Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cartoons

Re-adding advocacy cartoons has no consensus here, so I reverted the recent addition. Llll5032 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032: please explain your reason for the removal of the images. There has been no prior discussion of the images in this article, so I do not understand what your reference to consensus is intended to suggest. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile, you included a Latuff advocacy cartoon when you created this article, but I removed it in January, citing WEIGHT. WP:WEIGHT says: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." Why did you try now to add more of his advocacy cartoons after a prior edit had removed one, and after the Sources discussion, in which you participated, did not gain consensus for including advocacy sources? The ONUS is on you to gain consensus for inclusion. Llll5032 (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:Weight doesn’t allow an editor to reduce an element of the article down to zero. It is about balance, so I suggest you resolve your concern about weight by bringing other images. In the absence of that would you need to explain why either:

• you think this article is better for our readers when devoid of images, or
• you think the chosen images are somehow misleading or not relevant

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no source establishing that the due weight for these advocacy cartoons is above zero. Onus is on you Zanahary (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

On that logic we should remove every image in Wikipedia’s almost 7 million articles. If you disagree, please provide a "source establishing that the due weight for [any other image in any other article] is above zero". Onceinawhile (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Image selection needs to be guided by WP:BESTSOURCES, just like text. Llll5032 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Specify the problem with each or all of the images. Atm, just seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT Latuff afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No WP:BESTSOURCES support them. You mentioned WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but WP:ILIKEIT is in the same essay; neither argument should be used, and see WP:ONUS and WP:DUEWEIGHT note c. Llll5032 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with the source? Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

What does an 'advocacy cartoon' refer to, apart from the function of attaching an adjectival-substantive to anything one dislikes to invalidate its use as non-neutral? The first cartoon is as pithy a summation of a lot of windy arguments over the extreme contradictoriness of antisemitic definitions as one could get.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:NOTOPINION are policies; pith is optional. Llll5032 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It would support the removal of political cartoons with no established notability, yes. Zanahary (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Those aren't reasons for removal, images don't need to be either neutral or notable. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Other relevant policies against using such matter are WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTOPINION. Llll5032 (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

What are the images advocating? And what opinion are they opining? Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Still waiting for a coherent argument against any of the images. Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

In the absence of any valid argument against and a majority of editors disagreeing, I reverted the images back in. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, please self-revert and discuss the question by citing policies instead. Please note WP:DETCON: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." How do the political cartoons merit inclusion per policy? Are you arguing that the political cartoonist Carlos Latuff, whose cartoons you re-added, is a reliable source, or can you cite some other policy? Llll5032 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I am here to engage in discussion about what policies mean for these images, not to discuss a list of policies and no valid arguments for removal other than citing a policy. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you arguing that Carlos Latuff is not an opinionated source? Llll5032 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No. I am asking you why the author of these images having an opinion disqualifies the use of the images. If opinionated means biased, so what? That doesn't disqualify a source. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Being opinionated may not disqualify a source if WP:RSN decides it is reliable, but do you think that the cartoonist at issue, Carlos Latuff, meets the normal requirements for reliable sources? Llll5032 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Normal requirements? The question is not whether he is reliable as an author, but is he reliable for the images? And you still have not answered my earlier question, what do each of the images actually say? Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There need to be relevant and high-quality reliable sources for inclusion in this article. If you think that WP:ABOUTSELF is a loophole, then consult WP:ABOUTSELF #2 and #3. Llll5032 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to consult anything here. What is required is an explanation of why these sources need to be removed. Afaics, they come from a notable source, Carlos Latuff, and they are relevant to the article because they cover weaponization of antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you read note c in WP:DUEWEIGHT? Llll5032 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Still waiting for an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Emphasis by WP:BESTSOURCES, not notability, is needed to satisfy WP:DUEWEIGHT for inclusion of such content. Where is it? Llll5032 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Where is your argument? Why do these images not satisfy policy? Citing this policy or that policy with no argument is not an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Latuff is known for his POV. To satisfy WP:NPOV for highlighting his political cartoons in this article, they would need to be emphasized by the best reliable sources discussing the topic, but they are not. Also, the cartoons would need to be discussed in the context that any of those RS used in relation to them and this subject, if they existed. Llll5032 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

We are not disagreeing that Latuff has a POV, I reiterate bias does not disqualify a source. Political cartoons? the best reliable sources discussing the topic What topic? What context? Look, this isn't a game of I show you my WP something and a response of WP something else, there needs to be a sensible argument against these images and so far, I haven't seen one. it appears that you are arguing that an RS has to discuss the specific images? Why? Many (most?) images on WP are not so discussed? Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Most images on Wikipedia are not POV political cartoons, so the comparison does not fit. Can you cite any policies that directly support your view that Latuff's cartoons should be displayed in this article? Llll5032 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The decision whether to include/exclude requires WP:CONSENSUS and currently, we have it. I am done with this discussion unless something changes. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is needed to include, per WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." If there is no consensus, then we exclude. Llll5032 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

We have consensus, 3 to 2. The same 2, I might add, that have been opposing nearly everything about this article since the beginning. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Is a 3-2 headcount you made from half a day of discussion, which included yourself and the editor who added the disputed content, considered a consensus for inclusion? If you respond, then please cite policy. Llll5032 (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It means that the 2 have not made a sufficient argument for exclusion based on WP policies. But by all means do keep pointing me to policies that you believe do that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Because there has been no persuasion, per WP:ONUS the POV cartoons should be removed immediately if re-inclusion loses its bare majority in this discussion. Perhaps other editors are aware of other relevant guidelines for consensus. It would be a sign of good faith if the cartoons were removed while a noticeboard is consulted or a RFC is made. Llll5032 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

What would be a sign of good faith is if you would cease in your efforts to exclude these images until you have achieved a consensus for that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Llll5032, please could you explain your specific POV concerns with each of the cartoons? All I can see above is a faulty generalization that because of the apparent POV of the cartoonist, all his cartoons must represent that same POV. You have suggested removing four cartoons - please explain your concerns with each of the four the images individually, in the context of the topic of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. The cartoons are interpreting the content in the article, but they are not a RS, so they do not belong in the article unless they themselves were described in depth by secondary or tertiary WP:BESTSOURCES regarding the subject of the article. Per WP:QUESTIONABLE, "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." No specifics on any of the cartoons are necessary. The same rules would apply to political cartoons expressing a different POV. Llll5032 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

So you are unable or unwilling to explain what POV you believe the cartoons express? Onceinawhile (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The political cartoonist's article describes him, so I am confused about why you are pursuing the line of questioning. We summarize what RS say, not characterize topics ourselves. If a source that interprets the subject of an article is not a RS, then its use in the encyclopedia is very limited, no matter the POV. The WP:DUEWEIGHT policy also makes clear that it applies to images. If there is no RS, then there is no weight for inclusion. Llll5032 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The argument that an image has to be a reliable source is nonsense, unless the image is cited as a source for something in the text of the article. The only relevance of WP:RS is that the image has to be reliably sourced, something I don't see challenged here. Images like this express an opinion on the topic, so I think the person giving the opinion (the cartoonist) needs attribution by way of a caption. There isn't an essential difference between this and an opinion cited from a textual source. Zero^talk 05:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not know of any policy that encourages the use of opinions from non-RS. Llll5032 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I strongly object to the inclusion of these cartoons in a gallery, especially with no contextual explanation. What are they meant to be doing here? In my view they are racist cartoons, by someone who once won a Holocaust denial cartoon competition, that make the argument that allegations of antisemitism are always made in bad faith. It's not encyclopedic to illustrate an article in this way. This article is already deeply un-encylopedic and this makes it worse. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree on all points. Zanahary (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

1) Assume the "Holocaust denial cartoon competition" refers to International Holocaust Cartoon Competition (in turn spoofed by the Israeli antisemitic cartoons contest), in which Latuff won a second prize in 2006. Is there some relevant criticism of that I am not aware of?

2) Please explain how the cartoons are racist?

3) If the article is "deeply" unencyclopedic, please explain how exactly, so that the concern can be addressed. We have already been around the noticeboards on this, the multiple tags referred to above, of which there were about 10 tagbombed on the article at one stage, have been dealt with as well, so I am not really that clear what the problem might be. Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I disagree with the characterizations in 3). Most of the tags were explained in metadata and talk page as required, but you were one of the editors who removed some of them before they could be addressed by the process that WP:WNTRMT requires. (Some, but not most, of those tags were mine.) The neutrality template and some of the tags should be restored for as long as there are good-faith disputes based on policy and no consensus about those elements of the article. The article has been mentioned at NORN and one source at RSN, leading to productive discussions, but no other noticeboards have been consulted. A number of editors at this talk page and at the noticeboards have said that the article name should change to address various policy requirements, which could receive a consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Re 2: There is a whole section on "Allegations of antisemitism" in the Carlos Latuff article, where several antisemitism experts explain it. These particular ones are essentially denying the existence of all antisemitism, which is a morally abhorrent position to take. They are similar to Ben Garrison, John Trevor, Gary McCoy, John Cole cartoons that accuse black people of playing the race card; I can't imagine we'd use them in Wikipedia. To quote Nesrine Malik, "As the author Nels Abbey pointed out this week, accusing a black person of “playing the race card” when they speak about racism is intended to silence, threaten or “shame someone into not mentioning the obvious racism they’re being subjected to”." That's what Latuff is doing to Jews, in a very crude way. We're an encyclopedia; not an opinion outlet, so let's not make our articles more polemical and provocative. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

These particular ones are essentially denying the existence of all antisemitism Says who? Please show me any source that says Latuff is a racist, as you have now implied twice. Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It is my personal view that that is what these cartoons are doing. I’m not saying we should say that in the article (for which we’d need a source); the article isn’t about them so why should we? I’ve already given a link to a whole sourced article section on allegations of antisemitism against Latuff (antisemitism being a form of racism). BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Re 3: I think I already have. It's about a term that there is no consensus definition for, with lots of opinion pieces and some contentious academic analysis cited as primary sources without secondary sources, that appear to be cherrypicked to support a POV. Editors with a different POV have now balanced them with counter-sources that make the opposite point. I don't think it's ever going to be a decent WP article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is already a decent article and will get better despite all the obstruction. If anyone wants a different title, then put up an RM. If anyone wants to put up an RFC about anything else, feel free. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Since Latuff seems to "borrow" much of his visual language from artists like Udo Keppler, Frank A. Nankivell and many others, is it helpful to examine the use of their advocacy/propaganda/political cartoons in Wikipedia in articles like Standard Oil, Article One of the United States Constitution and so on? Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would support citations to secondary RS in the captions in those articles, per WP:PST. Llll5032 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Good point Sean.hoyland We need to be clear why we would use such cartoons.

  If we are illustrating the way conspiracy theories or racism operated at particular moments relevant to the articles, we need to say that. If we are actually illustrating the thing the article is about, then using satire and parody in general is problematic, and using racist satire and parody is doubly so. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  A further evidence-free assertion of "racist". Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would have thought that an RS is required to say that an image is an example of or illustrates etc. the weaponization of antisemitism. It's all subjective I guess but I assume it has to be someone else's subjective assessment, someone in RS-world, not us. The attributes editors/readers might assign to the image, that it's racist/not racist, what it is trying to portray etc. don't seem relevant to inclusion/exclusion decisions to me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  The cartoons and their author are both sources. The author is notable and reliable for his own work. Asking that a third party explain the cartoon is ridiculous. The main point of a cartoon is that it is self explanatory and these are pretty obvious. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps that justification is obvious to you, but WP:ABOUTSELF #2 and #3 and WP:QUESTIONED lead to a different conclusion. Llll5032 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  WP:IDONTLIKEIT again. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  The cartoons and their author are both sources for what? Latuff may be a reliable source on himself, but this article is not about him. He’s emphatically not a reliable source on debates about racism. He may be notable, but that doesn’t mean he’s noteworthy here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  The main point on the question of these images is to ensure we are not holding ourselves to a standard which is not consistent with community consensus across the rest of this project. Take the various cartoons in the article Racism, for example. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Conceptual issue

This article has a problem of taking a common phrase that is found in lots of sources (mostly opinion sources) and 1. reifying it (the way making an article for "acting like a baby" based on sources that employ the phrase rhetorically would be inappropriately reifying a concept), and 2. including in the article information about the conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, or about accusations of antisemitism in discussions of Israel. If that's the scope of the article, then it should be called "Conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism", or "accusations of antisemitism in criticism of Israel" or something similar. Sources that do not even mention "weaponizing antisemitism" are being used here. Zanahary (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This is why we can't find a source for whatever opening/defining sentence we come up with: there are not reliable sources describing any such phenomenon as the weaponization of antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no rule, and there can't be a rule, that the exact phrase used in an article title must be used in a source before the source is allowed. Once the scope of the article is defined in the lead, any reliable source lying within that scope is ripe for mining. That said, I see in the very first sentence two sources that use "weaponization of antisemitism" and three that use "instrumentalisation of antisemitism". Zero^talk 04:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Limiting sources to RS that include the titular phrase would be an improvement (per WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK). Llll5032 (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that most sources that use the titular phrase just employ it rhetorically as a charge; they don't purport to be describing a phenomenon. Most of the sources covering it as a phenomenon are the critical ones describing rhetorical formulations, to which the Conceptual issues section is sourced.

But yes, I agree with you: sources that never mention "weaponization of antisemitism" nor "instrumentalization of antisemitism", and especially which never even mention bad-faith charges of antisemitism, cannot be included in this article. Zanahary (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

So the article United States is not allowed to use sources that only refer to the place as "America"? Sorry, but you can't just make up policy, see WP:NDESC. Zero^talk 07:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There are lots of sources that describe the United States and list America as another name for it. There are no sources that describe the weaponization of antisemitism and list the instrumentalization of antisemitism as another name for it. That's an idea that comes from originally identifying a common critique in multiple sources and combining their verbiages into a concept. Zanahary (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Strawman. When the scope is properly defined, reliable sources in that scope are permitted. "In that scope" doesn't mean "using those particular words", and there is no policy basis for that position. Zero^talk 08:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

What strawman are you referring to? And the issue of the scope's lack of definition is part of what I'm saying: this article is a WP:COATRACK that is mostly sourced to articles that are examples of a rhetorical trope, and are not about the "weaponization of antisemitism". Zanahary (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the scope? Is it charges of antisemitism used in bad-faith to silence criticism of Israel? Is it any bad-faith employment of the charge of antisemitism? Is it defining anti-Zionism as antisemitism? Is it the existence of claims of antisemitism in relation to criticisms of Israel and Zionism? Zanahary (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the scope is very well defined. I think the earliest sentences can use some thought and clarification. I also think the title is subtly wrong, as it isn't antisemitism that is weaponised but charges of antisemitism that are weaponised. I think the article should be restricted to charges of antisemitism used to silence criticism of Israel; "bad-faith" is problematic except in attributed opinion since we can't claim it in wikivoice. Then any reliable sources about charges of antisemitism used to silence criticism of Israel become admissible. Zero^talk 07:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is ref 5 tagged failed verification? Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The source does not define weaponization of antisemitism as the making of false charges of antisemitism Zanahary (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It does though, it describes the false charges and then refers to them as "This weaponizing of antisemitism---"· So kindly remove the misplaced tag.

"Increasingly, however, those canards coexist with right-wing actors — above all those in power — increasingly labeling Jews as perpetual victims who must be protected, even as these same actors invoke well-worn antisemitic tropes elsewhere. By and large, these charges of antisemitism — especially as they relate to Israel — are made in order to gain political currency, even if the controversy at hand has no bearing on actual threats to Jews. Using the antisemitism label so vaguely and liberally not only stunts free speech, but also makes actual threats to Jewish people harder to identify and combat. This weaponizing of antisemitism is not only “cancelling” Palestinian rights advocates and failing to make Jews any safer; it’s also using Jews to cancel others." Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't—it's an opinion piece that describes a phenomenon and the rhetorically labels it "this weaponization of antisemitism". This does not mean that the phenomenon described is the definition of the phrase "weaponization of antisemitism"—it means that the author finds the things described to fall under the category of "weaponization of antisemitism". Using it for a definition is like using an opinion piece that says "Republicans claim to want free speech, but suppress it. This hypocrisy is harmful." to define hypocrisy in its article's opening sentence as "Republicans claiming to want free speech, but suppressing it". Zanahary (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Poppycock, there is a dictionary somewhere with a definition in it? Show me. Selfstudier (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Editors at RSN appear ambivalent about citing +972 except for opinions, so should another source be found for the Wikivoice in the first sentence? Llll5032 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Ping to @Selfstudier Llll5032 (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I added BSN tags for Wikivoice because of the problems at RSN; see the 3 citations above. Llll5032 (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

No Selfstudier, you need to show it to us—you need high-quality sourcing for definitions of concepts. The cited source is not one; hence the tag. Zanahary (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

No need to show anything other than what I have shown already, phrases don't have definitions other than the meaning given to them by reliable sources. Asking for a definition of a phrase is just kicking up dust and hoping it will cause blindness. Fail. Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Asking for a definition of a phrase is step one to writing an encyclopedia entry. If you can't find a reliable source to support your answer, then

Fail.

Zanahary (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Which policy is that? Selfstudier (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Try WP:VERIFIABILITY. Read WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, too. You must find a source that defines weaponization of antisemitism if you want to source the article's definition of weaponization of antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, then see my comment below already. And then explain the OR tag? How is providing a source OR? Selfstudier (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's OR, or maybe rather synthesis, to combine various verbiages used rhetorically, and determine the concept to be one united concept that is referred to by the two established names weaponization and instrumentalization. It's COATRACKy. Zanahary (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are asserting that the article fails V, then put up an RFC asking whether the article complies with V and then we will see. Otherwise.. Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a discussion of a failed verification tag. I don't need to initiate an RFC to place a failed verification tag. Zanahary (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You just alleged failure of V above. If you can't back that up, remove the tag. Or never mind, I am not going to respond anymore to obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT nonsense. Selfstudier (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have backed it up: the source does not establish any such definition of weaponization of antisemitism. See my hypocrisy analogy. Zanahary (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This is getting a bit heated and editors might want to take a breath. But I am sympathetic to points raised by Zanahary and Llll5032: almost all of the sources cited here are opinion pieces, used as sources for the opinions therein. There is no discernable criteria for why these opinions are noteworthy. No secondary sources are cited to show that they are noteworthy. Similarly, when general statements are made ("it has been argued that X" type statements, as in the lead), the citations supporting them are examples of such arguments, not reportage or analysis describing such arguments being made by others. This basically means the article is an extended piece of original research. Are there any strong secondary sources or tertiary sources weighing up the opinions here? If not, I think we have fatal problems. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

the citations supporting them are examples of such arguments, not reportage or analysis describing such arguments being made by others. This basically means the article is an extended piece of original research.

I couldn't agree more. As for reliable tertiary sources covering the argument/rhetoric etc., David Hirsh and David Schraub both have some cited in the conceptual disputes section, but that relates to the charge of playing the Jew card, not to any weaponized charges themselves. Zanahary (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Mersheimer and Walt also describe "playing the anti-Semitism [sic] card" as a source covering the rhetoric. Zanahary (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The editing on this article over the last few weeks has been unacceptable. What was once a cohesive article is now a complete mess. There is no longer any discernible logic to the flow. Large parts of the structure have been removed, and many sources have been removed. It is impossible to have a collaborative discussion about the scope / concept with this kind of editing. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The first step is to realise that this is not an article about a phrase. It is an article about a widespread practice that is mentioned by countless sources. That's why I am entirely unconvinced by much of the argument here that focuses on the phrase. Zero^talk 00:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of this article's sources are opinion pieces that raise a rhetorical charge of making bad-faith accusations of antisemitism. The phrase matters because it reifies this concept as something named when really, looking at how the article is sourced, it's more like a common thematic thread in opinion articles, per editors' evaluations (that's OR). Zanahary (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterization. Stepping back for a minute – do you believe that this phenomenon may not be real? That its existence may be a mere opinion?! Onceinawhile (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, this is not about my opinion, this is about the way Wikipedia is made. Reliable sources need to identify and describe a phenomenon in order for it to be written about in wikivoice. Zanahary (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but before we get to that, it is important to understand if you are genuinely suggesting that this existence of this phenomenon is disputed and may be a mere opinion. If we have no firm ground on which to stand this conversation, we cannot build together. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The existence of this phenomenon is unsupported, unless reliable sources that describe it can be found.

My own opinion is irrelevant, and it's simply not true that you are unable to produce reliable sources for article content until you get over the hump of making sure you and I agree on an empirical evaluation. Zanahary (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Since you have repeatedly refused to answer the question, we can assume that you accept that no sources dispute the existence of this phenomenon and its basic characteristics.

So we can remove some of the in-line attribution. That is only needed for opinions, not for undisputed facts.

Onceinawhile (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Opinion sources asserting X need to be attributed on Wikipedia, regardless of the existence of secondary sources that dispute whether X exists. Zanahary (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Does “absolutely not” relate to my first paragraph or my second?

What in your mind differentiates an “opinion source” from a “non-opinion source” for sociology topics such as this one? Unless we can see agree this distinction, we cannot proceed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless we can see agree this distinction, we cannot proceed.

Please, enough with these silly ultimata. Whether I agree with you or not, you have to follow Wikipedia policy concerning citing sources, verifiability, attribution, synthesis, and original research.

"Absolutely not" to the relevant portion about attributing opinions (not the silly piece about making assumptions) Zanahary (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

We cannot reach editing consensus between us if you persist in having your own personal and secret definition for what is an unacceptable “opinion source” and what is an acceptable “non-opinion source”. Tell us what policy or guideline you are using to delineate here, and we can move forward. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including reviews and interviews.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#cite_note-15 Zanahary (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This does not address the problem. We need to agree the delineation. An editor has in-line attributed every single sentence in the article, irrespective of whether it is an opinion piece.

In your other comments you appear to be proposing a novel category of “opinion sources” which is much wider that the list in your comment immediately above. We need to understand where your proposed expanded definition stops, and what policy or guideline this expanded definition is based upon. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The opinion article could be consulted for definitions. WP:RS has some sections that describe what are acceptable uses of opinion and what are not. Llll5032 (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

In your other comments you appear to be proposing a novel category of “opinion sources” which is much wider that the list in your comment immediately above

I am not proposing any wider a list than the one I named above.

Opinion pieces absolutely must be attributed. Authors' original arguments and analyses in their books (which are not opinion pieces) also must be attributed. We cannot have, for instance, David Hirsh's analysis wikivoiced into the article to say "Charges of weaponizing antisemitism are often themselves made in bad faith, operating on a presumption of mistrust that is in itself antisemitic". This needs to be attributed, just like Mearsheimer and Walt. Zanahary (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Helpful. We are agreed. The only difference of opinion is your final five words, since they conflict with your correct statement that “Authors' original arguments and analyses in their books (which are not opinion pieces) also must be attributed”. Deciding whether a published author requires in line attribution depends on whether the statement is or is not an original argument or analysis. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead and ignore "original" Zanahary (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

So you think every statement in every book needs to be in-line attributed?! Onceinawhile (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For matters of empirical fact, which couldn't possibly be contested outside of the fringe, no attribution is required. For opinions, critical evaluations, analysis, arguments, yes, they must always be attributed. Zanahary (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You are getting mixed up between “in-line attribution” and “sourced”. The requirement for the former is different to the latter. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not getting mixed up. I am talking about in-line attribution. Zanahary (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia policy to in-line attribute everything which is not "empirical fact, which couldn't possibly be contested outside of the fringe". If that was the case, all our articles on sociological topics (which by definition have very few truly empirical facts) would require in line attribution in every sentence. Wikipedia practice here is to only do so for matters which are either novel or disputed. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the sources cited in the conceptual disputes section which prominently criticize these arguments' motivations and contents, they are disputed. Zanahary (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

See the same discussion below. Blanket statements like that achieve nothing. Those sources dispute certain elements. Many other elements are entirely undisputed. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the keyword there is "disputed". Even heavyweight academic analysis should be attributed if there is no clear consensus in the scholarly community that this analysis is the right one, in a highly contentious topic area. While we don't need to attribute peer reviewed journal articles for facts, should still inline attribute for their analysis if there is a substantial body of academic opinion that disputes the analysis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

this source is a strong tertiary source examining discourse regarding accusations of antisemitism and their reception. Zanahary (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly added language that replaces the word "weaponization" in paragraphs 2 and 3 because some of the sources do not use the word or related words, to begin to address some WP:SYNTH questions identified at this talk page and noticeboards. More edits to the wording could be helpful, especially from editors who added some of the sources. Llll5032 (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Self-hating

The source for this is someone saying “You can call me a self-hating Jew, call me an antisemite … People use those terms to cover up the reality, either to deceive themselves or to deceive others. You have to look at what’s happening on the ground.” But it's not clear who uses these phrases or that they are instances of "weaponization of antisemitism". Surely we need a secondary source describing the term self-hating Jew used as part of the weaponisation of a/s? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The source makes the context clear and the quote explains that context. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually two sources about the same thing. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, two sources with the same quote. I'm not sure that's enough to tell us this is a thing. Isn't there a secondary, neutral source that's more useful for a general claim beyond this incident ? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

These are to replace the previous source deleted by yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Because the two previous sources didn’t say anything like what the text said. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I moved the sentence into the Descriptions section and tagged it for WP:INTEXT attribution; perhaps it could move back to the second paragraph if the attribution justifies inclusion there. Llll5032 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

We now have Omer Bartov, Noam Chomsky and Professor Matthew Abraham making this connection with precision and clarity. I am still not quite sure whether we really needed cast iron sourcing for something akin to WP:SKYISBLUE, but we have it now. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I moved this back up. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

SKYISBLUE is for things as plain as that the sky is blue, not that Jews who criticize Israel are slurred as self-hating as a form of the “weaponization of antisemitism”.

I just looked at the citations and their quotes. This is very tenuous; only the last source actually connects it to the concept at hand, and it’s not lede-worthy. Zanahary (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Stating one's impression is not an argument.Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

not that Jews who criticize Israel are slurred as self-hating as a form of the "weaponization of antisemitism" If it isn't that, what is it? Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually this goes back to the earliest days of Zionism when Jewish critics (the majority) criticized the movement the response was often that their diffidence arose from either racially contamination in their own background, or self-hatred (the case of Karl Kraus). This pettifogging is encyclopedically nescient.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

In Antony Lerman's The tropes of 'Jewish antisemitism', he writes:

"Now it's quite obvious that calling someone a self-hating Jew in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict is intended as a demeaning political insult, a way of delegitimising the views of Jews with whom you violently disagree."

The bolded words represent Lerman agreeing with the SKYISBLUE statement above. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:29, 22 March 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)