Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 18:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that claiming weaponization of antisemitism may itself be antisemitism? Source: Hirsh, David (2010). "Accusations of malicious intent in debates about the Palestine-Israel conflict and about antisemitism The Livingstone Formulation, 'playing the antisemitism card' and contesting the boundaries of antiracist discourse". Transversal: 44–77.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Languages of Lebanon

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 09:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Weaponization of antisemitism; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment: I don't think this article is ready for DYK as the page history indicates it is entirely unstable. Further, the talk page shows that it is heavily contested and discussion is ongoing. I would recommend withdrawing at this time and submitting later after things have cooled down. Of course, that might not be possible due to the time constraints, so consider bringing it up to GA standards and then submitting it, as that process will tend to weed out any outstanding issues. I won't personally reject this nomination, as I think the process for doing so will benefit from multi-editorial consilience towards that conclusion, instead of one editor making that determination. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree. I've marked it as rejected; if the article cools down over the next weeks, ping me. I suspect it won't, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• I will also offer my rationale:

• Article title is disputed: A move and rename proposal was initiated at on 31 January. Discussion is ongoing.
• Disputed content: Russia-Belarus content is disputed on talk as of 31 January. Discussion is ongoing; Lead section disputed as of 14 January. Discussion ongoing as of 28 January with an outstanding request for sources; Ostrovsky's description disputed as of 8 January. Discussion appears to have concluded.
• Stability: Since the article was nominated on 3 January there has been no semblance of stability. There have been around ~130 intervening edits, with edit warring and reverts occurring daily throughout that time. In the last 48 hours, there have been at least four reverts (likely many more, but just noting the explicit reverts), and the placement of at least one inline maintenance tag for synthesis.

Based on the above, I move to reject the nomination per WP:DYKCOMPLETE ("The article should not be subject to unresolved edit-warring or the presence of stub or dispute tags"). Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The reasoning is solid, so I've gone ahead and rejected the nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Structure

@Llll5032: why do you keep removing the structure / sections of this article? If you don’t agree with them, by all means propose your own version of a structure that will ensure the article is both balanced and easy to digest for our readers.

Paring the structure down as you have done to just a section of supportive statements and a section of opposing statements appears disruptive. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Headings can be based on facts from multiple WP:BESTSOURCES, but using them to summarize points of view from other sources can cause NPOV problems per WP:VOICE, lest they appear to take a side. That is why I removed some of your sub-headings.

However, I agree with part of your last statement: that separating views into opposing sections is not encouraged by Wikipedia policy. WP:STRUCTURE says, "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Perhaps a chronology or other approach would be better. Do you agree? Llll5032 (talk) 07:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I am struggling to understand much of what you are saying.

Turning the whole article into a chronology would be equally unhelpful to our readers.

The structure is there to ensure the material is organized in a way that makes it easier for readers to understand. Let’s work together to figure out what this should be.

What subtopics do you think an average reader looking to understand "Weaponization of antisemitism" would ideally be hoping to learn about? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Usually such subtopics would be easier to assign based on the emphasis of independent WP:BESTSOURCES that define and explore the history of a concept in their own words. Do any WP:BESTSOURCES offer such a survey? Llll5032 (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

? Just a logical organization so that the article is easy to follow is all that is required. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It is required that the article follow WP:VOICE and WP:STRUCTURE, which are part of NPOV. The number of sub-headings is more open to negotiation, although MOS:OVERSECTION warns against overuse. A compromise could follow the language of WP:BESTSOURCES, or perhaps emulate headings used by other encyclopedia articles about concepts that are in some contention. Llll5032 (talk) 15:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral which is what I said, no need to make a mountain out of a molehill. Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032: are you going to make a concrete proposal? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I asked questions that were unanswered. Do any WP:BESTSOURCES offer a survey of the subject that could be used for organizing neutral headings? Are there similar Wikipedia articles about concepts and disputes whose organization could be emulated? Llll5032 (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Race card, for a similar (and much more notable) concept. It covers it as a phrase and invoked concept. Zanahary (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Good example. Its two short headings and one sub-heading are based partly on WP:TERTIARY sources that survey the concept. Llll5032 (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing for that article is not strong, and thus it is underdeveloped. This article has many high quality sources, and was much better developed before you removed the structuring.

Despite being 20 years old that article has less daily views than this topic, so it is clearly incorrect to suggest it is more notable.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Page views don’t determine notability. The race card is a much better-studied and more commonly-known concept than this article’s. One thing that article correctly does not do is cite opinion pieces that seem to fit in the category of accusing others of pulling the race card for its description of the topic. Zanahary (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is currently five times longer than the article race card, and much more throughly sourced. Is there any remaining concern with adding more sub-headings to improve the structure of this article? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I oppose that. Instead, the opinion and advocacy sources, which received no consensus for use in the Sources discussion, should be removed from the article to reduce its size. When the article includes only its better sources, then new sub-headings could be considered based on what they emphasize. Llll5032 (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ll add, relatedly, that the “history” and “descriptions” sections seem undifferentiated and content and I don’t see what qualifies for the history section when none of the sources refer to the “history of the weaponization of antisemitism” or anything similar. Zanahary (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

seem undifferentiated and content ? Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The structure is intended to achieve something along the following lines.

• History: examples of this phenomenon, and claims of this phenomenon, over time
• Description: mechanism [what actions are taken], impact on the targets [what are the implications of the actions], wider impact [claims of unintended consequences].

Sub-divisions, continually removed by Llll5032 for reasons still unknown, will allow for this to be made much more clear and the continued build out to be more successful. In almost 14 years here I have never seen an editor advocate against an article having a structure - it is clearly beneficial for our readers and editors alike.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No one is against a structure, but POV in the structure is not allowed. How do you interpret the WP:STRUCTURE policy for this article? Are you ready to remove opinion and advocacy sources of all "sides" so the structure follows WP:BESTSOURCES and not advocacy? Llll5032 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You would need good sources describing a history and mechanism(s) of the weaponization of antisemitism for that, and those sources would need to represent a consensus to the point that they can be affirmed in wikivoice via the headings. Zanahary (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I have read these two comments many times and cannot understand them.

• Llll5032's comment asks about WP:STRUCTURE, which says: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure. That is exactly the point I mentioned to Llll5032 in the first comment in this thread "Paring the structure down as you have done to just a section of supportive statements and a section of opposing statements appears disruptive".
• Zanahary's comment seems to imply an intent to use POV headings. Who is proposing using POV headings? For the avoidance of doubt, the concept of a POV heading is explained at WP:STRUCTURE Pay attention to headers... that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject. The proposed headers here are bland; frankly I don't care what headers we use, we just need more headers to organize the information more clearly.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE recommends, "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." What is the best way the article can do this? Llll5032 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

To get to "more neutral" we would first need to establish if any parts of the article are "not neutral". On topics like this, "truth" is somewhere in the middle of a spectrum. No mainstream writer would believe either of the extreme positions - i.e. either that "all or almost all" antisemitism claims are bad faith weaponisations, or that "all or almost all" political weaponization claims are themselves in bad faith. The key therefore is to ensure the article does not imply either extreme.

From a practical perspective, merging / mixing-up the "Description" and "Conceptual Disputes" segments, and organizing them instead by sub-topic (integrating the related "Description" and "Conceptual Disputes" content within each sub-topic where possible) is the best we can do to address the "avoid pros and cons sections" policy.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Race card might offer an example, because it separates the Malaysian and UK uses from the American uses but does not separate the arguments by POV. Do we know of other similar articles? Llll5032 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of this structure question at a conceptual level has not achieved much, other than there is no concern with having more structure per se. Unless any objections, I will improve the article structuring on this basis. If there are any concerns, we can then discuss them specifically. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral structure is encouraged, but non-neutral structure violates NPOV, so any structuring must follow the NPOV policies and consensus carefully. If the length of text is a primary concern, then edits should remove advocacy sources listed in the Sources discussion, because they gained no consensus there for use in the article. Structure must be based on the best sources. Headings must not include synthesis or summarizing of advocacy sources in Wikivoice ("Avoid stating opinions as facts"; "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts"; "Prefer nonjudgmental language"). The structure should resemble the structure of other Wikipedia articles. Have you suggested another Wikipedia article to follow for structure? Llll5032 (talk) 07:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sources within reference group

@Llll5032: regarding this edit [1], the edit comment does not make sense. Certain sources may benefit from in line attribution when used alone, but that cannot be extrapolated to their usage in grouped references.

These grouped references of multiple scholars all saying the same thing are there specifically to address your multiple “by whom” tags.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit, since reverted, removed two disputed sources in a reference group in the second paragraph of the top section, leaving some others. If a source (Mearsheimer & Walt) does not meet standards for Wikivoice in a RSN discussion and there is no consensus in favor of another source's use in the article in a talk page section (Steinberg), then why should those two sources be cited in the top section? Does any policy recommend a lower standard for sources when they are used in a group? See WP:ONUS and WP:AWW. Llll5032 (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can 'dispute' anything. Your ref to RSN shows nothing that takes into consideration the reputation of the book by Mearsheimer and Walt. Mearsheimer is R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago while Walt is Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of international relations at the Harvard Kennedy School. You'd be really tested in googling skills to find anywhere on wiki a source that had that kind of informed authority, on a topic area both are masters of. I've read numerous reviews of it. None can put the finger on any errors of fact, the critical ones tend to harp on the boring meme that the book is either by either antisemities or feeds into antisemitism, or worse still, is flagrantly critical of Israel. Your opposition has no legs to stand on. Your removal has all the appearance of POV-pushing elisionism.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody in the discussions made those arguments, but you could ask RSN for reconsideration if you believe that the book should be used for Wikivoice. Llll5032 (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

RSN very rarely makes blanket judgements on scholarly sources, and it did not do so in the example you linked to. Treatment depends on the context of the proposed citations. In this article, where M&W are being used to cite their own opinion it is attributed in line, and where they are being used to cite an undisputed fact, it is not.

This attempt at wikilawyering is not going to help us make progress. Arguing over sourcing for sentences where the content is entirely undisputed is simply wasting time.

Please instead let's use our combined efforts highlight any specific claims in the article which are disputed or in any way potentially controversial, and are not already appropriately caveated, and we can discuss. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I moved some existing words in that paragraph to attribute it partially for now, per WP:VOICE and WP:CONLEVEL. Llll5032 (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Because that partial attribution was reverted, sources that were recommended for attribution-only at RSN or contested at this talk page are now again cited in Wikivoice in the second paragraph. 07:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Renaming the article

A variety of editors have said the article should be renamed, citing reasons including WP:NDESC, WP:NEO, and WP:COMMONNAME. Many of the sources in the article do not use the word "weaponization". But a previous requested move was closed because no other names were suggested. The closing editor said, "if there's a more concrete and clearer proposal then it can be brought back in a fresh RM." Some editors may want to keep the current title, but a consensus could also be found for what replacement to propose. Can some neutral and descriptive titles be suggested for a future RM? Llll5032 (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If all focus is on the IP area, then perhaps Disputed antisemitism allegations in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict would be a neutral description. Llll5032 (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Other titles could be Disputed antisemitism allegations or Disputes over antisemitism allegations if descriptions are kept that do not relate to IP. Llll5032 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The page isn't about something disputed: it's about the well established topic of the weaponization or instrumentalization of antisemitism. Also, "disputed" and "allegations" aren't words that should be just be thrown about willy nilly in an attempt to dilute page titles (concision issues aside) – not unless the majority of sources describing the subject clearly frame it in those terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the situation being described, and I can say without doubt that the current title is ambiguous in quite a bad way.

The current title really means "Using one's own authentic antisemitism as a weapon". (Presumably, such a weapon would only be used against someone who is Jewish, and it's difficult for me to see how "antisemitism as weapon" would be so different from "antisemitism in general".)

An article about false accusations cannot go without the literal words "False Accusations" in its title. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You are grammatically correct and I have noted that before. However, the phrase is used in this way by the sources we got it from. Zero^talk 05:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Current title is fine, describes the topic, which exists, no disputed or alleged about it.Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The title is completely inappropriate, leading and pure pov pushing. The use of the term "weaponization" is purely one-sided, and automatically presumes bad (and exact) intent on behalf of those using anti-semitism as a defense or counter-claim.

Is there even a single instance in this article of a person having utilized a claim of anti-semitism having admitted that they purposefully used it as a "weapon" in order to fend off what would otherwise be considered legitimate criticism? Or is the term "weaponization" merely representative of one side of the argument, namely those frustrated in general at the use of anti-semitism as a charge to diffuse criticism, no matter the legitimacy? We absolutely cannot have an article whose title is only representative of the defensive claims of one side of an argument. That is beyond inappropriate and wholly in violation of WP.

The previous requested move was not closed because other names weren't suggested - they were. It was closed because there was no consensus.

However, the current title is entirely inappropriate and pure political and polemical pov (frankly to the point that this article should be speedily deleted until its *two* primary authors can take plain action and do as wiki expects us to and lead the renaming themselves).

I say again - the answer is plainly stated above: instrumentalization of antisemitism. Yes, it's not the most poetic, but it's neutral and allows for all sides of the topic to be discussed and covered reasonably without anchoring the ship cleanly on one side. Mistamystery (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone is at liberty to put up an RM, proposing speedy deletion after the article has been up this long seems ill motivated. Otherwise, non useful response noted. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"instrumentalization of antisemitism" is a possible alternative, as a proferred synonym in some sources, but someone would actually have to do some source analysis to demonstrate that it was more prevalent in the sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Compared to all scholarship on antisemitism, "weaponization" and "instrumentalization" yield very few results from Google Scholar. There, "antisemitism" has 151,000 results, "weaponization of antisemitism" has 26 results, and "instrumentalization of antisemitism" has 11 results. Some Scholar results for "weaponization" are sources that put it the term in quotation marks or preface it with "so-called".

If each term is rare in scholarship and therefore not a WP:COMMONNAME, then a term that is less a violation of WP:VOICE and WP:POVTITLE should be preferred. So Mistamystery, I would support a change to instrumentalization of antisemitism for now. Llll5032 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The first comparison here is not a useful analysis. Of course all scholarship mentioning a single word is significantly more numerous than that mentioning the same word as part of a compound phrase. That tells you nothing. However, the comparison between the usage of the terms relative to each other is relevant, and this tells us that, per the above, the current title has twice as much currency as instrumentalization. That is a point in its favour. Quotation marks are meanwhile not an immediate point against it, but raise an important question: what do the sources that use quotation marks say alongside this, and do they use another term? The POV point is uncompelling, not least because it has not been made clear on what basis the current title is being defined as POV – does any source outline this, or is this being inferred from the occasional use of quotation marks? Unless there is sourced cause to define a certain term as partial, NPOV means following the most prevalent terminology in the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Scholarly use of "weaponization of antisemitism" is also rare compared to "race card", an article mentioned at this talk page. On Google Scholar, "race card" brings up 16,300 results, compared to 26 for "weaponization of antisemitism". Llll5032 (talk)

Iskandar323, regarding your question about sources that use quotation marks around "weaponization", one is the paper by Waxman, Schraub & Hosain that is cited in the first sentence of this article. It uses quotation marks for two of its three uses, alluding to use by parties in some arguments. It is one of the best sources in this article by Wikipedia standards, although its descriptions are relegated to the "Conceptual disputes" section at the end. Llll5032 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Race card" is a general term again; the subject here is the purported use of a specific and particular race card for certain outlined purposes. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not a commonname thing, the title is descriptive, as is "instrumentalization" and which is already given as an aka, exploitation or misuse are other possibilities. These are all descriptive but weaponization most clearly tells the reader what the article is about.Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If the title is descriptive, then it would need to follow WP:NDESC and "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words". Llll5032 (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You haven't actually explained how or why one word is more judgemental or less neutral than the other, and what the basis in sourcing for this. Both terms are clearly used in scholarship. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding how "weaponization" is more judgmental than "instrumentalization", Mistamystery offered an explanation at 14:52 on March 28 above. Llll5032 (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That's their opinion, mine is that weaponization is explanatory not judgemental. When we write Israel and apartheid (a descriptive title), the word apartheid is not judgemental (or non neutral), it is simply explaining what the article is about, the article itself can deal with whether or not such a charge is justified in particular circumstances. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I see the explanation of a personal opinion, but nothing with recourse to actual sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As Zanahary pointed out in discussing the use-mention distinction in WP:NEO, the term "weaponization of antisemitism" is rare enough in RS that no cited RS clearly defines what it is. So perhaps the only actual sourcing available to say which term is more judgmental would be a dictionary, for the words "weaponization" and "instrumentalization". Would that suffice? Llll5032 (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an article about a neologism, so that guideline isn't pertinent. As for the two terms, that one might might be more pointed still does not make it more POV. It is also possible that scholars are using the two terms to mean subtlety different things, but I suspect that for our purposes here, the overlap is sufficiently substantial that there is no cause for separate articles. If you look up the two words, and absorb the relative obscurity of their definitions, it rapidly becomes apparent why weaponization is the better term for the layman. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The word "weaponization" is self-explanatory. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The word "weaponization" is inherently presumptive of its categorization and characterized use of deploying it as a tool of offense (as opposed to an instrument, which is mere neutral case of use), which in the case of this argument, only stands on behalf of (and speaks for) those accusing use of anti-semitic accusations as an unfair means of disqualifying argument.

Aka: "weaponization" only applies to one side of the conversation. Aka, pure POV.

This is not a matter of opinion. There isn't a single person (or source provided) who is attempting to use anti-semitism as a counter that has admitted use of the argument as a weapon or described it as "weaponization".

Given that "weaponization of antisemitism" is not remotely a term that has found foothold in either reportage or academia, and that this page is principally the authorship of a single editor, this entire endeavor reeks of OR and must be addressed immediately. Either this is folded into a section on more appropriate umbrella antisemitism topic page, or we achieve a simple compromise by changing the title to an appropriately neutral term.

Given that this page's principal contributor themself alternately titled it with "instrumentalization", I think that's an extraordinarily fair compromise if this page is to remain at all. There is no argument nor proven basis for the continued use of "weaponization" in any capacity. Mistamystery (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

inherently presumptive of its categorization Huh? Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

its presumed categorization as a neutral use case - which it isn't. "Weaponization" is not NPOV. It only speaks for one side.

Please provide neutral use case or let's move on from this. Mistamystery (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

To Mistamystery's comment, the core of this article is not about characterization, it is about the underlying act. Characterization is just a component of it, just as it is in topics about all sociological phenomena which are frequently unable to be proven with 100% certainty due to our inability to see inside other people's minds.

Action	Description	Wiki article
Act	Antisemitic prejudice or hostility	Antisemitism
Claim	Allegations of antisemitism
Act	Use of antisemitism claims for political purposes	This one
Claim	Allegations of antisemitism claims for political purposes
Act	Racist prejudice or hostility	Racism
Claim	Allegations of racism
Act	Use of racism claims for political or other purposes	Race card
Claim	Allegations of racism claims for political or other purposes

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Think you accidentally zapped a couple Mista's responses.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile please see Selfstudier's comment above. Llll5032 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed now - added them back. Thanks for pointing out. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "instrumentalization" does have the issue of being a slightly obscure word – far less layman friendly and self-apparent than weaponization, which is readily understood. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Just personal linguistic experience. I have often used the word 'instrumentalization' and its verbal equivalent, in explaining the difference between (a) a viewpoint and (b) the way that viewpoint is deployed, not to buttress its cogency, but simply to exploit its rhetorical value, esp. when the said viewpoint circulates as an unexamined meme. What is lost is attention to the logical and factual (evidential) status of the given viewpoint, as it is pressed into service to win an argument by calling on the idea for its established emotional value.

And more often than not, this fundamental distinction goes over the head of the people I have been talking to, for whom 'instrumentalization' is empty, hi-falutin' jargon (most of my acquaintances are not academics). So I have dropped it by adopting 'use as a tool' or 'weaponize' both of which are immediately understood. Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"weaponization of human rights" gets 79,000 google hits. It is the accepted term in this area when the argument is about criticism of Israel (Gerald Steinberg, Weaponization of Human Rights and What to Do About it NGO Monitor 2 November 2023). It is vigorously disliked if the reference is not to 'human rights', but to 'antisemitism'. Bref. It's fine to cast doubt on people who raise the issue of human rights in that area, for ostensibly using such violations of rights for some putative ulterior purpose, usually challenging, the meme goes, 'Israel's right to exist', but it is devious if sources note that, like anything in the armoury of argument, cries of mechanical 'antisemitism' frequently appear to be examples of the 'weaponization' of a concept. Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2024

"Weaponization of human rights" has 68 results on Google Scholar. Google search results is not RS. Mistamystery (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

What about “Misuse of antisemitism”?

”Misuse” seems to be used in several sources:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1ppr7c

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/apr/24/un-ihra-antisemitism-definition-israel-criticism

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/3/9/the-misuse-of-anti-semitism-wilhelm-marr/

https://mondoweiss.net/2022/08/anti-palestinianism-what-makes-the-misuse-of-antisemitism-possible/

https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/04/civil-society-groups-urge-un-not-to-adopt-working-definition-of-antisemitism-citing-misuse/

https://imemc.org/article/opinion-embracing-palestine-how-to-combat-israels-misuse-of-antisemitism/

https://www.ijvcanada.org/the-use-and-misuse-of-antisemitism-statistics-in-canada/ Wafflefrites (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A search for these alternatives - weaponization, instrumentalization, misuse - seems to suggest that the latter two don't really hold much of a candle to the first and current one. To the charge that somehow this term is POV, as opposed to just most prevalent, routine and NPOV, I would present this Jerusalem Post piece, which is by a former Harvard Hillel head. So if that kind of source, quoting a community leader, sees fit to use the term, what's the other 'POV'? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether the person is Jewish or not isn't the issue. There are two sides here plainly: those who view the invocation of antisemitism in arguments as either good faith or bad faith. Or appropriate or inappropriate. Or proper use or misuse. There is no indication that anyone deploying accusations of antisemitism in arguments are - by their own admission, awareness, or intent - "weaponizing" its use for the purpose of shutting down the otherwise. The weaponization argument only comes from the side that perceives the invocation of antisemitism to be inappropriate, excessive, or in bad faith.

That there is no standard terminology for this matter puts more onus on us to establish a foothold that will likely have outsize influence on a matter still in formation.

On these grounds, I still stand by "instrumentalization" because it cleanly lays out that there are discussions around the invocation and use of "antisemitism" as a rhetorical tool, without inching anywhere near pushing the perception that people are using accusations of antisemitism as a "weapon". Mistamystery (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An example from 1995, in which former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky explained how he and his former colleagues would weaponize antisemitism:

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

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The case of Pete McCloskey (particularly painful - he was a very decent politician) is mentioned in Mearsheimer and Walt's book on The Israel Lobby and the account, pp.182-183 makes it quite clear that outrageous charges are trumped up which turn out to be completely plucked out of the thin air. The word weaponization is not there, but most of the examples in that book underline that defaming by innuendoes of antisemitism is a default practice, from the ADF down, to intimidate and censure.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Quite right. Mistamystery's argument is a little like the reporter on Wednesday who suggested to Francesca Albanese that genocide cannot exist unless a government formally states that it is carrying out genocide: Stickings, Tim (2024-03-27). "UN investigator calls for sanctions and arms embargo against Israel". The National. Asked for proof of Israel's intent, she spoke of violent and dehumanising language by senior leaders that she said had "reverberated across the conduct of troops on the ground". "Do you think that in Rwanda and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, any government officials wrote a document saying 'I want to commit genocide'?" she asked...

The best comparator topic to this article remains race card. Mistamystery's argument would require examples of people stating: "I am now going to use the race card". Onceinawhile (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, except this phrase is not remotely idiomatic. "Playing the race card" has a 60+ year history in social discourse and colloquial use. "Weaponisation of antisemitism" appears in a grand total of 26 publications on google scholar. They don't remotely compare.

The phrase "weaponization of antisemitism" is effectively non-existent in academic discourse (and almost entirely reserved to partisan commentary) for us to be defending its use here as the primary representation of the matter at hand - which is the invocation and use of antisemitism in as a rhetorical tool in argumentation and debate.

There is no prevailing use or academic acceptance of this term to begin the conversation with "why should the title of the article *not* be weaponization of antisemitism" and we should reboot the conversation practically with "what is this article meant to cover and what is the appropriate term that covers the discourse" and then decide the language from there. Mistamystery (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to reboot this conversation, you could start by actually researching the topic. Just typing in the phrase is not going to get your a full and representative sample on the topic. There is, for example, a fullsome academic debate on just how the IHRA definition alone has been weaponized – all you need to do to discover this is use slightly smarter search terms. There are numerous RS news pieces in the same vein, including from The Nation: "How a Leading Definition of Antisemitism Has Been Weaponized Against Israel’s Critics" ... And from foreign policy think tanks such as the Carnegie Centre: "Weaponizing the Antisemitism Accusation" ... So, to emphasis: you also need to search for the word with an "ing" ending, et al, etc. The topic exists and is spoken of in common terms; it cannot be suggested otherwise. Nor is the scope somehow mysterious or unclear. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that Google Scholar results link. In your search regarding the IHRA, "weaponized" yields 56 results, while "instrumentalized" yields 90 results, so "instrumentalized" may be the description with more WEIGHT in that combination. Are there other Google Scholar searches that could yield comparisons to help us decide? Llll5032 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Be cautious though. I used weaponized together with IHRA because I noticed the IHRA case popping up frequently. If you just take that search and switch in "instrumentalization", if you look at the quoted sentences, the results appear more diffuse. Many appear to be referencing other either subtly or obviously off-topic things. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should consider context. Some of the sources in the 56 Scholar results you found for "weaponized" describe a "weaponized definition" regarding the IHRA, but that is a different wording versus this article title of "weaponization of antisemitism"; a definition is being called weaponized in those sources, not antisemitism itself. Other sources say there is antisemitic weaponizing by ISIS and Holocaust hate memes, resembling the meaning that I wrote about below.

We need neutral approaches for this divisive topic, so comparisons of Scholar results are constructive. Llll5032 (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Weaponization of the antisemitism definition is the same thing – let's not go down the route if pedantically quibbling otherwise. By off-topic I meant sources that cropped up in an instrumentalization + IHRA search, but said things like "[...] Palestinian cause instrumentalized transnational advocacy [...]". The usage is more diffuse and seems to fade out more quickly as you proceed through the pages of sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The topic here is only bad faith or suspected bad faith examples of the weaponization, instrumentalization or misuse of accusations of antisemitism for political or other purposes. Good faith usage isn't the other POV; it's not the topic. Either antisemitism is rightly called out as a civil rights and social issue, or, as is the topic here, it can be wrongly called out for ulterior motives. This topic comes from sources, such as the one provided above by Once, in contrast to what appears to be the entirely source-less bemoaning of the topic's name and scope. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I would support a change to either misuse or instrumentalization to comply better with WP:NDESC, which requires "Non-judgmental descriptive titles". "Weaponization of antisemitism" fails NDESC for at least two reasons: because the term's use in RS is scant (not even mentioned in many of this article's cited sources), and because "weaponization" is judgmental. "Weaponization of antisemitism" also fails NDESC for another reason, that it is not descriptive; the term, although used by some advocates, is missing the words "claims of" that would describe its meaning in plain English. In plain English, the Nazis weaponized antisemitism; this article aims to describe misuse of claims of antisemitism. Llll5032 (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No. You misuse the word.In recent usage, to ‘weaponise’ anything means to use anything in an argument or in order to persuade those you address, that is considered to be efficient in obtaining the desired end, of persuasion or influence. By definition then, you don’t have to believe Obama is an undercover Islamic believer of non-American descent when you allude to it; you don’t have to believe in Christian values, or the sanctity of life while constantly emphasizing their importance, etc. You weaponise those ideas to win over a constituency and get elected. The Nazis, to the contrary, fervently endorsed, were true believers in, all of the standard anti-Semitic memes. It informed the heart of their ideological worldview. So, when they both used anti-Semitic language and institutionalized the practice, they did so not cynically, not by ‘weaponizing’ a prejudice that was, to their minds, neither here nor there as a fact. They did so because it followed logically upon their visceral hatred of Jews. So much is this true that when authorities were told Jewish workers and technicians who would be valuable for the war industry, it did not affect the paramount goal of murdering them, whatever the collateral damage this might have had on their war economy.Nishidani (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Much as in a deletion discussion, it is incumbent upon editors discussing a page's name to actually look up the topic. That means looking beyond what's on page, as well as what get mentioned in talk by others. Who says there are "scant" RS mentions? I'll repeat a portion of what I posted above: There are numerous recent RS news pieces discussing weaponization in the context of the IHRA definition alone, including from The Nation: "How a Leading Definition of Antisemitism Has Been Weaponized Against Israel’s Critics" ... And from foreign policy think tanks such as the Carnegie Centre: "Weaponizing the Antisemitism Accusation". This nonsense about "scant" sources or RS has got to stop. Editors must either do their research and engage with the topic, or drop the stick (whatever it is) and move on to something else. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Even the sources you cite didn't use the title phrase of the article, "weaponization of antisemitism", but rather add other words ("a leading definition of"). Llll5032 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The title of this page is a descriptive title based on prevalent descriptions. If you're talking about The Nation and Carnegie, both clearly use formulations of the same language in their titles. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No, the title of the page should either use an exact formulation that is common in RS per WP:COMMONNAME, or use neutral plain language per WP:NDESC. Llll5032 (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No one has established a common name, but if one were to mull the prospect, it would be the current title, with 55k hits on google to 25k for misuse and 5k for instrumentalization. Neutrality in Wikipedia is also based on prevalence in reliable sourcing, and no one has demonstrated that the current title is not neutral. Its prevalence suggests that it is neutral, so it requires some evidence based on sources to assert otherwise. We've heard some personal opinions on the subject, but that's it. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DUEWEIGHT (see note c), we consider only prevalence in RS, so Google Scholar results are the better measure, not Google search. Llll5032 (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

True. It is nevertheless usefully indicative. By contrast, deferring to only scholar results would be an ivory tower approach. There are plenty of other RS to consider, including those noted above. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Even from Google search results (which we cannot use, but I will respond to your argument based on them), the phrase "weaponization of antisemitism" is very uncommon compared to "race card", which editors have compared it to. "Race card" has 2,550,000 hits. Llll5032 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC) 19:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

What's your point? Race card is a general topic, not the subject here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

What about “Political antisemitism”? This returned 106k Google scholar results for me https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,44&q=political+antisemitism Wafflefrites (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

“Politicization of antisemitism” returned 90k Google results for me Wafflefrites (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This is probably more of a parent topic comprising both political and ideological expressions of antisemitism (historical, 1930s, and contemporary) and the weaponization of antisemitism within political systems. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a different subject: the opposite topic in fact. Real antisemitism in politics, with some of the top examples being antisemitism in politics in England (1918-1939; i.e. Oswald Mosley et al.) and Hungary. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

How about: Exploitation of antisemitism accusations for political ends ? Mathglot (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Why push back against WP:CONCISE so entirely when a brief and widely used term already exists? This is some good explanatory phraseology to use in the first sentence, but why make the title do the job of the first sentence? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That's quite good, in effect adding a reason for weaponization, but why not just say (politicized) weaponization? Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I kinda of disagree with the majority in this discussion: "weaponization" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this concept. Which makes sense, because "weaponization" is a word in English that means, well, "exploited for the purpose of attacking a person or group, or for spreading discord" according to Oxford, which is exactly what the topic is. So, "weaponization of antisemitism" is both the language used in the scholarship to describe the concept, and the plain-English way to describe the concept. I don't think anyone is going to come up with a better title than this. And it's certainly NPOV. PS: you don't get far by googling (even Google Scholar) "weaponization of antisemitism" in quotes: you need to search for variations like "weaponize," "weaponized," and "used as a weapon," and "anti-Semitism," "anti-semitism," etc. But when it comes to the concept of people using accusations of antisemitism in order to attack critics of Israel or Zionism, that is called "weaponization of antisemitism." Similar, when people do the same with the Holocaust, that's called "weaponization of the Holocaust." Levivich (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Because the exact phrases "weaponization of antisemitism" or "weaponizing of antisemitism" are rare in RS, even in sources attributing the usage to advocates, those exact phrases are not a WP:COMMONNAME. (I am aware that you did not argue that they are, but the point still needs some emphasizing.) I agree that the next question is whether "weaponization of antisemitism" or other titles are NPOV, so perhaps discussions could cite WP:NDESC and WP:VOICE. Llll5032 (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

"Exact phrase" is irrelevant. When scholars talk about:

• "weaponization of antisemitism"
• "antisemitism being weaponized"
• "weaponizing antisemitism"
• "using antisemitism as a weapon"
• "weaponize antisemitism"

all of those are talking about the same thing. To argue that one of those is different from the other is nonsense. And those phrases are not rare in the RS. Any one of them might be but not all of them together (plus other variations like "anti-Semitism" or "weaponisation"). Levivich (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps counts of these variations on Google Scholar could be compared with counts of equivalent variations of phrasing from the other title proposals. Llll5032 (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually no, using "antisemitism as a weapon"(JSTOR) in almost all sources on JSTOR and Google Scholar is in reference to countries and parties *deploying* antisemitism in a weaponized fashion toward Jews.

There are no grounds to squarely define "weaponization of antisemitism" as only in reference to "playing the antisemitism card" - that is only one potential definition among what it appears are a number of diverse categories regarding the political or polemical invocation of antisemitism.

Either the lede need be rewritten to be inclusive of all RS-established uses of the term (of which the "card playing" version may be listed as one), or the article renamed.

On that front, on further research, there are just as many scholarly articles using "Politicization of Antisemitism" as there are using "Weaponization of Antisemitism" (but should still be noted that - at 25/28 each - neither phrase has reached common use in any legitimately accepted regard). This may provide a more pleasant first choice than those who thought "Instrumentalization" too antiseptic. Mistamystery (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Common usage is not a requirement for this article, common sense is. We have a perfectly clear descriptive title and everyone knows what it means. Selfstudier (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Everyone does not know what it means, because the current title is perfectly descriptive and perfectly clear about the wrong thing. Antisemitism is an attitude. "Weaponizing antisemitism" very clearly and unambiguously means (to re-use someone else's example) something like Nazism. The current title does not in any sense mean what you think it means, or what it is intended to mean. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That's just confusing the weaponization of antisemitism with straight-up antisemitism. Those that are antisemitic are just referred to as being antisemitic. In the context of politics, another phrase is political antisemitism. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Experiment: Imagine that there is an article called "Antisemitic jokes". How many people will already know that it means "Jokes told by Jews about antisemitic people"? TooManyFingers (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If there's going to be an article with precisely this scope I don't have a strong opinion about what it's called, but it was a little surprising to learn that we have this article but no general article on e.g. "scope of antisemitism", "dispute over definitions of antisemitism", or something similar. There's working definition of antisemitism, but that's about something very specific. If someone were to create one of those broader-scope articles, I'd support a merge from this subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Excellent tertiary sources and scholarship have explored the scope of such controversies. Llll5032 (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• From the start I have thought that a more correct title would be something like "Weaponization of antisemitism accusations", since it is not the antisemitism that becomes the weapon but the accusation. I know there are sources that don't agree with me on this but I see that as careless writing rather than a genuine difference in intention. Zero^talk 06:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  That might indeed be one way of out of the current imbroglio. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm fine with that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Idem Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Poll

Now that there's been pretty healthy debate with a number of potential options, would like to conduct an informal poll on where engaged editors stand. Tried to be thorough going back to the original RM. Apologies if I missed anyone's suggestion.

It's a long list (to start), but I'd say that's reflective of a diverse and robust conversation thus far.

If a clear answer emerges here, perhaps that will be our compass point on how to resolve the matter. If not, hopefully, some top candidates may emerge so we can conduct a more manageable RM:

I - Alternate Titles Currently Listed in Lede

Option 1: Instrumentalization of antisemitism

Option 2: Playing the antisemitism card

II - Alternate titles proposed in talk page discussion

Option 3: Politicization of antisemitism

Option 4: Political use of antisemitism

Option 5: Bad faith charges of antisemitism

Option 6: Disputed antisemitism allegations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Option 7: Use of antisemitism claims for political purposes / Exploitation of antisemitism accusations for political ends

Option 8: Misuse of antisemitism

Option 9: Political antisemitism

Option 10: Politicized weaponization of antisemitism

Option 11: Scope of antisemitism

Option 12: Weaponization of antisemitism accusations

Option 13: Dispute over definitions of antisemitism

III - Adjustment or preservation of current article title

Option 14: “Weaponization of antisemitsm”, with lede and article direction revised to reflect general instrumentalization of antisemitism in public and political discourse

Option 15: “Weaponization of antisemitism”, with lede and article direction unchanged

IV - undiscussed options

Option 16: Other proposed names

Mistamystery (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

To kick this off, my preferences:

Option 1: Instrumentalization of antisemitism

Option 3: Politicization of antisemitism

Option 4: Political use of antisemitism

Justification is pretty clear: “Politicization of antisemitism” currently exists just as many times in academic discourse as “weaponization”, except “weaponization” slash “antisemitism as a weapon” is heavily split between contemporary and historic definitions. Both uses, however, are political in nature, cover both use, and the “politicization” term is already present in scholarly circles.

Mistamystery (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't need a poll, especially one with a mini mountain of choices, especially when there is already a semi agreement in the previous section. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

16 options above from 16+ people. Your semi-agreement has four thus far and is noted. Let's let everyone chime in in a more organized fashion that's easier to survey. Mistamystery (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't need this, it's a waste of time, if you want to put up an RM, then do that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Disputes over antisemitism definitions is my leading choice, because it complies with WP:NDESC, encompasses the content in this article, and could include much high quality scholarship that does not fit under a POV title.

Disputes over antisemitism accusations would be a neutral title if editors prefer to keep the focus on accusations.

Some of the other options above are improvements over the current title that I would support. Llll5032 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You can say that in the RM discussion below just as well as here. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry but this is destined to be a train wreck. Here's my take, expanding on what I wrote above: There are two topics within these titles, not one. The first is the current scope of this article: When antisemitism accusations are exploited for political purposes. Whether that's instrumentalization, politicization, weaponization, or whatever, it's the same subject. The other subject is more about disputes over the scope/definition of antisemitism and its relationship to anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel. Conceptually, the former is a subtopic of the latter. My hunch is a simple WP:RM discussion won't be sufficient to change the scope of the article, so the real question is whether (A) there should be an RfC asking "should the scope of this article be changed to encompass disputes over the definition/scope of antisemitism and its relationship to anti-zionism and criticism of Israel", with the possibility of someone creating a separate article on the broader topic if that fails; or (B) someone should just create something like scope of antisemitism, include a summary of this article, and address this article by way of a proposed merger once the new article is sufficiently well developed. Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  I would go further on these grounds and make clear, simply: when antisemitism is exploited for political purposes.

  That is all encompassing of both working definitions that invoke the “weaponization” argument, hence why I support the “politicization of” options most.

  That said I don’t think this is meant to be a train wreck. There’s been a healthy conversation about potential article titles (and scope), and would be nice to have everyone chime in in a much clearer forum than the lengthy discussion above. Mistamystery (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  a much clearer forum Aka an RM or an RFC, rather than source free speechifying. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because there may be some consensus to change the title, but disagreement about what a new title should be, I view the discussion as constructive for choosing a next RM. Llll5032 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  There is already an RM running and in previous discussions over the title, dissenting editors chose not to put up an RM when asked. Much better to express a view in the currently running RM than expressing an intent to open a new one before an existing one has even closed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 / 3 / 5 - I'm ok with these options, with Option 5 being the best in my view. Option 2 is too informal for an encyclopedia. Option 4 has a double-meaning and should be removed. Marokwitz (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2024

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)

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

• 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: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. 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 [9] 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 [10] or “weaponized”.[11] 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)

Adding POV and POV LEDE tags

Per conversations here, and here, there are numerous indications this article may have fundamental POV issues - specifically WP:BIASED. WP:POVNAME, WP:NDESC, WP:NEO, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:VOICE, WP;OR and WP:POVTITLE, among others - in both article title as well as lede - that require address.

Firstly, "Weaponization of Antisemitism" in scholarly sources does not squarely refer to what is described in the lede (and in half of cases, is merely citing accusations and supposition in activistic discourse) The insistence that the description of the lede is the *only* meaning is an effective steamrolling of pre-existing discourse and terminology that pre-dates the definition that this article's creator (and principal contributor) insists it is.

The traditional academic usage of variations of the phrase (particularly "antisemitism as a weapon"), refers to the historical use of antisemitism as a tool of intimidation and oppression against Jews by antagonstic parties and governments.

And while more modern usage has tilted toward good/bad faith accusations in discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is fundamentally an activist accusation by one side of a conflict that feels - whether valid or not - that accusations of antisemitism are being used as a tool to suppress criticism. Invocation of the phrase is almost entirely on partisan grounds, and it has found little to no neutral adoption by either neutral RS or in the scholarly/academic community.

This is naturally connected to the recent renaming, informal poll, and RM conversations, but edits should be undertaken asap to rectify these issues, especially in the lede and body/structure of the article so long as the article's current title remains.

At the very minimum, the lede should be re-written to an umbrella that more generally covers matters surrounding the invocation and instrumentalization of antisemitism in public and political discourse, whether it be "weaponization" of antisemitic tropes against Jewish populations for the purposes of intimidation and violence, *or* supposed "weaponization" of antisemitism accusations by pro-Israel advocates for the purpose of stifling discourse and critique of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or any other instances or contexts in which antisemitism has been "wielded" for purposes of influence. Mistamystery (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

More pointless tagging, we have already had these discussions on multiple occasions, see Tagging in the archives, They led to nothing then and that is where it will lead now.

And two neutrality tags for the same article are unnecessary so I removed the duplicated one. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say with this wall of text. Can you please provide specific and concise bullet points and examples quoting in the article what you believe to be biased information/phrasing? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Mistamystery wants to expand the page content to include entirely different things from what the page is about. Page content is defined by the lead, not by semantic dissection of the title. The stuff MM wants to include is properly served by antisemitism and the many other articles on antisemitism and doesn't belong here. The correct response is to change the title to match the lead better, not to dilute the content by inserting irrelevancies on the grounds that they just happen to use the same two words. Zero^talk 14:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This is fundamentally a WP:OR and WP:OWNERSHIP concern. This page is principally the authorship of a single editor, and they do not get to decide what a phrase (whose use significantly precedes the definition this page currently insists it solely is) only means just because they flooded the edit with content backing up only one of the interpretations in use before anyone else could come in and insist on a balanced approach. Mistamystery (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

This is fundamentally a WP:OR and WP:OWNERSHIP concern No-one owns the page and the creator is not even editing that much, what this is about is saying anything at all to try and force through an agenda without any consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia creates articles about encyclopedically worthy topics; it does not create entries on terms. If a term can refer to two different topics, it needs disambiguating in a titular context. Trying to make the term the topic and having a page about multiple ambiguous meanings is the opposite of the purpose here. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, tags should be added. Zanahary (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see some more useless tags have again been added, presumably trying to set some sort of record for the most tags added to an article in the shortest space of time since creation. Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"Israeli historian Benny Morris described John Bagot Glubb as an early example of a tendency to brand critics of the Israeli government as antisemitic." This one being particularly useless. Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed. And "sic" tags are used to indicate that an error is in the original, not to indicate that some editor doesn't like a common spelling. Zero^talk 01:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that's useless. Whose tendency? Not Glubb's. And please be civil. Zanahary (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop calling other editors "useless" Selfstudier. Whose tendency is Morris talking about? If it's obvious, just insert it and remove the tag; if it's not obvious, maybe the sentence is problematic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't call another editor useless, I called their edits useless, deservedly so. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Making an effort to address tags and achieve a consensus usually improves an article. Llll5032 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

True. And adding useless tags usually wastes the time of everyone. Zero^talk 09:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The tags are not useless in my view; they reflect to our readers, the fact that there is currently an unresolved neutrality dispute. Marokwitz (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The complaint is about the title and always has been, (un)fortunately there isn't a tag for that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The complaint is about both the title as well as an inappropriately narrow and exclusionary article scope in the lede. There are two separate issues here, which is why there were two tags placed. Mistamystery (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Both covering neutrality, ie one useless so removed. There are no tags for titles, one does an RM in that case. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we really have to go through this rigmarole every time a page is created that some users pretty clearly JDL? And here when there is already an RM in the works to rectify the perceived issue? It is very hard to assume good faith when the attempt to obscure rather than clarify the topic is so painfully obvious. What is the community meant to make of this other than to see it as gratuitous, possibly POV-led time-wasting? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

JDL? Mistamystery (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IJDLI Zanahary (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Related discussion

Talk:Antisemitism#POV tag: discussion regarding contemporary antisemitism and weaponization of antisemitism Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Lede Redraft

Proposing the following as a first go on rewriting the lede to address neutrality and accuracy concerns:

Antisemitism has a long and varied history of exploitation for political purposes. Described variously as weaponization of antisemitism, instrumentalization of antisemitism, and politicization of antisemitism, the invocation of antisemitism in political discourse has taken many shapes.

Accusations of wielding antisemitism as a "weapon" first enter discourse in the description of varying entities (ranging from individuals, to political parties, to governments) utilizing antisemitic tropes and messaging as a means to encourage hostility towards Jews.

More recently, the phrase alternately come into use to describe accusations of bad faith invocation of antisemitism in discourse and debate, particularly as a means to counter criticism of Israel.''

This would be followed by creation and retitling of applicable sections. Mistamystery (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Mistamystery, can you add sources for each of the claims in those sentences? Llll5032 (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Putting this in the middle of the discussion makes this section very confusing. To answer this proposal, no we should not change the page topic to include stuff on a different topic. Said editor should write a new article on the other topic if it isn't adequately covered. Zero^talk 01:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not know if the best RS say what Mista wrote above, but if they do, then they could be added the article in some way. Llll5032 (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they do. But I like the idea of rewriting based on best sources, one of which is the Waxman et. al. paper we cite. I don't think op-eds levying the accusation of weaponization in specific contexts should even be considered for the lede when we have a source like that at our disposal. Zanahary (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not a different topic. The topic is "weaponization of antisemitism" and so long as this article retains its title, its subject coverage must be larger than the article currently defines. RS coming shortly into proposed lede re-draft. Mistamystery (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Lol, back to bitchin about the title again, there is an RM in progress and you have indicated that you oppose the proposed title, without indicating an alternative.

Oppose arbitrary attempts to change the scope to match some imagined view of what weaponization of antisemitism (accusations) means. Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Number one, language, or happy to notify admins if you think I’m being overly sensitive.

Number two, there was a lengthy process involving the entirety of the board to work our way toward a new article title that was hijacked by a premature RM. I have noted my preferences in the poll, and indicated in the RM that my alternatives exist there.

Number three, not remotely arbitrary. The title in its current scope of use is pure POVTITLE. This has been brought up since the moment article was created, and is now finally being addressed. Stick to the points and make your arguments, not ad hominem attacks. Mistamystery (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Trust you are not expecting any serious response to that verbiage. Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. No case has been made for changing the topic of the article. None. What has been presented in place of a valid argument is the fact that some people have used similar words for a different phenomenon. So apparently every time we see an article whose title can be read in another way we must modify the content of the article to cover both readings. I can show you a source in which "United States" means United States of Indonesia — does that mean it is ok to include Indonesia in United States? This is nonsense and this faux logic has to stop. Titles are too short to unambiguously define an article topic in all cases, which is why we rely on article leads to clarify the topic precisely. The solution if the title doesn't match the content well enough is to fix the title, not to weaponize the alleged ambiguity to add irrelevant content. This talk about "using the best sources" is also a crock, as the sources being referred to are sources about something completely different which is already served by multiple articles. Zero^talk 07:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Incorrect, as per links provided in here, case for changing the scope of the article to more accurately match academic and RS discourse surrounding “weaponization” of antisemitism have been brought up almost as long as this article has been in existence. The lede is OR grab bag by one user and is not reflective of any form of scholarly or RS consensus of use, when there is significant preceding academic use in other forms. Mistamystery (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  You found links for a different topic. So what? "Antisemitism as a weapon" is almost the opposite of "weaponization of antisemitism" as it is meant here. Go somewhere else and write an article on "antisemitism as a weapon". I cannot see the slightest merit in your argument. Zero^talk 15:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Many Wikipedia articles include alternate definitions and disambiguations for ambiguous phrases. So an effort to describe those somewhere in the article could be constructive, even if it did not lead to this rewrite. Llll5032 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  If the title were ambiguous, there would be a disambiguation page but since it isn't, there isn't. To the extent that there might, sources notwithstanding, be an ambiguity, the current RM resolves it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not aware of "significant preceding academic use" being presented anywhere in this discussion – only some very incidental and clearly off-topic usage. And, as stated, the attempt to blend topics simply because they have convergent language is the exact opposite of the actual process by which one first identifies and then names a topic. I see only two potential reasons for this. One is genuine misunderstanding about how topics are identified or outlined. That is the AGF option. The second is that what we are seeing here is an intentional effort to take what is a clearly outlined, but somewhat onerous topic, and – out of dislike – attempt to dilute it with some random irrelevance from yester-century. This is much harder indeed to interpret as GF. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

References