly because it is also about Netanyahu, antisemitism accusations and the ICC, which is what Neier is referring to. Maybe it just needs rearranging so that's clear. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No, its inclusion is WP:SYNTHESIS. A source that has nothing to do with the article topic should not be used. If a relevant source doesn’t contain the quote an editor wishes it did, that does not mean we can just bring it in from an irrelevant source. Zanahary (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we drawing a conclusion from separate sources that is not contained in any of them? That would be synth. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The implied conclusion that the quote in the BBC is relevant to the topic of weaponization of antisemitism is synthetic. Zanahary (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

As I see it, the conclusion being drawn is that "Netanyahu's assertion that ICC indictments would be antisemitic is indicative of his promiscuous use of antisemitism allegations" which is, it seems to me, within scope. The material could do with some rearrangement perhaps, to make that clear. Sources could be added that make it clear he is not alone in this as sundry other politicians have agreed with his assertion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Without a source relating other politicians and this BBC-reported quote to the article topic, it’s all irrelevant. Zanahary (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I rearranged it, better? Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s good until “ Shortly thereafter,” at which point it just veers away from the article topic. That quote, which no source has related to the article topic, should be removed. Zanahary (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

which no source has related to the article topic Neier has, tho. That's why it is a) relevant and b) not synth. Selfstudier (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Neier has, but he doesn’t raise that quote. Hence, the quote has not been presented in any source as relevant. Zanahary (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is just nitpicking, they are both about the same thing, N's reaction to the warrants, if you want to rephrase the quote as prose, go right ahead, I am not married to the quote itself. I am going to alter it again anyway, per below. Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

And now so has Kenneth Roth Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Does Roth discuss that quote? Does any source discuss that quote in relation to this article’s topic? Zanahary (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see Roth until I had already changed it around but it is straightforward to to change things around again so it does since Netanyahu said both things (and some other stuff) and there lots of refs with him saying both things. Roth is clear about what he thinks of it both specifically and in the general. Selfstudier (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

OK now I clarified that both N's quotes are those being criticized by Roth. And all the given sources are about the same thing, ICC warrants and N's reaction to that. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Zanahary (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Netanyahu

Worth adding: [1]

Also recently published articles/stories: [2], [3], [4]. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

See also

I removed Working definition of antisemitism and New antisemitism from the See also section because they’re linked in the article body, and WP:SEEALSO says that the section should not repeat links in the body.

I also removed Islamophobia, which seems too broad a topic and not obviously related to this article.

@NightHeron restored all three, saying that they don’t see why the links ought to be removed. I’m initiating this discussion to get input on these links. Is there a special reason why the already-linked articles should be repeated in the section? And should Islamophobia go in the section? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO says that generally links in the article are not included in See-also sections, but that's not a rigid rule. Concerning "Islamophobia", it's true that the word is not mentioned in the article. (If it had been mentioned, it likely would have been linked, and you wcould have used that as a reason to remove it from See-also.) However, a type of Islamophobia is mentioned in the article, namely, the presumption [by Zionist groups] that all Muslims are antisemitic. NightHeron (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

it's true that the word [Islamophobia] is not mentioned in the article.

I didn’t say that.

(If it had been mentioned, it likely would have been linked, and you would have used that as a reason to remove it from See-also.)

Am I misreading you, or are you suggesting I’m acting in bad faith in order to suppress something pertinent from the See also section? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I didn't at all mean that you were acting in bad faith. I just meant that guidelines, if interpreted rigidly, sometimes even contradict one another (such as the notion that See-alsos must be both closely related to the article and never linked to within the article). Sorry if I was unclear. I changed "would" (which is not the right word) to "could", since of course I don't know what you would do. NightHeron (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. I don’t see the contradiction, since the guidelines don’t say to put links already present in-body in the see also (in my reading). But that aside, why do you think Islamophobia should be linked in see also? To me it seems overly broad and not obviously more appropriate than, say, the similarly tangential Anti-Arab racism or the similarly broad Bad faith. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Because the "presumption that all Muslims are antisemitic" is clearly a form of Islamophobia. The article mentions this as a form that the weaponization takes, according to Plitnick and Aziz. NightHeron (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I originally added Working definition of antisemitism to the See also section because I thought it was related, but didn't realize it was already linked in the article. I am OK with removing the Working definition of antisemitism link from the See also to better comply with the Wikipedia suggested guidelines 👍. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, do you have any objection to also removing New antisemitism? Because that is also linked already. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that’s fine. Makes sense to remove. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Selection of examples of antisemitism allegations

Is the article aiming to select key examples and, if so, to demonstrate which aspects of weaponization? Or is the article trying to include every instance backed by a source? (Hopefully the former.)

In any case, a good example of shifting allegations might be discussions of Gov. Josh Shapiro as a possible VP candidate for Harris. First, critics on the left are alleged to oppose Shapiro in an antisemitic way (e.g., singling out his pro-Israel views vs those of other candidates and Harris herself). Second, after Walz was chosen, Harris and associates are alleged to reject Shapiro in an antisemitic way (e.g., because of his Jewishness or pro-Israel views). Sources might include: https://forward.com/opinion/642465/jews-tired-republicans-democrats-antisemitism/ and https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/08/02/josh-shapiro-israel-antisemitism-kamala-harris-vice-president/74631673007/

There's also a third stage, where allegations ("weaponization") of antisemitism is then seen as antisemitic itself, as an improper weaponization of Jewish identity (e.g., criticism of Vance about the rejection of Shapiro). (see The Forward, above) ProfGray (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the 3rd stage, I don't think sources support a statement that all instances of weaponization of antisemitism are themselves antisemitic. But sources do support the statement that some instances have been criticized for antisemitism. For example, Trump's calling Kamala Harris's husband a "crappy Jew" and making insulting comments about Jews who are not supporting Israel (see [5]). Similarly, some of the accusations of antisemitism against student anti-Zionist protestors have been criticized for antisemitism on the grounds that they're ignoring the fact that a large number of Jews, including religious ones, played a very visible role in those protests. NightHeron (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Part of the reason that the article is somewhat underdeveloped is because of the persistent refusal by some to accept that this is a valid topic, as evidenced by the ongoing RM, and elsewhere on WP, demanding that sources specifically use the phrase "Weaponization of antisemitism" even when it is glaringly obvious that's what it is (typically, but not always, by Israeli politicians). Once these matters have been cleared up, then a proper article development can begin. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Conceptual disputes

Why is this section, which is almost wholly about criticism of the idea antisemitic accusations are weaponized, and a selection of commentators questioning the bona fides of those who complain of the instrumental use of the charge, entitled 'Conceptual disputes'. It should be 'Criticism of the weaponization thesis' or something like that. Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Per my comment in the immediately preceding section (and in one or two others earlier), the layout has been left to languish, pending a resolution of editorial objections to the entire thing, since it's not worth doing anything that provides reverters with an excuse. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no reference anywhere to a “weaponization thesis”. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 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: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Weaponization of antisemitism → Bad-faith charges of antisemitism – Per NDESC. "Weaponization" is ambiguous, and the current title could imply the enactment of antisemitism as a figurative weapon (as the phrase has been used to describe antisemitic rhetoric in Russia). It's also neither a common name (with the article's BESTSOURCES generally describing it non-euphemistically in terms of bad faith) nor a neutral description. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging participants in the last move discussion: @Selfstudier @Mistamystery @Graham11 @Zero0000 @Makeandtoss @Marokwitz @Iskandar323 @Wafflefrites @Llll5032 @Flipandflopped @Objective3000 @Galamore @ProfGray @Aszx5000 @Buidhe @Bluethricecreamman @Altorespite @K.e.coffman @TarnishedPath @David A ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps an article title Conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism could be created with this article merged into it. This would cover both good faith, bad faith and ambiguous conflations. Just an idea though, and this current article and title are reasonable as is, with many RS using the phrase "weaponization of antisemitism". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think an article called Anti-Zionism and antisemitism would be great. It's a subject that's been explored from a lot of different angles, including those covered in this article, even further including examples whose belonging on this article is tenuous. But that can come after this move. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  That article already exists. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  It does? It's not at the link, which just redirects to Anti-Zionism. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've now updated the redirect target to a section within the Anti-Zionism article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think this article talks about more than just anti-zionism when talking about the weaponization of antisemitism. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, yes you're right. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed change is a bit of a mouthful and the current name is used by reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 00:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying it's the common name? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral determining whether something is good or bad faith may be impossible without reading their mind. Some people who are stretching the concept of antisemitism likely believe what they are saying—does that mean it's in good faith? Even if part of their aim may be to discredit others with whom they disagree (hence the term of weaponization). (t · c) buidhe 04:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

To underline Buidhe's point:'For the last ten months, American Jews, justifiably traumatized by the murderous attacks of Oct. 7, and now waiting in dread for Iranian missiles to rain down on Israel, have been incited, manipulated and emotionally terrorized by people who claim to have our best interests at heart. Some may be acting in good faith; others definitely are not. But this divisive rhetoric is hurting us and our children. Jay Michaelson https://forward.com/opinion/642246/walz-shapiro-vp-antisemitism-baiting-kamala-harris/ Responding to Walz pick, the Right resorts to antisemitism-baiting.' The Forward 8 August 2024

• Oppose. Bad faith implies a complex array of motives, theologically or philosophically, whereas weaponization doesn't go into the psychological motives of misusing antisemitic accusations, but rather refers restrictively to the way this is used in political rhetoric.Nishidani (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that the current title sufficiently well encapsules the concept of accusing others of antisemitism in order to divert attention from legitimate criticism of genuinely atrocious or outright malevolent behaviour and attitudes. David A (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term 'bad-faith' is more loaded and broader than 'weaponisation', which would further add to the complexity. I think the current title is better. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The terminology good faith vs bad faith is to some extent Wikipedia jargon (as in a "good faith edit"), used much less often among the general public. (I've read many opinion pieces that talked about Trump's personal insults and falsehoods directed against his political opponents, but I don't believe I've ever heard the writers use the term "bad faith".) NightHeron (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose as the current title is supported by the majority of RS as a common name. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Lean oppose – Bad faith is a term used heavily by Wikipedians with a meaning that fits. But it is used in several different manners elsewhere, dating at least back to Sartre: Bad faith (existentialism). More commonly about bad faith in agreements. Weaponization is in use these days and fits the topic well, although it may not be known by all readers and may be a transitory term popular only due to the current political storm. Unfortunately the term itself is used in bad faith lately. ‘Anti-Semitism card’, like the article Race card, would probably be the most immediately understood. But the term race card is more often used in bad faith making it an unacceptable title in my mind. Weaponization may be the best compromise. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the suggested name is a bit of an overkill. The current title is short, and it's what people search for. Waqar💬 17:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. "Weaponization" isn't widely used in academic journals and and other non-advocacy RS (or, as seen in this survey, even in most sources cited in this article's own "Description" and "History" sections), so the title should be changed. But I agree with some previous comments about the difficulty of judging when secondary sources have interpreted bad faith. Some other renaming options listed in the "Poll" discussion would be clearer improvements. Llll5032 (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Llll5032 it seems that my proposed title is a sinker. Do you have one or two of the best to propose? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  It would be a better use of everyone's time to focus on improving the article. This is already the article's third RM discussion this year (see #1 and #2).

  Whether we like it or not, this appears to be the most common name for this topic. It is certainly widely understood by the general public.

  The article as it stands needs work on structure, prose and flow. We should let editors work on the article without the repeated distraction of dead horse debates around the title.

  Onceinawhile (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Zanahary, "Misuse of antisemitism accusations", which was suggested in comments during a previous RM discussion, might describe the scope of this article clearly while abiding more with WP:NDESC and WP:COMMONNAME policies. If you agree and nominate it, I would vote for it. Do you favor any other options? Llll5032 (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Llll5032 Procedurally, how would I nominate it? Withdraw this one and open a new one? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  This one cannot be withdrawn, wait until it is finished. And then it will be required a reasonable time before attempting another. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  It does not appear to be the common name, as the survey linked by L shows. The article has barely been touched in months. I don’t see how a requested move puts everyone on hold. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Zanahary, the survey by Mistamystery that Llll5032 linked does not show that at all. Our WP:COMMONNAME policy requires that we use "the name that is most commonly used". It does not require that name to be used in a majority of publications, just a plurality or relative majority. That is clearly the case here; no other name comes close. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  From WP:NPOVNAME: When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids.

  This standard demands a significant majority, which “weaponization of antisemitism” does not have. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have a concern that (from the same policy) "Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue" with the current name? If so, please explain what that one side is, and bring a source which supports the "other side" to show that such a dispute exists in reliable sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  There’s no need to go into such depth—the policy says names with non-neutral words (like “weaponization”) need to be used in a majority of English-language reliable sources. In this case, that requirement is not met. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Weaponization is just a word in everyday use, also discussed n times (see archives). This is the principal problem here, endlessly rehashing the same arguments over and over hoping for a different outcome.

  One thing is clear here, the current proposal is going to fail, as you yourself acknowledge, and if you want to keep on with this and try another, then you will be able to do that after a decent interval.

  Meanwhile this is just more unnecessary distraction. Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Zanahary: I am taking your comment above as an admission that you accept that this title is not "endorsing one side of an issue". Onceinawhile (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, I have an answer to that, but per my last comment, it’s irrelevant. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is needed to prove the claimed applicability of NPOVNAME. Since you continue to evade this challenge, we can reasonably conclude that NPOVNAME is inapplicable here. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Already discussed n times and no one is buying this argument. The title can just as easily seen as descriptive. Also this RM, created by yourself leads with "Per NDESC." So which one are you arguing now, descriptive or commonname? Selfstudier (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  My argument for my proposed title cites NDESC; my argument against the current one cites NPOVNAME. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your argument may cite NPOVNAME, but it does not make any logical connection to it. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think the rationale has been made clear. Are you on the fence about your position on this RM? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  See above – your rationale is missing the core component, i.e. showing that the policy you have pointed to is actually applicable. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Are you on the fence about your vote? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  No. I oppose this proposal.

  I have answered your question, now please will you answer mine (see 22:17, 12 August 2024)?

  Onceinawhile (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Because the two have you been campaigning against this article since the get go and this is just more of the same. So that needs to be dealt with first and then a proper article development can be resumed . Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's a pretty serious charge against myself and @Llll5032—that we've been tag-teaming against this article so hard that even in months of near-inactivity on the article nobody else has been able to improve it at all. You should bring it to a noticeboard. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have commented at your talk page, that is sufficient for now. Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is also quite irrelevant to this RM, so suggest you move on. Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)