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)

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)

Misuse of antisemitism accusations was a constructive proposal from another discussion. Llll5032 (talk) 06:16, 30 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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose. The name of this article must change, but the suggested title is not an improvement. I completely agree with User:Zanahary above, "A bunch of op-eds that say "weaponizing" is not a basis to call this "weaponization of antisemitism".", I will support other options. Galamore (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose under @Makeandtoss's argument. The proposed title is ambiguous. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

I'm not seeing "specific issues that are actionable" as Template:POV requires. If none can be provided I intend to remove the POV tag per When to remove #2: "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The title is non-neutral. The lede follows weak sources over good ones, effectively employing op-eds as primary sources to support claims like “people have alleged that antisemitism is being weaponized”, when we have high-quality sources talking about the concept at large. Zanahary (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Title issues can only be addressed by RM, and that's not really a good reason to tag the page, but I guess we can wait for the consensus there. When you say "people have alleged", I assume you are referring to the voluminous citation of fairly eminent scholars. Let's not misrepresent the sources. That's not a constructive basis for a discussion. So, resetting, what are the specific issues? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The Sources discussion also includes specific issues that are actionable for neutrality, regarding undue use of advocacy sources. Llll5032 (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's go one by one, these tags keep getting added then removed when found to have no basis, I suspect we will find the same thing here. What's up first? Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

In the Sources discussion, which you participated in, a majority of editors opposed inclusion of 14 named advocacy and opinion sources from both "sides", and favored limiting sources in the article more to high quality secondary and tertiary sources. Per WP:ONUS (which says that the onus is on editors for inclusion, not exclusion) and WP:EDITCON, such issues can be addressed in good faith via editing in the article. The editing can include in-text tags. If tags are added, I suggest that policies and specifics should be cited carefully in tag metadata. Llll5032 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

"No current discussion" will lead to tag removal. Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Although I agree that talk page discussion is often helpful, not all templates require that a talk page discussion be initiated; see WP:WTRMT #4. A tag added in good faith should not be removed prematurely, but rather if a condition in WP:WTRMT is satisfied. The WP:ONUS is on editors who want to include disputed content, not tags. More specific guidance is in WP:WNTRMT #2, #3, and #4 ("When not to remove"). Llll5032 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

No guidance necessary, thanks, tags not subject of current discussion will be removed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed the tag per "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." "Specific issues that are actionable" need to exist / be presented to justify the tag per Template:POV. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:WNTRMT #2, #3, and #4 make clear that the template in question should not be removed now. Llll5032 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

And my removal has been reverted by Llll5032. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Because tags and templates are constructive for resolving specific issues in the article, they should not be removed prematurely without satisfying conditions in WP:WTRMT and WP:WNTRMT. Llll5032 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverted, due to refusal to discuss specifics. Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Specifics have been cited by numerous editors in good faith, including some discussions in recent days. Please self-revert. Llll5032 (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Like what? Be specific. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Most recently in this talk page section, Poll, Requested Move, and Renaming the Article. Repeating them in this discussion is not an ideal use of time. But the existence of specific and ongoing good-faith neutrality disputes should be evident, so the template needs to be restored. Llll5032 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Citing discussions is not citing "specific issues that are actionable". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

How is the neutrality dispute about the article title not a specific issue that is actionable? Llll5032 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

RM for that, as has been explained on multiple occasions. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The RM you began addresses a question about clarity, not neutrality. Llll5032 (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

As clear from the placement of the tag, this is pending the result of both the lede conversation as well as the RM. Mistamystery (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: Let's be clear. You don't actually have a valid neutrality issue. You just want to (without good cause) merge the topic with political antisemitism, which has occasionally in historic literature been described in terms of "weaponization", but this would obfuscate the legitimate standalone topic that we have here. You also appear to be interested in generally euthanizing the language, presumably because you consider "weaponization" to be too hostile-sounding, even though it is in fact NPOV, as this is how the subject is most frequently brought up, as and when it is discussed. All of this ironically comes as usage is increasing rapidly. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Think we have a good case here for disruptive WP:CPUSH. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The disputation around this page has been in existence since the page's creation, and I didn't initiate it, thank you. If anything, an accusation that this page is WP:CPUSH (which I am not yet leveling, for the record) belongs in the other direction as this page could more readily be seen in a tendentious attempt to WP:GAME a fringe definition into legitimacy instead of reasonably laying out the general and historical use of the terminology in a neutral and encyclopedic fashion.

Secondly, there is no political antisemitism page, so there are no grounds to merge this into a subsection of an existing page. By all means, start off a main article there and I wouldn't be opposed to a merge discussion.

I'm attempting to resolve this civilly, but if we're really starting to scrounging deep into our pockets for accusatory language, I want to know why a small group of editors, only one of which have contributed any form of substance to this page, are leading its defense in lieu of its principal author and contributor, who has remained almost entirely silent during weeks of discussions.

Should we be equally stating there good cause for suspicion of WP:TAGTEAM in this instance, or worse, proxy editing for others (so they may avoid direct debate)? I'm not (yet), and am still operating under the assumption we can AGF our way to a civil resolution to this page's issues, so am humbly requesting we remain on topic and refrain from aspersions.

Mistamystery (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I can conceivably imagine a situation where Once is simply disinterested in getting involved in this meaningless expulsion of words, given that anyone with two eyes and a brain should be able to understand the clearly notable topic and its scope here. More power to him for staying away from it all. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

See your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Since you've added/restored the POV tag @Mistamystery, you are required to provide "specific issues that are actionable" per Template:POV. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS In the future, please be sure review existing talk page discussions, which includes specific recommendations to resolve longstanding neutrality issues, before preemptively (and potentially disruptively) removing neutrality tags. Mistamystery (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:POV clearly states "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable". Pointing to multiple past discussions is not "identifying specific issues that are actionable".

Since "it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given", the tag should be removed, again per Template:POV.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be concluded that actionable issues have not been specified. For example, the long-running neutrality dispute about the title is so specific, the action of editing only one word might solve it. At least 19 other titles have been proposed by multiple editors in good faith. Llll5032 (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Saying the issues are specific and actionable is not the same thing as outlining. Two editors provided 19 other titles (again not a neutrality issue, but an RM issue), without sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

OP compiled some of those titles in good faith from a number of other neutrality discussions on this talk page, and at least the number of academic sources has been compared for some of those, as I hope you recall from those discussions. Llll5032 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

See your talk page as well. Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, I have not understood your argument about when article titles are not subject to neutrality templates. Can you specify the Wikipedia policy regarding that? Llll5032 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, one more time in addition to the several times already explained previously, one fixes title problems with RMs. Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The documentation linked from the neutrality template, in fact, specifies one example of a neutrality dispute being if "The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view." Llll5032 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

More wikilawyering. Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Then what policy overrides the neutrality template's own documentation? Please cite and quote from it? Llll5032 (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You are citing an essay. One....last....time. RM. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, can you please quote Wikipedia guidance about "RM" that you believe overrides the essay guidance about titles that the standard NPOV template links to? I am asking the question in good faith. Llll5032 (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 1#Requested move 31 January 2024 Close "The result of the move request was: No consensus. This discussion has been running for almost a month, and there isn't even an actual proposal for where to move the article yet, or any other article highlighted that it might be ambiguous with. There is some support for a move, but also other comments saying that the status quo is fine. As such, there isn't any consensus to move and we stay where we are. Informal discussion can continue if editors wish, and if there's a more concrete and clearer proposal then it can be brought back in a fresh RM."

Then a Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 2#Tagging about tagbombing, which took place in Early March with a late comment from yourself on 17 march "Some of the tags were removed before any conditions in WP:WTRMT were satisfied." Duh.

In all the time since the first RM, no other RM until finally I put one up on 21 April, still running and includes yet more wikilawyering from yourself. If it goes through the title will be changed to Weaponization of antisemitism accusations and if not the title will stay the same.

For issues with a title, as I have suggested multiple times now, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Refers to Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles (a policy) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic primary topics. Please don't waste editorial time citing template documentation and essays, make a proper argument. So far your arguments have not been at all persuasive and are arguably disruptive. Notably, you have not presented any RM to change the title or even in the current RM, suggested an alternative title. Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Template:Cleanup title covering Cleanup, Disputed, Inappropriate and POV title. Rationale "The proper process for requesting that the title of an article be changed is Wikipedia:Requested moves. All of these template do nothing other than put to page into an evidently unmonitored maintenance category (Category:Wikipedia title cleanup) and shunt the burden of going through the requested moves process to someone else."

Closed as delete. Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

One notable comment "Do stuff, don't tag stuff, if at all possible. Forcing these pages into the requested moves process actually gets eyeballs on them. RM "not liking" non-discrete proposals is a problem with that process (if indeed such a problem exists), and bandaiding it up with templates that languish for long times is not the solution. Also per Sdkb's "just because you can, doesn't mean you should"." Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless you can present a reliable RS stating that the title is somehow a POV term for the subject, and stating what the better NPOV term is, cease and desist. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If a dozen names are presented, clearly not a lot of thought has gone into which ones are actually most appropriate and best-supported by reliable, independent sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

When you're quoting obscure WP acronyms instead of discussing the specifics everyone is asking for, it's a sign that you may be Wikilawyering. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Referring to protocols about removing and retaining extant tags in a discussion about whether to remove extant tags is Wikilawyering? Zanahary (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It certainly is when unaccompanied by substantial positions on the actual article content. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, in the numerous discussions I've seen on this removal of tags in other article, it generally does devolve into Wikilawyering. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Break

It's been two weeks since these tags were added and this discussion was opened. Having reviewed the above, it appears that no substance has been provided to support the claims of POV. No challenges have been made to the sourcing in this article. Am I missing something? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If so I'm missing it also. I see no reason for an NPOV tag. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

As per below requests and the above, a more detailed point-by-point outline of POV and neutrality concerns will be posted shortly. Mistamystery (talk) 20:21, 5 May 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)

Mistamystery, thanks for adding the citations. Have you seen more sources that can be cited? Llll5032 (talk) 05:37, 29 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)

  The terminology "weaponization of antisemitism", "instrumentalization of antisemitism", "politicization of antisemitism" (which was an earlier alternate title of this article, before being airbrushed out), and "use of antisemitism as a weapon" has a much longer use in RS and scholarly sourcing pertaining to wielding of antisemitism in the political sphere specifically against jews.

  Just because one author created an article front loading it with a laundry list of instances in which they insist are connected to a modern partisan definition of "weaponization of antisemitism" (one in which most of the sources provided don't even use the terminology) are not grounds to anchor an entire article to a term in which there isn't remotely any neutral consensus to do so.

  These POV TITLE and neutrality grounds have been raised since the inception of this very article and either we retitle this article "Playing the antisemitism card" (which is really what the author's intent was), title it something else, or we broaden the definition of "weaponization of antisemitism" to include what it has historically referred to. Mistamystery (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  You haven't demonstrated that it is a POV title; it appears NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  That is your opinion, and the demonstration was first made by another editor far prior to the current conversation (which, in my assessment, is plain and evidentiary). The sources cited even for the first sentence don't even on their own back up the assertion that the title even means what the author contends it does, they're just a cobbling together of sparse mentions to back an original assertion.

  Numerous sources have already been provided across months of talk page discussion indicating that there is a pre-existing usage of term that the page's principal contributor (who oddly has refrained from contributing to the current and recent talk page discussion entirely) fought handily against in earlier efforts.

  I don't know how to proceed from here. There was a healthy and lengthy discussion from editors on many sides that was disrupted by a (in my opinion) bad faith rush to RM, and now the process has become clogged. I'm starting to lean toward WP:TNT if we can't get this back on track, and in good faith. Mistamystery (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Mistamystery: How many times does it have to be explained that a page is about a topic, not a term. Whatever alternative, "pre-existing" usage you think might fall under the same set of words as used in the current title is an interesting curio, but otherwise not actually directly relevant. The actual scope here is perfectly clear. If two topics exist that are best described by the same set of words, and someone actually creates both pages, then they can be disambiguated. But at the moment, you appear to be arguing that the page is POV because there is an alternative set of meanings for the words used in the title, even though there is no page on this alternative meaning, so no establish notability, while, by virtue of being an alternative meaning, it is in any case a different scope. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Again, see your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  To editor Mistamystery: Actually there is a perfectly good way for you to proceed from here. You can give up trying to change the article topic on spurious grounds. It is also obviously wrong to claim that "antisemitism used as a weapon" would not fit into antisemitism. Zero^talk 12:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  There are a number of moving goal posts on this page that complicate the effort to resolve the issues that other editors and myself have pointed out since the page's inception. Principal amongst them is insistence that article title (currently under RM) is sufficiently NPOV to describe a phenomena that itself suffers to be both established and depicted neutrally under the definition provided (i.e. the very matter of "weaponization" itself and whether such accusations can be justified as evidentiary and descriptive, as opposed to mere counter-charge within a political debate).

  A secondary but heavily concerning issue is the insistence that the "weaponization" definition and title use (which is mostly in use in accusatory form itself and not neutral definition in most sources provided) is an inappropriate co-opting of pre-existing terminology in discourse connected to other matters.

  RMs and AFDs have been run on this page on those grounds since its inception because of these issues. Some editors have insisted that *separate* pages be started under "using antisemitism as a weapon", except that editors on this talk page have previously introduced and argued that "antisemitism as a weapon" in scholarly circles also refers to the "weaponization" phenom currently headlined on the page:

  "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.

  This in fact is not true, with "antisemitism as a weapon" consistently in use to describe the instrumentalization of antisemitism by political entities to attack Jewish populations.

  Obviously a resolution of the RM would clear up half of this issue (if not most of it), but it does not appear the current effort has achieved any form of consensus.

  The current POV tag has been up for a week. A proposed lede redraft was posted, with RS as requested, and there has been only one single oppose vote.

  There are now requests for itemized neutrality assessment in content and source to support the preservation of the tag, which I will happily (and concisely) oblige shortly. Mistamystery (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  There are a number of moving goal posts Describe them, please. And who you say moved them. With Diffs.

  RMs and AFDs have been run on this page on those grounds since its inception because of these issues So what? 1 RM, I described it above, and 1 running.

  What AfD?

  The current POV tag has been up for a week. A proposed lede redraft was posted, with RS as requested, and there has been only one single oppose vote Could mean that no-one is much interested. I know I'm not. If you want to put up an RFC for something then do that (or edit). Selfstudier (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would have thought it clear that the lead redraft does not have support, but oppose per Zero and other issues raised about the attempt to conflate this topic with off-topic irrelevance. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think its clear there are two topics here: weaponization/instrumentalization of antisemitism and weaponization of accusations of antisemitism. Mistamystery would you agree that both of these topics should be covered in separate articles? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  The first belongs in the antisemitism article. The second is what this article is about. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  +1 - yes, one topic already exists and is intimately linked with historical political antisemitism; the other is the very current topic before us here. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Islamophobic Chronicle – The War on Gaza and the Weaponization of Antisemitism K, I know it's a headline but Pappe makes it pretty clear what it means in his opinion. Arguing that this isn't a current or live topic is just incorrect. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Itemized POV concerns

To preface, the fundamental arguments against both the continued titling of the article under "weaponization of antisemitism" (or even the newly proposed "weaponization of antisemitism accusations"), and preserving the current (and supposedly neutral and all-inclusive) definition of "weaponization of antisemitism" as "antisemitism accusations [...] exploited for political purposes, especially to counter criticism of Israel" are plain and simple for the following reasons:

1. There are no sources presented that reliably support the currently presented definition, most crucially anywhere in the lede. Instead, an assemblage of sources of varying relevance and quality have been cobbled together in a clear instance of SYNTH to create the impression of a unified definition that does not, in fact, exist under these terms and scope.

I am asserting that the definition currently in place in the lede is pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There is no encompassing definition (either in whole or part) from any of the sources provided that make (or back) this specific claim. Furthermore, any assertion that the existing definition that "antisemitism accusations [...] exploited for political purposes, especially to counter criticism of Israel" equates to "weaponization of antisemitism" or "playing the antisemitism card" is derived from sources presented is categorically false, and has been assembled from a patchwork of disparate items arguing separate matters.

2. More than two thirds of the sources presented in the article do not - in fact - describe and elucidate specific acts of supposed instances of "weaponized" use of antisemitic accusation. The solid majority instead cast generalized and vague aspersions and charges of "weaponization" without either citing specific instances, or clearly identifying the manner in which the supposed instances may be differentiated between "weaponization" accusation as opposed to legitimate antisemitic claim or critique. The majority of these citations (especially those that fail to explore and validate specific instances) read squarely and uncritically as if the authors merely generally disagree with the invocation of antisemitic accusation under any circumstances, and generally consider its use in debate to be in bad faith.

3. Of the 45 citations in the "History" and "Description" sections, the term "weaponization" only appears in sources nine (9) times, and of those, only two stand on solid, scholarly ground (with the remainder either on shaky ground, are questionably invoked, or are from opinion pieces). A further four use variations on "antisemitism as a weapon" but we have already addressed issues of inappropriate exclusion of previous scholarly use of the phrase or similar (which would be handily resolved if this article were renamed "instrumentalization of antisemitism", as both use cases would be covered under such a generally umbrella in different, appropriate sections) Either way, less than a third of the articles cited use this language, and only half of those attempt any form of justification in invoking terms like "weapon" or "weaponization".

Equally so, there are sources included that are claimed to support the presented Israel-centered thesis, but actually cite instances of "weaponized antisemitism" entirely outside the bounds of this supposed exclusively Israel-centered discourse.

As is highlighted below, the arguments presented in this article do not currently add up to a convincing thesis that an article entitled "Weaponization of antisemitism accusations" reflects any form of neutrally positioned or established discourse. Instead, we have a collection of mostly unsupported (or speciously argued) Accusations of weaponized antisemitism (or more practically phrased: a timeline of charges of bad faith invocation of antisemitism

Breaking down and analyzing the lede, each insistence and argument has been isolated, with its citations provided scrutinized to see if they, in fact, support the asserted points.

For the "History" and "Description" sections (which make up the bulk of the article), I have created a very simple criteria to assess the viability of the sources provided on the following grounds:

• Does make a general charge of bad faith instrumentalization of antisemitic accusation?
• Does it invoke specific instances or level specific charges?
• Does it describe such instances as "weaponization" or similar?

Lede

When antisemitism accusations are exploited for political purposes, especially to counter criticism of Israel, it may be described variously as a weaponization of antisemitism, instrumentalization of antisemitism, or playing the antisemitism card.

Sources present neither provide nor support the above definition. While separate sources mention "weaponization", "instrumentalization" and "playing the antisemitism" card, none squarely define such supposed instances (which is an accusation in of itself) as generally covering the general exploitation of antisemitism for political purposes (itself a POV assertion, as "exploitation" would have to be proven on its own merits, and its not even mentioned in the sources). Sources provided are either mere charges of "weaponization", or passing reference with no substantive argument or critique:

First source collection:

• Landy/Lentin/McCarthy: Contains charge of "weaponization". Despite use of the word "evidenced", the charge is the opinion of its authors, not an evidentiary or critically established example.
• Consonni: The mention of either "weaponization" or "instrumentalization" only refers to - in passing - criticism leveled by other scholars as part of a working definition argument in 2013.
• Rothberg: This is an interview, and - in effect - an equivalent to an opinion piece, at best. It is not suitable as an anchor source for an article lede.
• Roth-Rowland: This is an opinion piece.

Second source collection:

• Finkelstein: Charge of "playing the antisemitism card".
• Hirsh: Thoughtful "both sides" analysis/think piece of rhetoric around accusations of use as "weapon". It explores the issue and does not provide a definition similar to what is asserted.
• Bronfman: Opinion piece.

Such accusations have been criticized as a form of smear tactics and an "appeal to motive". Some writers have compared this to playing the race card. When used against Jews, it may take the form of the pejorative claim of "self-hating Jew".

Again: SYNTH / POV / OR:"such accusations" have not been "criticized as a form of smear tactics", they have been characterized by those arguing that such invocations of antisemitic accusation are in bad faith (therefore constituting a form of smear tactic if said weaponization accusations were found viable, which cannot be presumed based upon mere accusation).

Third source collection:

• White: This source pertains exclusively to the BDS debate, which is covered separately
• Mearshimer & Walt: General charge, no specific example cited
• Amor: WP:CRYSTALBALL, portends to predict the future
• Steinberg: Interpretive opinion on the implications "smearing" in argument.

Fourth source collection:

• Finkelstein: General charge, no specific example cited
• Plitnick & Aziz: General charge, no specific example cited
• Abraham: Rhetorical speculation, no specific example cited

Fifth source collection:

• Quigley: General charge, no specific instance cited or qualified
• Marcus: Advice, at best. No specific instance cited.

Citations 7-10

• Bertov (double cited) / Abraham / Chomsky / Waxman, Schraub, Hosein: General charges, no specific instances cited or analyzed

Suggestions of such actions have been raised during phases of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, in the adoption of various organizations' controversial working definitions of antisemitism, during the 2014–20 allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, at the 2023 United States Congress hearing on antisemitism, and during the 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on university campuses.

Citations 11-13: Mearshimer & Walt / Muzher / Chomsky: General charges with no specific instances cited

Citations 14-20:

• Middle East Monitor - shaky partisan source, opinion piece
• Guardian: opinion piece
• Amor: an open letter
• HRW: suggestion that letter is connected to "weaponization" discussion as defined is leading and OR
• Double down news?
• Harvard Crimson: outdated opinion piece
• Democracy Now: hardly RS for definition sake, otherwise partisan accusation

History

Citation	General charge	Specific Charge or Cited Instance	Use of "weaponization"	Note
Chomsky (1/2)	Yes	No	No	Re: Perlmutter accusation. Page cited is incorrect (it's 59, not 18)
Sykes & Sedgwick (via Chomsky) (2/2)	Yes	Yes	No	Relying on Sedgwick via Sykes does not hold up. Please refer to further contemporary reporting on the incident of Ben Gurion's supposed "exaggeration" here.
Brownfield	Yes	No	Yes*	*"the tactic of using the term anti-Semitism as a weapon"
Glubb	Yes	No	No
Morris	Yes	No	No
Piety	Yes	No	No
Brownfield	Yes	No	Yes*	*"The accusation of "anti-Semitism" has become a weapon with which to silence any criticism of either Israel or U.S. policy in the Middle East." Second use of "weapon" from previously cited Brownfield article
Brownfield	Yes	Yes	No	Note: this citation is incorrectly attributed to Cheryl Rubenberg. Likewise, the actual inclusion of Podhoretz's actual piece is grounds to seek out a more tempered assessment than Brownfield's reductive, borderline irreflective take.
Rubenberg	Yes	Yes	Yes*	*"Indeed, it may be that the weapon of greatest power possessed by the pro-Israeli lobby is its accusation of anti-Semitism." Comment: Including a source blaming "the lobby" generally for various separate incidents of supposed "weaponization" is questionable at best.
Findley	Yes	No	No
Brownfield	Yes	No	No
Ball	Yes	No	No
White	Yes	No	No
Abraham	Yes	No	No
Mearshimer & Walt	Yes	No*	No*	*Present elsewhere in source, not present in citation.
Muzher	Yes	No	No
Chomsky	Yes	No	No
Abraham	Yes	No	No
Gutman	Yes	Yes*	Yes*	Opinion piece. *The two examples of "weaponization" cited are from an anonymous twitter user who DM'd the writer, and a Marjorie Taylor Greene anecdote unrelated to Israel.
Riemer	Yes	No	No	Uses "instrumentalized"
Steinberg	Yes	Yes*	Yes*	Opinion piece. *Steinberg responds to one specific instance he considers to be "weaponization" from writers at the Crimson, and otherwise refers generally to acts by unspecified "powerful forces". This was published in response to Claudine Gay's testimony, but prior to her resignation a few days later.
Ganz	Yes	No*	Yes*	Opinion piece. *While referring to a separate incident involving the Brandeis Center (in which a discrimination complaint against him was upheld by the Harvard Dean), his claim of the Brandeis Center "weaponizing" antisemitism in response to 10/7 is not specified.
Levy	Yes	No	Yes
Cole	Yes	Yes	Yes	This is an opinion piece from a right-wing blog.
Yousef	Yes	Unclear	No
Attanasio	Yes	No	No	Does not specify generally stated antisemitic accusations. Also cites instances of antisemitic langauge in use during protests.
Columbia Faculty	Yes	Yes	Yes	Opinion piece / Open Letter

References

Description

Citation	General charge	Specific Charge or Cited Instance	Use of "weaponization"	Note
Lerner	Yes	Yes	No	Opinion piece.
Thompson	Yes	Yes	No*	*only via Mearshimer & Walt
Alexander	No	No	Yes*	Passing reference to "so-called weaponization of antisemitism and Holocaust memory"
Mearshimer & Walt	Yes	(no quote provided)	(no quote provided)
Leifer	Yes	No	No
Finkelstein	Yes	No	No
Mearshimer & Walt	Yes	No	No
Mearshimer & Walt	Yes	No	No
Mearshimer & Walt	Yes	No	No	Questionable quote alteration: citation is in support of "They argued that, by stifling discussion, weaponization of antisemitism allows myths about Israel to survive unchallenged" when in fact, the source reads "Playing the anti-Semitism card stifles discussion even more and allows myths about Israel to survive unchallenged."
Finkelstein	Yes	No	No
Plitnik & Aziz	Yes	Yes	Yes
Kasrils	Yes	Yes	No	Instrumentalization is used.
Finkelstein	Yes	No	No
Omer	Yes	Yes	Yes
Beinin	Yes	Yes	No
Marcus	Yes	No	No	"the anti-semitism card"
Abraham	Yes	No	Yes*	*"The usual charge that critics of Israel are motivated by anti-Semitism is no longer as effective a weapon in distracting the public from the relevant criticisms of Israel’s behavior.”
Mearshimer & Walt	Yes	No	No

References

Conclusion

There are no grounds to assert that charges of "weaponization of antisemitism" or "antisemitic accusation" aren't equally incidents of bad faith argumentation for the purposes of potentially silencing debate, most especially when most of the accusations leveled in sources cited in this article are unspecified and are general aspersions to phenomena presumed to be substantive, but rarely explored and argued in detail. A heavy amount of misleading synth and OR has been deployed in this article to create a falsely neutral starting position that there is a stable definition (there isn't) and that it is only the "weaponization" accusation itself that is subject to bad faith charge. The accusations are flying here in both directions, and should be given due and equal scrutiny under their appropriate sections.

On these grounds, I reinforce my above stated preferences for both renaming and resolving extant POV issues. I know that "instrumentalization" is considered by many here to be an uncomely term, but it is far more neutral, has sufficent use in sources already provided, and allows a more general umbrella for the examples provided in the article so far to preserve under a more generally appropriate definition, in which other examples of "instrumentalization of antisemitism" may appropriately reside under a broader and more inclusive definition of "antisemitism accusations exploited for political purposes" that covers the breadth of interpretations and cited instances covered across RS, scholarly research, and the current discussion.Mistamystery (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The conclusion says it all, yet another argument for changing the title. Again the hopelessly wrong argument that a descriptive title needs a definition when it doesn't. Again, the hopelessly wrong argument that an article title is a POV issue when it isn't. Looking forward to the RM. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

As Selfstudier says, a descriptive title does not need a definition. The article is not claiming that "Weaponization of antisemitism" is a common name. We are saying the article is about "Weaponization of antisemitism". If we can agree on another title, then that's what an RM is for. Makes no sense to have both an RM and NPOV tag. The NPOV tag is just a shame-tag. I'll remove it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

So what would be the response if the conclusion section were not buttoned with a mention of a potential alternate title? That is not remotely the point of the POV post and could easily be excised it if is proving to be a distraction to the matter at hand.

These quick and dispensary responses merely seem like a workaround to avoid addressing any of the POV issues raised when a postscript about potential solutions was not remotely the point nor emphasis. Also, I'm not the only editor who was insisting upon the preservation of the tag until long discussed POV issues in the article are satisfactorily addressed, and - in the interest of lessening any confusion

The argument is not merely that there is no common name for the term "weaponization of antisemitism", but that there is no case for neutral use, nor grounds for even the definition provided - which points to merely POV but factuality issues in the article.. And I think the evidence on this front is pretty clear. The majority of the article doesn't even refer to specific instances of supposed "weaponized" antisemitism accusation, but generic commentary that casts aspersions toward a general spectre of such supposed behavior, yet almost entirely avoids discussion or analysis of specific incident.

I'm going to adjust my postscript shortly (to abate any further confusion that this is remotely tied to a RM effort), and restore the POV tag, and await detailed responses on the numerous POV issues in the current article outlined. Mistamystery (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There isn't any confusion, all your efforts and walls of text are devoted to changing the title. Just put up an RM and stop writing stuff. Once the title is decided, all your points will automagically disappear.Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve not yet read this entire comment, but your first point about this article’s cobbled-together (synthesized) reification of the article topic is absolutely true. Zanahary (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This was taken to the OR noticeboard here and generated a distinct lack of interest, so editors don't agree with this view, which itself appears to be synthesis. Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A previous discussion failing to generate interest is certainly not evidence for editor consensus, and the invocation of such a discussion would not be a substitute for an argument. But regardless, that discussion saw all commenting editors, excepting yourself, affirming some concern about OR or neutrality. Zanahary (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

They nevertheless cared insufficiently to come here and edit, or else they did and the current status of the article reflects that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, that does not make sense as an argument. That a change has not yet been made does not mean that there is an unlitigatable consensus to never make that change, nor that there is an unlitigatable consensus that a discussed problem is in fact not a problem. Zanahary (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: I have read all of the above three times – I was surprised to see that you don’t appear to have attempted to make a direct case that anything in the article is POV.

Our Template:POV states: Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant.

If you still believe there are POV concerns, please could you connect your position directly to this text from the template above? I don’t see anything in your comments about any of the core POV concerns, such as balance, neutrality, fair representation, quality of sourcing etc.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: just checking you saw this comment. I would really like to understand your position, as you clearly feel strongly. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile appreciate the follow up. I have day job obligations and an otherwise busier than usual week. Want to make sure I am thorough in my response to your question, so will be a day or two before I am able to get back to you on this. Best, MM Mistamystery (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: The more words you use the more diluted your message. I don’t think you are saying that the word antisemitism is not used as a cudgel against those daring to criticize Israeli actions, the IDF, Netanyahu, prosecution of the war, the plight of Palestinians, and many other issues over decades. As I understand it, such accusations are the subject of this article. So, I don’t see the POV issue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How is this an NPOV defense? Whether an editor contests or accepts that antisemitism is “used as a cudgel” is irrelevant; we go off of sources, not what editors think is a reasonable observation. As it stands, this article’s sourcing is analogous to citing op-eds alleging specific instances of, for instance, dishonest charges of abuse, for an article on “weaponized abuse” or, pending the move, “weaponized/instrumentalized/misused accusations of abuse”.
This article is using these op-eds, which are largely specific, as the primary sources for an originally-researched analysis of a supposed broad phenomenon. Without a real secondary/tertiary (depending on how you delineate) source connecting these individually-addressed instances/arguments to a validated (via acknowledgment and affirmation of existence) broader phenomenon of bad-faith charges of antisemitism, their inclusion in this article is non-neutral original research. Zanahary (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

See my comment above, this article was already taken to the OR noticeboard here and no-one is interested in such an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

no-one is interested in such an argument

Be respectful. And the discussion you linked sees everyone suggesting some change, with the article’s only defender being you. Zanahary (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

with the article’s only defender being you. Not close to true. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Here are quotations from every editor besides SS and another editor who opined that the article would always be contested in terms of its neutrality in that discussion:

…seems to me to be heavily based on original research

.

Ugh. This is one of those articles where the sources are likely to mostly be opinion pieces, isn't it? Truthfully a better title might help; the current one is non-neutral and while it might reasonably pass WP:COMMONNAME if we want an article consisting of nothing but a bunch of quotes from opinion pieces, we could probably fold the topic into a more neutral descriptor that would allow for more academic coverage

.

I agree that a change of title is needed and could result in a more neutral article. Even the first source currently cited in the article applies scare quotes in two of its three instances of using the words "weaponization" or "weaponized", and the source's third use of the words also does not endorse the idea.

.

So, yes, the little discussion generally agreed that the article has a problem with neutrality or use of sources. Zanahary (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

These comments are more than two months old - the article was significantly developed since then; it is now double the size in kb vs. when this NORN was opened. And the discussion had just five editors, only two of which were "uninvolved", of which one made a neutral comment that you did not quote above. So the above quotes boil down to the two-month-old views of a single uninvolved editor, who explicitly did not review the article before commenting. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like we agree that that old discussion doesn’t have much bearing on present assertions about this article’s state. It generated little discussion and no apparent action, petered out, and the article has changed a lot since. Certainly there’s no reason to dismiss any invoked arguments reminiscent of that (again: non-consensus-generating) discussion’s. Zanahary (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

And what did they do about it? Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm doing something: I'm raising the argument on this article's talk page. Please feel free to engage with it. Zanahary (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What argument? Please provide one that I haven't heard before. Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Be respectful When I'm not being respectful, you'll know. Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography

Extended content

Abraham, Matthew (2014). Out of Bounds: Academic Freedom and the Question of Palestine. EBL-Schweitzer. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4411-9802-0. Adalah; et al. (2023-04-04), "Human Rights and other Civil Society Groups Urge United Nations to Respect Human Rights in the Fight Against Antisemitism", Human Rights Watch Amor, Meir; et al. (2022-11-03). "Scholars to UN: Don't adopt 'weaponised' antisemitism definition" (PDF). EUobserver. Retrieved 2024-01-01. Ball, George W.; Ball, D.B. (1992). The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present. W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-02933-8. Beinin, Joel (2004). "The New American McCarthyism: Policing Thought about the Middle East". Race & Class. 46 (1): 101–115. doi:10.1177/0306396804045517. ISSN 0306-3968. S2CID 143636285. Brownfeld, Allan (1987). "Anti-Semitism: Its Changing Meaning". Journal of Palestine Studies. 16 (3). Institute for Palestine Studies, University of California Press: 53–67. doi:10.2307/2536789. ISSN 1533-8614. JSTOR 2536789. Chomsky, Noam (1983). The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. Politics/Mideast. South End Press. ISBN 978-0-89608-187-1. Chomsky, Noam (2002). "Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the Palestinians" (PDF). Variant. 2 (16). Findley, Paul (1987). They Dare to Speak Out (2 ed.). Lawrence Hill & Company. ISBN 978-0-88208-180-9. Finkelstein, Norman (2008). Beyond Chutzpah. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24989-9. 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. 11: 44–77. Retrieved 2024-01-01. Landy, David; Lentin, Ronit; McCarthy, Conor (15 May 2020). Enforcing Silence: Academic Freedom, Palestine and the Criticism of Israel. Zed Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1-78699-653-4. Marcus, Kenneth L. (2010). "Anti-Semitism Denial and Minimisation". Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America. Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–69. ISBN 978-1-139-49119-8. Retrieved 2024-01-01. Mearsheimer, John; Walt, Stephen (2008). "The Great Silencer". The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Penguin Books Limited. pp. 191–196. ISBN 978-0-14-192066-5. Quigley, John (2021). The Legality of a Jewish State: A Century of Debate over Rights in Palestine. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-51924-0. Piety, Harold R. (Nov 13, 1975), "Who Speaks for Judaism?", The Journal Herald (Dayton, Ohio) Plitnick, Mitchell; Aziz, Sahar F. (2023-11-23). Presumptively Antisemitic: Islamophobic Tropes in the Palestine Israel Discourse (PDF). Rutgers University Law School Center for Security, Race, and Rights. Riemer, Nick [in German] (2022). Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine: Universities, Intellectualism and Liberation. Off the Fence: Morality, Politics and Society. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-5381-7588-0. Rubenberg, Cheryl (1989). Israel and the American National Interest: A Critical Examination. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-06074-8. Steinberg, Bernie (2023-12-29). "For the Safety of Jews and Palestinians, Stop Weaponizing Antisemitism". The Harvard Crimson. Thompson, Jon (2012). No Debate: The Israel Lobby and Free Speech at Canadian Universities. Canadian Association of University Teachers. Lorimer. ISBN 978-1-55277-657-5. Retrieved 2024-01-09. Waxman, Dov; Schraub, David; Hosein, Adam (2022-07-04). "Arguing about antisemitism: why we disagree about antisemitism, and what we can do about it". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 45 (9): 1803–1824. doi:10.1080/01419870.2021.1960407. ISSN 0141-9870. S2CID 238721730. White, Ben (2020-02-01). "Delegitimizing Solidarity: Israel Smears Palestine Advocacy as Anti-Semitic" (PDF). Journal of Palestine Studies. 49 (2): 65–79. doi:10.1525/jps.2020.49.2.65. ISSN 0377-919X. S2CID 218853797.

More sources to be added

7 May 2024 Weaponizing Antisemitism to Stifle Criticism of Israel Featuring: Adam Horowitz Raz Segal Shira Robinson

25 March 2024 Weaponizing Anti-Semitism in U.S. Universities and Society

Amanpour and Company He Wrote a Definition of Antisemitism; Now He Says It’s Being Weaponized Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Needs copy edit?? Tag

If something needs a copy edit and one is doing a whole bunch of edits anyway, why tag? Just do it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)