Jump to content

Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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)[reply]

(
)

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.[reply]

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

Bibliography

[edit]
Extended content

Returning to OR issue

[edit]

In our current lead, we have the following sentence:

Suggestions of such exploitation have been raised during phases of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict,[1][2] in various organizations' adoptions of the controversial working definitions of antisemitism,[3] during the 2014–20 allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party,[4] at the 2023 US Congress hearing on antisemitism,[5] during the 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on university campuses,[6][7] and in discussions of Israeli apartheid.[8]

The footnotes here are examples of such suggestions, i.e. they are primary sources for the suggestions. For instance, "during phases of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" cites a suggestion by Norman Finkelstein in (surely unreliable?)Campus Watch and an opinion piece by Chomsky; "during the 2014–20 allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party" cites a suggestion by Dave Graeber in a Double Down News video (I am not sure if he uses the word "weaponise" or if it's just in the headline); "at the 2023 US Congress hearing on antisemitism" cites a suggestion by an ex-student in the Harvard Crimson. These seem really arbitrary to me, and not apt for a lead. Can we instead use reliable secondary sources which describe this happening, rather than give primary source examples only? Because just giving primary source is original research. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are perfectly acceptable sources. Wikipèdia is not a venue exclusively for what mainstream newspapers contain, and both are very influential historians of the conflict.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Bob, is there really anything written in the paragraph you quote above that is remotely questionable? Anyone who followed the news in the last decade witnessed such claims very regularly with their own eyes and ears. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Noam Chomsky nor Norman Finkelstein write that "Suggestions of such exploitation have been raised during..." Rather, they raise the suggestions themselves, and Wikipedia then inappropriately reports secondarily on their suggestions. It's original research. We need to cite to someone actually saying that suggestions of weaponization of antisemitism have been raised in [list of contexts] if those assertions are to remain in the article. Alternatively, Wikipedia could report attributively on the words of Chomsky et al.‚ but it would look different from "Suggestions of such exploitation have been raised during..." and it would be hard to argue for their inclusion in the lead without a secondary overview source lending their similar foundational significance for the article topic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Attribution would help solve the problem. Andre🚐 04:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zanahary is exactly right. I'm not sure attribution would help solve the problem in the lead, as their views aren't noteworthy enough in the lead. We'd need to find totally new wording. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. I'm all for improving this article (once all the sniping is dealt with). Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I am not saying that Chomsky and Finkelstein are in general not acceptable sources. I'm saying that in this case they are sources for their own opinions, i.e. primary sources, as examples of what our text claims, i.e. it's original research. We can include their views in the body, but we need a secondary source to say what we say in our voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following secondary and tertiary best sources would be a good improvement to the sentence. Also, sources considered notable that have a strong POV could be attributed more clearly, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in the NPOV policy. Llll5032 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think one such best secondary/tertiary source is the Waxman et al. paper specifically about the rhetorical formations making up disputes about weaponized antisemitism. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the section in question to cite only secondary sources. There may be other sources to cite to support more contexts, but maybe it doesn't need to be very long (since the introductory context of "criticism of Israel" covers a few of the previously listed disputes). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been reverted; the OR is still there and now untagged. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, back to this again. Well, how about Settler Antisemitism, Israeli Mass Violence, and the Crisis of Holocaust and Genocide Studies by Raz Segal, for example: "Collapsing this distinction became a central element in the Israeli-led weaponization of the discourse about antisemitism starting in the 1990s. This political and diplomatic effort shifted the focus of the struggle against antisemitism from protecting Jews around the world, a people who historically faced discriminatory and violent states, to protecting Israel from criticism of its policies and violence against Palestinians." and same author, "The weaponization of antisemitism by Israel and its allies, including the U.S. government, draws on the deeply problematic “working definition of antisemitism” adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)." Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might help, but not sure which claims we make this would support, and I don't know if Raz Segal is authoritative enough to say this in our voice without attribution, but might be. (I think he probably is.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could be used (IMO attributed), but it would have to support new prose in the lead as opposed to the pile of contexts currently supported by direct examples. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, scholarly sourcing doesn't need attribution, nor does Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah, also dealing with the subject matter. Have to check about Chomsky... Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uncontested scholarly sourcing of facts doesn't need attribution, but scholars' opinions, especially on contentious topics, should always be attributed. I'm not sure which Segal is in the case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without in-text attribution to scholars, this article would state simultaneously in wikivoice that the accusation of antisemitism is a weapon used by defenders of Israel and that accusing those who raise antisemitism of weaponizing it to defend Israel is antisemitic and illogical. For matters of uncontroversial historical fact, in-text attribution can be skipped, but for an article whose every source takes a position on a controversial discursive issue, we need to preserve the article’s current standard of attributing every view it cites. If you want to discuss this further in the abstract, I’d recommend starting a new section, but if you are only referring to the lead, then no need IMO—when new prose is proposed, it can be discussed here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't need to do that and if you try to push that, I will open another RFC on the issue. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see Criticism of Israel#Criticism stifled by accusations of antisemitism, this is a legitimate subject and the sooner you stop with your continuing efforts to delegitimize it the better. Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please dial back your tone. The status quo of this article is that views are attributed in text. I didn’t establish that, but I support it. If you want to change it, seek consensus. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The controversial aspect of the IHRA definition is that although it does not say so explicitly, it functions to affirm that antizionist antisemitism exists and is significant. The definition offers examples of the ways in which it typically appears and it insists that any judgment about what is antisemitic should be made according to context. It also explicitly protects critics of Israeli policies, culture, and society, saying, "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." Unsurprisingly, antizionists who say that antizionism is completely distinct from antisemitism, or that antizionist antisemitism is not significant, or that it is exaggerated or weaponized by Zionists for political reasons often militantly oppose the IHRA working definition.
There's a both sides, The Routledge history of antisemitism, p 47.
Can keep this up as long as you like, tone permitting. Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you say here seems true to me, but I don’t understand the relevance to the matter of the original research in the lead. If you’re proposing this as prose or a source for the lead, I’d oppose, since it seems to only be about disputes relating to the IHRA definition, which is narrower than this article’s scope. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing anything, I am waiting for you to edit the article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the above paragraph about the IHRA disputes in the context of this discussion on the lead? Do you want that integrated into the lead? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may do that, I don't see a need to explain anything tho. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking you to explain because I am confused by your comments. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just ignore them then. Maybe we're both confused. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you may bring sources saying that identified weaponization is not weaponization at all, nothing wrong with that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

128 scholars warn: ‘Don’t trap the United Nations in a vague and weaponized definition of antisemitism "Ample evidence shows that these examples are being weaponized to discredit and silence legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies as antisemitism." I can go on and on like this, anyone wants to work on a lead that satisfies everyone, they are welcome. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem very relevant to the lede content in question. Maybe you can propose some different lede content with more extensive coverage in secondary sources. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You too, feel free to edit the article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a tag, the usual thing then. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Muzher was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Chomsky 2002, p. 1.
  3. ^
  4. ^ Graeber, David (12 April 2020). "The Weaponisation of Labour Antisemitism". Double Down News.
  5. ^ Steinberg 2023.
  6. ^ McGreal, Chris (3 May 2024). "How pervasive is antisemitism on US campuses? A look at the language of the protests". The Guardian. Ahead of Shafik's testimony to Congress, Jewish members of the Columbia faculty wrote to her denouncing what they called "the weaponization of antisemitism" for political ends.
  7. ^ Goodman, Amy; Bartov, Omer (30 April 2024). "Israeli Holocaust Scholar Omer Bartov on Campus Protests, Weaponizing Antisemitism & Silencing Dissent". Democracy Now!.
  8. ^

Awkward wording

[edit]

Zanahary's recent edits added the very long-winded "Accusations of antisemitism often spark disputes over whether the charges are being used politically, particularly to stifle anti-Zionist views or smear[1] critics of Israel,[2][3]" before getting to the article subject itself. By implicitly questioning whether this phenomenon even exists at all, the wording conflicts with the sources in this article as well as common sense.

In the next paragraph, the wording "The charge of weaponization has been raised in discourses" is unnecessarily academic in tone.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the first wording, the wording mirrors the best tertiary sources, in Routledge’s History of Antisemitism and Waxman et al.’s 2022(?) paper, both of which situate the weaponization phenomenon as an emergent accusation in the context of disputes relating to antisemitism. If it’s too long, maybe Accusations of antisemitism often spark disputes over whether the charges are being used to stifle or smear[1] critics of Israel,
The next paragraph doesn’t seem too academic to me, but in any case you’ve reverted the resolution of an original research problem as explained above; you could restore the old phrasing (which I think is pretty unclear) without reintroducing the original research. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your revised version again questions whether the phenomenon exists. That is not consistent with the sources, even if you have cherrypicked some quotes which situate it only as an accusation. Murder is often an accusation, but it also exists as a real phenomenon, just as weaponization of antisemitism does.
We could use that same technique for any article: Deaths of people often spark disputes over whether the events result from the deliberate actions of one person against another, a practice described as murder. This type of long-windedness and uncertainty is known as MOS:LEADCLUTTER.
On the other sentence, the issue is "raised in discourses", which can be stated in much simpler English. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really comparable - labeling deaths as murders is often uncontentious, labeling claims of antisemitism as weaponization is normally (almost inherently) contentious. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way to handle this is to do a review of the best sources, which provide overviews of this topic or examine it in general, and see how they introduce it. In my experience (as in the two sources I cited—Routledge and Waxman 2022), it's treated as a discursive dispute.
Waxman et al. (2022):

Nowadays, charges of antisemitism are hotly disputed, often accompanied by accusations of bad faith, particularly when they concern criticisms of Israel or anti-Zionism.

Antisemitism has also become increasingly politicized in recent years because it has become enmeshed in debates about the ongoing conflict over Israel/Palestine, with the Israeli government and its supporters often charging that Israel’s opponents are guilty of engaging in a “new antisemitism” that takes the form of anti-Zionism, while individuals and groups supporting the Palestinians often claiming that charges of antisemitism are being used to silence and suppress them.

But while the politicization, and, no doubt, occasional “weaponization” of antisemitism charges have fuelled many of the controversies concerning antisemitism in recent years, these controversies have also arisen because in many instances antisemitism is not obvious or incontrovertible.

In short, people can disagree in good faith over whether or not something is antisemitic. While this may seem tritely obvious, it is an important observation to make precisely because large swaths of the discourse about antisemitism are suffused in allegations of bad faith: the beliefs that antisemitism allegations are, alternatively, maliciously weaponized in service of ulterior agendas or cavalierly dismissed in order to shield favoured political programmes.


Note that it's framed as a dispute in the context of discussions about antisemitism, and "weaponization" is in quotes.
@Onceinawhile, can you raise some good overview sources we can look at to see how they define and discuss this? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is wrong. The Routledge book does not discuss the topic in any meaningful way; Hirsh's paper in there is focused on New antisemitism. The Waxman paper is entitled "Arguing about antisemitism: why we disagree about antisemitism, and what we can do about it". When you write In my experience it's treated as a discursive dispute that's because you picked one source focused on a different topic and a second source focused specifically on treating it as a discursive dispute!
Either way, with respect to this article, the most important words in the quotes above are no doubt. Your chosen favorite source – despite being focused elsewhere – explicitly confirms the existence of this phenomenon.
Onceinawhile (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not actually any doubt that some allegations of antisemitism are baseless and politically motivated. I would reiterate that I for one would like to actually get the article body in better shape, I guess we will get around to that at some point, right? There is a bunch of stuff in the archives about this but we keep getting sidetracked, like now. That would also make the lead content more obvious imo. Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See race card for an article that treats a phenomenon that certainly exists in a way that aligns with sources which mostly consider it in the context of discourse. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We say that in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is the problem with my lead sentence that was reverted? Onceinawhile argues that it violates common sense. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not the race card article? Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the issue with my reverted lead sentence. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about "disputes". Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I give you the case of David Miller who was the subject of antisemitism accusations by Jewish students, the CST, the Bristol University Jewish Society, various UK politicians and sundry others.
Employment tribunal found that Miller "was unfairly dismissed and subjected to discrimination because his "anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic pursuant to section 10 Equality Act 2010" and that “What [Miller said was accepted as lawful, was not antisemitic and did not incite violence and did not pose any threat to any person’s health or safety.”]
There's more to the story that's not in the article, a good example of the harm spurious allegations cause. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An employment tribunal isn't necessarily an objective moral authority, and many have argued that some of Miller's comments (such as The enemy we face is trying to impose its will all over the world) were in fact antisemitic. These things aren't black and white. — xDanielx T/C\R 15:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They did argue that and they lost, after two separate in depth investigations. Miller is an AZ (protected characteristic), lots of people going around saying AZ = AS, do the math. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many argue that most or all anti-Zionism is indeed antisemitism. Some would also say that replacing Jews with Israel in classic antisemitic tropes doesn't necessarily remove the antisemitism. "Lost" doesn't mean much since there's no objective arbiter of antisemitism claims. Ultimately these are contentious topics which we can't take a side on. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not taking a side, I am reporting what occurred according to reliable sources, which I notice that you are not doing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the consequence of this particular case for this article’s lead? Do you think it should be included in the lead? If you are just trying to prove that spurious accusations of antisemitism have ever been raised before, then that’s really not on-topic, since that’s not how we determine how to cover a subject. Please list a few good sources on the topic so we can base our lead on their treatments. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not know how to do that? Or is this just another tilt at the "this subject does not exist/has no definition", the subject of umpteen discussions already? Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m asking you for what are, in your view, the best sources in this article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask you the same question. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please raise some good tertiary sources we can use to examine the treatment of this topic, @Onceinawhile. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tertiary? You mean secondary? Even primary will do. as long as there is no editor interpretation of them. Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the lead, primary certainly won’t do. There’s ambiguity between what is secondary and what is tertiary in the context of this topic, which is about an accusation raised in response to accusations. What I mean is a source that covers the article topic in general. Basically, what are our best, general sources? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting there should be books or journal articles devoted solely to ill motivated charges of antisemitism? What would they cover exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there are sources covering this subject, though not necessarily solely. We’ve found a number to cite here. If there weren’t, this article would not exist. Which do you think are best? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is not a history article or a topic with a pedigree, we can't expect to find sourcing littering the internet. I need to review some antisemitism material of the less polemical variety, one would have thought they would devote some material at least to this topic.
More to the point, some months ago, Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 5#Anti-Zionism, I wrote that there was a need to integrate the subject matter here with other articles in WP and we still need to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to wonder if the article title should include Israel as it (or its government) seems to be the prime mover behind weaponization according to Raz Segal (he is a top source on this, multiple sourcing for him talking about this). Collapsing the distinction between Israel and Jews, IHRA and so on. He also dates the start of it, to the 90s.
I am sure there are false antisemitism allegations just as there are false rape allegations but perhaps not so many in a non Israel related sense so a title like Weaponization of antisemitism by Israel might well make sense. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weaponization_of_antisemitism&oldid=1251857117"