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)

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.

Requested move 8 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  No. I oppose this proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selection of examples of antisemitism allegations

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

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

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

Regarding the 3rd stage, I don't think sources support a statement that all instances of weaponization of antisemitism are themselves antisemitic. But sources do support the statement that some instances have been criticized for antisemitism. For example, Trump's calling Kamala Harris's husband a "crappy Jew" and making insulting comments about Jews who are not supporting Israel (see [1]). Similarly, some of the accusations of antisemitism against student anti-Zionist protestors have been criticized for antisemitism on the grounds that they're ignoring the fact that a large number of Jews, including religious ones, played a very visible role in those protests. NightHeron (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Conceptual disputes

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

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

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