![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
![]() | This article isn't protected, so you should be able to edit it yourself. If you are still having problems editing it, please ask for advice at WP:TEAHOUSE. |
Find a reference for the leading definition sentence or outright delete it: The weaponization of antisemitism, also described as the instrumentalization of antisemitism, is the use of the charge of antisemitism or the deployment of antisemitism and antisemitic sentiments.
- The definition of the main article topic must be based in a reliable source that directly defines it ( WP:VER).
- Though the current sentence is already difficult to parse, my understanding is that the proposed definition says that the use of any charge of anti-semitism for any purposes and in any circumstances is a form of the "weaponization of anti-semitism". This is a very strong and sweeping definition, and must be backed up with reliable sources. In fact, it is so sweeping that it arguable falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY, so multiple reliable sources should probably be used.
spintheer ( talk) 21:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
References
WP:ARBECR applies here and this is not an edit request. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it easily passes WP:GNG including wide WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. -- Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@
Eladkarmel:, you wrote in your edit comment: WP:FRINGE, based on non reliable partisan sources, POV content, POV title, pov caricature
. Are you suggesting that some other reliable sources believe there is no such thing as weaponization of antisemitism? I can't even find any unreliable sources which claim there is no such thing as weaponization of antisemitism...
Onceinawhile (
talk)
09:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
In 1995, former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky described an example of how such actions worked in practice:
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. [1]
References
- ^ Ostrovsky, Victor (1995-09-01). Mossad Influence on U.S. Policy (Television production). C-SPAN. 26:57 - 28:25 minutes in. Retrieved 2024-01-08.
Hi @
Zanahary: your edit comment regarding the above said Undue, and original research (source doesn’t identify this in relation to the concept of weaponization of antisemitism)
This is clearly related to the topic of the article, and may be the best available source to providing an explanation of some of the mechanisms used from someone involved in this. There is no question that the quote relates to the topic of this article.
Could you explain your concern in more detail?
In the meantime, note that your edit counted as a second revert in the last 24 hours, which means it breached the 1RR restriction on articles in this topic area. I suggest you self revert - you are welcome to remove it again once the 24 hour period is up, assuming we haven't reached some form of agreement by then. Onceinawhile ( talk) 23:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Zanahary: re your edits to the lede:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The two concepts covered here haven't been linked by any source, and are quite different. A bad-faith rhetorical strategy of identifying antisemitism is not meaningfully similar to the actual propagation of antisemitism. They may both have been referred to as weaponization or instrumentalization, but they are clearly different.
I've removed the Russia-Belarus content in the meantime, per WP:BRD Zanahary ( talk) 05:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This is your first request that I SR. I did, but if no consensus for the inclusion of antisemitism unrelated to rhetorical weaponization of charges is formed, then it should be removed. The prose in the lede also definitely needs to be neutralized. Zanahary ( talk) 05:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Again, kindly request you self-revert
I have removed the Russia paragraphs as unrelated, per Zanahary. These paragraphs refer to "Exploitation of antisemitism" whereas this article refers to "Weaponization of claims of antisemitism". Longhornsg, perhaps you could create first a new article Exploitation of antisemitism? Once a version of that article is written it will be easier to discuss whether the title of this article requires disambiguation.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Longhornsg ( talk) 20:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The Bibliography includes some sources that are not usually considered independent RS, including a Medium post and some advocacy sources. At least one of the other sources cited does not describe the issue as weaponizing or instrumentalizing, which could amount to a synthesis problem if the title of this article is not changed. Should some of those sources be removed or better sources found? Llll5032 ( talk) 17:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
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. — Amakuru ( talk) 18:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Weaponization of antisemitism → ? – There are (at least) two distinct meanings of the phrase "Weaponization of antisemitism"/"instrumentalization of antisemitism" as used in sources. One is the subject of this article, the potentially bad faith use of charges of antisemitism. Notably, none of the scholarly sources in this article use the word "weaponization" except in the context of advocacy. It is mostly WP:BIASED sources here that prefer the charged term "weaponization" in the meaing we write about here, so this title as it stands is arguably a POVNAME. The second meaning is the use of antisemitism by regimes such as the Soviet Union to undermine political opponents. Indeed, it is in this latter context that the phrase "weaponization of antisemitism" has a longer and more mainstream basis in scholarly literature ( [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], among others). Thus when saying "weaponization of antisemitism", the current article fails WP:COMMONNAME. For NPOV, we must present a reader, scholar, or observer looking for "weaponization of antisemitism" with both options and not default to this much weaker case. Thus it is important, and more accurate, that this title is more focused to reflect the specific context the article refers to, with a second page on the other context. Simply put, it defies RS and is flat incorrect to say "weaponization of antisemitism" only refers to the use of the charge of antisemitism. Open to other ideas such as Bad faith charges of antisemitism, but the current title cannot stand for NPOV and accuracy reasons. Longhornsg ( talk) 21:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 17:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The title is well sourced and in books as well, put it in quotes and do a search. What is it? Take something and allege that it is antisemitic in order to try and shut down discourse on some matter, such the subject of this article, for instance. Those engaging in this kind of thing are frequently associated with Israel and trying to temper criticism of it. A well known example is the (mis)use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in order to stifle legitimate discourse around Israel. No need to change the title or merge the article anywhere. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I see that this page has been marked as falling under the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and thus subject to the ARBPIA restrictions. I know this topic is "broadly construed", which I understand leaves some lines blurred, but I don’t think that this article should be designated as an Arab-Israeli conflict-related article in its entirety. The topic of the article is a phenomenon of bad-faith levying of the charge of antisemitism. This is not specific to the Arab-Israeli conflict. While it is often (but not fundamentally) related to criticisms of Israel, it is still not limited to criticisms pertaining to the conflict, even within the “criticism of Israel” scope.
As I understand it, the ARBECR restriction still allows for (stipulates that?) content related to a contentious topic to be protected (manually, via revert) within articles that are not completely related to a designated contentious topic. I think this is the right solution for this article, since the topic is not an Arab-Israeli conflict topic.
Those are my thoughts, looking forward to hearing others’! Zanahary ( talk) 21:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @ Onceinawhile, why did you restore the content I removed as out-of-scope? Those removals were done because the sources are not in the scope of the article (the weaponization of charges of antisemitism; or the bad-faith rhetorical employment of charges of antisemitism). Zanahary ( talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Zanahary, I just read all the “relevant” tags you added. Have you read the sources more widely, or just the quoted sections? If you do so, you will see that they are all discussing this subject explicitly. Onceinawhile ( talk) 01:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Please define it. You claim I am narrowing scope. Please define for me this article's scope. Zanahary ( talk) 01:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)this subject
…the bad faith use of the charge of antisemitism against a person for political purposes, notably with respect to criticism of Israel.
![]() | This
edit request to
Weaponization of antisemitism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(resubmitting edit request and forcing the {Edit extended-protected} tag this time)
Find a reference for the leading definition sentence or outright delete it: The weaponization of antisemitism, also described as the instrumentalization of antisemitism, is the use of the charge of antisemitism or the deployment of antisemitism and antisemitic sentiments.
- The definition of the main article topic must be based in a reliable source that directly defines it ( WP:VER).
- Though the current sentence is already difficult to parse, my understanding is that the proposed definition says that the use of any charge of anti-semitism for any purposes and in any circumstances is a form of the "weaponization of anti-semitism". This is a very strong and sweeping definition, and must be backed up with reliable sources. In fact, it is so sweeping that it arguable falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY, so multiple reliable sources should probably be used.
spintheer ( talk) 16:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
References
"Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations"), so I added a tag. Llll5032 ( talk) 15:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
is the use of the charge of antisemitism or the deployment of antisemitism and antisemitic sentimentsThis part is unclear, I am not at all sure what it is supposed to mean. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The content sourced to Plitznick & Aviv (Presuming that Muslims or Arabs criticizing Israel are motivated by antisemitism was described as Islamophobic in 2023 by ReThinking Foreign Policy president Mitchell Plitnick and Rutgers University law professor Sahar F. Aziz.
is about the assumptive interpretation that criticisms of Israel by Arabs or Muslims are motivated by antisemitism. It is not apparently relevant to the article's topic of bad-faith charges of antisemitism.
Zanahary (
talk)
07:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:NPA. Zanahary ( talk) 08:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)I'm afraid that the quality of your arguments is not improving.
I removed the Glubb source, which only describes the notion that critics of Israel are motivated by antisemitism and the subsequent “branding” of critics as antisemites; not relevant to bad faith. Zanahary ( talk) 18:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
![]() | This article isn't protected, so you should be able to edit it yourself. If you are still having problems editing it, please ask for advice at WP:TEAHOUSE. |
Find a reference for the leading definition sentence or outright delete it: The weaponization of antisemitism, also described as the instrumentalization of antisemitism, is the use of the charge of antisemitism or the deployment of antisemitism and antisemitic sentiments.
- The definition of the main article topic must be based in a reliable source that directly defines it ( WP:VER).
- Though the current sentence is already difficult to parse, my understanding is that the proposed definition says that the use of any charge of anti-semitism for any purposes and in any circumstances is a form of the "weaponization of anti-semitism". This is a very strong and sweeping definition, and must be backed up with reliable sources. In fact, it is so sweeping that it arguable falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY, so multiple reliable sources should probably be used.
spintheer ( talk) 21:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
References
WP:ARBECR applies here and this is not an edit request. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it easily passes WP:GNG including wide WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. -- Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@
Eladkarmel:, you wrote in your edit comment: WP:FRINGE, based on non reliable partisan sources, POV content, POV title, pov caricature
. Are you suggesting that some other reliable sources believe there is no such thing as weaponization of antisemitism? I can't even find any unreliable sources which claim there is no such thing as weaponization of antisemitism...
Onceinawhile (
talk)
09:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
In 1995, former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky described an example of how such actions worked in practice:
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. [1]
References
- ^ Ostrovsky, Victor (1995-09-01). Mossad Influence on U.S. Policy (Television production). C-SPAN. 26:57 - 28:25 minutes in. Retrieved 2024-01-08.
Hi @
Zanahary: your edit comment regarding the above said Undue, and original research (source doesn’t identify this in relation to the concept of weaponization of antisemitism)
This is clearly related to the topic of the article, and may be the best available source to providing an explanation of some of the mechanisms used from someone involved in this. There is no question that the quote relates to the topic of this article.
Could you explain your concern in more detail?
In the meantime, note that your edit counted as a second revert in the last 24 hours, which means it breached the 1RR restriction on articles in this topic area. I suggest you self revert - you are welcome to remove it again once the 24 hour period is up, assuming we haven't reached some form of agreement by then. Onceinawhile ( talk) 23:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Zanahary: re your edits to the lede:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The two concepts covered here haven't been linked by any source, and are quite different. A bad-faith rhetorical strategy of identifying antisemitism is not meaningfully similar to the actual propagation of antisemitism. They may both have been referred to as weaponization or instrumentalization, but they are clearly different.
I've removed the Russia-Belarus content in the meantime, per WP:BRD Zanahary ( talk) 05:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This is your first request that I SR. I did, but if no consensus for the inclusion of antisemitism unrelated to rhetorical weaponization of charges is formed, then it should be removed. The prose in the lede also definitely needs to be neutralized. Zanahary ( talk) 05:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Again, kindly request you self-revert
I have removed the Russia paragraphs as unrelated, per Zanahary. These paragraphs refer to "Exploitation of antisemitism" whereas this article refers to "Weaponization of claims of antisemitism". Longhornsg, perhaps you could create first a new article Exploitation of antisemitism? Once a version of that article is written it will be easier to discuss whether the title of this article requires disambiguation.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Longhornsg ( talk) 20:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The Bibliography includes some sources that are not usually considered independent RS, including a Medium post and some advocacy sources. At least one of the other sources cited does not describe the issue as weaponizing or instrumentalizing, which could amount to a synthesis problem if the title of this article is not changed. Should some of those sources be removed or better sources found? Llll5032 ( talk) 17:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
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. — Amakuru ( talk) 18:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Weaponization of antisemitism → ? – There are (at least) two distinct meanings of the phrase "Weaponization of antisemitism"/"instrumentalization of antisemitism" as used in sources. One is the subject of this article, the potentially bad faith use of charges of antisemitism. Notably, none of the scholarly sources in this article use the word "weaponization" except in the context of advocacy. It is mostly WP:BIASED sources here that prefer the charged term "weaponization" in the meaing we write about here, so this title as it stands is arguably a POVNAME. The second meaning is the use of antisemitism by regimes such as the Soviet Union to undermine political opponents. Indeed, it is in this latter context that the phrase "weaponization of antisemitism" has a longer and more mainstream basis in scholarly literature ( [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], among others). Thus when saying "weaponization of antisemitism", the current article fails WP:COMMONNAME. For NPOV, we must present a reader, scholar, or observer looking for "weaponization of antisemitism" with both options and not default to this much weaker case. Thus it is important, and more accurate, that this title is more focused to reflect the specific context the article refers to, with a second page on the other context. Simply put, it defies RS and is flat incorrect to say "weaponization of antisemitism" only refers to the use of the charge of antisemitism. Open to other ideas such as Bad faith charges of antisemitism, but the current title cannot stand for NPOV and accuracy reasons. Longhornsg ( talk) 21:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 17:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The title is well sourced and in books as well, put it in quotes and do a search. What is it? Take something and allege that it is antisemitic in order to try and shut down discourse on some matter, such the subject of this article, for instance. Those engaging in this kind of thing are frequently associated with Israel and trying to temper criticism of it. A well known example is the (mis)use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in order to stifle legitimate discourse around Israel. No need to change the title or merge the article anywhere. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I see that this page has been marked as falling under the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and thus subject to the ARBPIA restrictions. I know this topic is "broadly construed", which I understand leaves some lines blurred, but I don’t think that this article should be designated as an Arab-Israeli conflict-related article in its entirety. The topic of the article is a phenomenon of bad-faith levying of the charge of antisemitism. This is not specific to the Arab-Israeli conflict. While it is often (but not fundamentally) related to criticisms of Israel, it is still not limited to criticisms pertaining to the conflict, even within the “criticism of Israel” scope.
As I understand it, the ARBECR restriction still allows for (stipulates that?) content related to a contentious topic to be protected (manually, via revert) within articles that are not completely related to a designated contentious topic. I think this is the right solution for this article, since the topic is not an Arab-Israeli conflict topic.
Those are my thoughts, looking forward to hearing others’! Zanahary ( talk) 21:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @ Onceinawhile, why did you restore the content I removed as out-of-scope? Those removals were done because the sources are not in the scope of the article (the weaponization of charges of antisemitism; or the bad-faith rhetorical employment of charges of antisemitism). Zanahary ( talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Zanahary, I just read all the “relevant” tags you added. Have you read the sources more widely, or just the quoted sections? If you do so, you will see that they are all discussing this subject explicitly. Onceinawhile ( talk) 01:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Please define it. You claim I am narrowing scope. Please define for me this article's scope. Zanahary ( talk) 01:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)this subject
…the bad faith use of the charge of antisemitism against a person for political purposes, notably with respect to criticism of Israel.
![]() | This
edit request to
Weaponization of antisemitism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(resubmitting edit request and forcing the {Edit extended-protected} tag this time)
Find a reference for the leading definition sentence or outright delete it: The weaponization of antisemitism, also described as the instrumentalization of antisemitism, is the use of the charge of antisemitism or the deployment of antisemitism and antisemitic sentiments.
- The definition of the main article topic must be based in a reliable source that directly defines it ( WP:VER).
- Though the current sentence is already difficult to parse, my understanding is that the proposed definition says that the use of any charge of anti-semitism for any purposes and in any circumstances is a form of the "weaponization of anti-semitism". This is a very strong and sweeping definition, and must be backed up with reliable sources. In fact, it is so sweeping that it arguable falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY, so multiple reliable sources should probably be used.
spintheer ( talk) 16:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
References
"Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations"), so I added a tag. Llll5032 ( talk) 15:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
is the use of the charge of antisemitism or the deployment of antisemitism and antisemitic sentimentsThis part is unclear, I am not at all sure what it is supposed to mean. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The content sourced to Plitznick & Aviv (Presuming that Muslims or Arabs criticizing Israel are motivated by antisemitism was described as Islamophobic in 2023 by ReThinking Foreign Policy president Mitchell Plitnick and Rutgers University law professor Sahar F. Aziz.
is about the assumptive interpretation that criticisms of Israel by Arabs or Muslims are motivated by antisemitism. It is not apparently relevant to the article's topic of bad-faith charges of antisemitism.
Zanahary (
talk)
07:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:NPA. Zanahary ( talk) 08:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)I'm afraid that the quality of your arguments is not improving.
I removed the Glubb source, which only describes the notion that critics of Israel are motivated by antisemitism and the subsequent “branding” of critics as antisemites; not relevant to bad faith. Zanahary ( talk) 18:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)