Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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)

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)

Did you mean to ping me? Copy-editing takes time and thought, and tags spark discussion that lead to consensus-building. Zanahary (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be managing to copy edit quite well these last two days, just not for that very short sentence, strikes me as a pointy tag, entirely consistent with prior behavior. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know what point I would be making, since as you say I’ve been making lots of copy-edits, but absent discussion of the tag itself and its attached prose, inquiries about why I left tags and concern about pointy editing sounds like something to raise at my talk page, not the article’s. Zanahary (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

My initial comment here was not addressed to you specifically, you chose to respond to it as if it were. The tag has indeed sparked a discussion, just not the sort you were expecting. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Reasons why I deleted the last paragraph and source

The opinion piece from the National Post is devoted to refuting the claim that Jewish people are hesitant to criticize anything Israel does. That has nothing to do with the weaponization claim, that is, the claim that strong supporters of Israel (whether Jewish or not) use the charge of antisemitism in an effort to silence critics of Israel (including Jewish critics of Israel). The paragraph I deleted is itself unintentionally antisemitic in its wording ("the claim that Jews are `weaponizing antisemitism' to suppress criticism of Israel") because in wikivoice it misstates the claim by identifying the people doing the weaponizing as Jews. NightHeron (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That framing is straight from the source, which is in direct response to an op-ed (cited earlier in the article) that antisemitism is being weaponized to silence criticism of Israel. The source also identifies the people supposedly weaponizing as Jews. Zanahary (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please read the text of the opinion piece, and keep in mind that the headline is typically written by an editor, not by the author, and so is not necessarily an accurate summary of the content. The text of the source responds to the "op-ed in the Harvard Crimson calling on defenders of Israel to stop `weaponizing' antisemitism for their own ends." The source identifies the group accused of weaponizing as "defenders of Israel", and nowhere (except in the headline) does it identify the group as "Jews" (identifying the group as "Jews" would be antisemitic). As I said, the source argues at length that there's a lot of criticism of Israel by Jews, but it does not argue against the claim that defenders of Israel attempt to use the antisemitism charge as a weapon against anti-Israel protests. So the source is not relevant for this article. NightHeron (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The National Post is not a good source. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Subheading for the Livingstone Formulation

I added a subheading in the Conceptual criticisms section for the Livingstone Formulation. It was removed by @Onceinawhile, with the edit summary citing this Talk comment of mine.
I don't understand this removal, and would like to hear from other editors: is there a reason not to gather the Livingstone Formulation-related content under a subheading? The cited comment calls for headings to follow sources describing the heading topic in question, which in the case of the Livingstone Formulation is certainly met, given how many sources explicitly refer to and discuss it. Zanahary (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that it's functionally organized in subsections anyways; all the Livingstone Formulation-related stuff is together, apart from the section's unrelated content. Zanahary (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The formulation is just Hirsh coinage and their position on such matters is well known so that gives undue emphasis to a biased view. In reality, most interlocutors instead follow the Macpherson Principle, equivalent to Wikipedias AGF, when dealing with such accusations and only when there is evidence of bad faith taking a different path. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a variety of authors referring to the formulation, not just Hirsh. His view is also only “biased” insofar as it is a view. Your disagreement with Hirsh’s analysis is not really relevant to the question of due weight. Zanahary (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Write here what you think the formulation is. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

No need; what I think the formulation is doesn’t matter. This is about the concept’s presence in reliable secondary sources, which is broad and prominent. All the content relating to it is in the latter part of the Conceptual disputes section; why shouldn’t it be given a subheading? It would improve readability. Zanahary (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It does not deserve a subhead, I just explained why. Oh, wait, I broke my own rule and wasted breath to no avail. Slaps self, reminds self to stop doing it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s cool man. Anyone else think putting a subheading over conceptually related content whose inclusion in the article is not disputed makes sense? Zanahary (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

At least it has the merit of proving that "Weaponization" exists else why would the estimable Hirsh be opining about it, a not untypical inversion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Btw, we don't wikilink things that are in quotes because that implies the person quoted was referring to the wikilinked article when they may not have intended to do so. See Wikipedia talk:Quotations should not contain wikilinks Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks Zanahary (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Content relevance

I see some content I removed for irrelevance has been restored. I’ll explain why I believe this content to be irrelevant to the article topic, which is the rhetorical instrumentalization of charges of antisemitism in bad faith.

Israeli historian Benny Morris said John Bagot Glubb was subject to a "tendency among Israelis and Jews abroad to identify strong criticism of Israel as tantamount to, or as at least stemming from, anti-Semitism" (though Morris also said Glubb's anti-Zionism was "tinged by a degree of anti-Semitism").

This passage says nothing about any bad-faith use, weaponization, exploitation, etc. It describes a supposed tendency among Israelis and Jews to identify criticism of Israel as either antisemitic or deriving from antisemitism. That does not imply weaponization.

Glubb wrote in his 1956 memoirs: "It does not seem to me to be either just or expedient that similar criticisms directed against the Israeli government should brand the speaker with the moral stigma generally associated with anti-Semitism".

No implied reference to weaponization. He’s just saying that one ought to be able to make criticisms of Israel without being branded an antisemite. Just as we wouldn’t include some similar passage about how one ought to be able to criticize, say, Barack Obama without being accused of racism in an article about “the race card”, we shouldn’t use this passage, which makes no reference to weaponization, here. No source connects this passage to any such phenomenon as weaponization of antisemitism, and it certainly does not itself refer to nor describe such a concept.

Matthew Abraham, professor of rhetoric at the University of Arizona, wrote that accusations of antisemitism against those criticizing Israel's violation of Palestinian human rights have increased since the beginning of the Second Intifada in 2000. Abraham wrote: "Israel’s supporters have sought to make the argumentative leap that criticism of Israel as the Jewish state is anti-Semitic precisely because Israel is the home of all Jews for all time. However, this argument does not work since there are many anti-Zionist Jews who reject Israel’s attempts to speak in the name of Judaism. The traditional response to this problem has been to label anti-Zionist Jews as 'self-hating Jews,' which requires a suspension of rationality and sound judgement."

This is a critique of an argument that criticism of Israel is antisemitic because it is the Jewish state. It does not make any reference to any weaponization or bad faith, and instead criticizes the argument as illogical and “requiring a suspension of rationality and sound judgment”. It does not criticize it as being made in bad faith, dishonestly, as a weapon, etc. Not relevant to “weaponization of antisemitism”, just an argument about antisemitism and criticism of Israel.

The general thread between these passages I removed is that they describe disputed allegations of antisemitism in political discourse relating to Israel, without referring to or implying bad faith, weaponization, exploitation, or anything similar on the part of the alleger. This could belong on an article about disputes about antisemitism and its definition, or about antisemitism and criticism of Israel, but it does not belong in an article about weaponized charges of antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The concept that criticizing Israel is antisemitic belongs in this article. Israel just raided and shut down a news service (Al Jazeera) for criticizing the actions of Israel. US politicians are trying to outdo each other going after antisemitism that often isn't antisemitism. Professors have been arrested. Donors and GOP Congressmen are demanding university presidents be removed from office. Weaponization starts with a lie and then grows. The origins are a part of the story. Same as with Trump claiming immigrants are people released from prisons and insane asylums. Same as McCarthyism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If this article were about claims of antisemitism relating to criticism of Israel, then it might not be irrelevant. But it’s not: it’s about weaponized charges, and sources that don’t even comment on the faith and earnestness of those who allege antisemitism in discussions about Israel, let alone assert that charges are made exploitatively or in bad faith, have no relevance to weaponization. Zanahary (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"If this article were about claims of antisemitism relating to criticism of Israel, then it might not be irrelevant."

The very first sentence of this article specifies that it is about "the exploitation of accusations of antisemitism for political purposes, especially to counter anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel".

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Exploitation being the key word. This article is absolutely not about mere invocations of antisemitism in discourse relating to Israel. Zanahary (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

One can replace exploitation with misuse if that helps. Idk what a mere invocation of antisemitism is? If by that you mean just any old accusation, that's not what I want to include. Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources don't relate to "misuse", they relate to, ostensibly, illogical or factually incorrect allegations; misidentifications of antisemitism. But not misused, exploited, dishonest, etc. The authors do not write, in any of the content I removed, that allegations of antisemitism are being misused for political purposes. They only write that they disagree with the allegations, and thusly argue against them. Zanahary (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not true, I already gave you an example of one you removed ""indeed, the charge of anti-Semitism, if it is to be taken seriously, must be leveled with precision and not as a scatter-shot propaganda device for scoring cheap political points." is a good example of exactly what the article is about and actually expresses it quite well. Selfstudier (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree, that part is relevant. I didn't remove that text (I don't think!). The other content, which makes no reference to the notion of weaponization (which in this text comes in the form of "...a scatter-shot propaganda device for scoring cheap political points" does not have that relevance. Zanahary (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You did, I put it back (in a different place with the quote cut down). I haven't really looked properly at the others , I saw that one and stopped. I am anyway concentrating on stuff I want to add rather than restoring stuff that was cut. Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I put Abraham back for "indeed, the charge of anti-Semitism, if it is to be taken seriously, must be leveled with precision and not as a scatter-shot propaganda device for scoring cheap political points." which is exactly what this article is about and idk why it was taken out to begin with.

Is it the case that some accusations, maybe even most of them, are based on something, sure but this article is addressing the cases where that is not so. It would be better to try to add to the article instead of just removing and tagging stuff. In my experience, large scale removals are invariably POV (and tags are not far behind). Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If this article is specifically addressing cases where allegations of antisemitism are baselessly made in bad faith, then content may not refer to merely disputed arguments about antisemitism in discourse re: Israel. Zanahary (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

In McCarthyism, some accusations were made in bad faith and some were by those who saw communists in their cereal bowls. They both caused damage. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not an article about damaging allegations of antisemitism, it's about weaponized charges of antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Weaponization starts with false allegations. That's what the deleted/restored text speaks to. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The deleted text speaks to disputed allegations. Saying "this argument about antisemitism is illogical" does not equal "this is a weaponized charge of antisemitism, being exploited for political purposes". Zanahary (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

then content may not refer to merely disputed arguments about antisemitism in discourse re: Israel. Why not? Anyone can dispute anything but does it stand up to scrutiny? How can someone call a court antisemitic? Or a university? If US politicians and others argue that BDS is antisemitic when serious sourcing says it isn't so, that's grist for the mill. And so it goes, what may be used as counterpoint is that a position is disputed and the reader will judge which side has the better argument. If there instances of substantive dispute such as IHRA (for instance, there was an investigative enquiry in the UK that looked at 40 cases of alleged antisemitism and 38 of them ended up being dismissed and the remaining two are still unsubstantiated) then that should go in (and then people can say that the enquiry was biased and didn't have all the facts and whatever else they want to dispute it). It's not as if we want to include here every single thing that might be weaponization only those cases where a case is being made that it might well be. Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm saying: content that makes no reference to or description of weaponization, but instead only relates to invocations of antisemitism in political discourse (that the source characterizes as illogical, wrongheaded, etc. but not weaponized, dishonest, exploited, or made in bad faith), is not directly related to this article's topic, and thus ought to be excluded. Zanahary (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Usually it will be clear from the context. It is not necessary for the exact words to fit some preconceived notion any more than it is necessary for the material to use the word "weaponization". Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, exact words aren't needed. But these sources do not even imply that the allegations of antisemitism are made in bad faith, or exploitatively. They simply argue that the allegations are wrong. "An allegation of antisemitism was raised, but I disagree" is not good enough for inclusion in an article about the weaponization of antisemitism. Analogously: this is like including a quotation about how criticism of Hillary Clinton shouldn't be labeled as sexist in an article about rhetorical exploitation of charges of sexism. Zanahary (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

All I can say is that I am making best efforts only to include stuff that I think fits the bill, I am not going out of my way to add everything I come across. Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fine and beside the point here, which is that I don't think just any source that argues against or expresses disagreement with an accusation of antisemitism is relevant for an article on the weaponization of the charge of antisemitism. In order to be relevant, there must be some reference to or implication of the charge being made in bad faith, exploitatively, weaponizedly, instrumentally, etc. etc.

If this article is really about all disputes relating to charges of antisemitism in political discourse, particularly regarding Israel (and not just about charges levied in bad faith), then its stated scope needs to be clarified and changed. Zanahary (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The WP:SCOPE is given by the title and the first sentence and if a given context makes it clear that is what is being discussed, that's enough. If a position is being taken by politicians say, and they are throwing out accusations of antisemitism left and right, the odds on that being exploitative and for political purposes are very high. There are plenty of current examples of that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Without a source to assert that it’s exploitation and/or for political purposes, inclusion on WP based on an assessment of “the odds” being “very high” is original research. Zanahary (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, the context will make it clear. Did I say that already? Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Reference of some kind to exploitation etc. will make that clear. “This oughtn’t carry the moral stigma of antisemitism” contains no implicit charge of bad faith or exploitation. It is not relevant. Zanahary (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

And do we have any such in the article? Selfstudier (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the three examples quoted in the top-level comment for this section.

In order:

• Jews and Israelis identify strong criticism of Israel as tantamount to, or as at least stemming from, anti-Semitism.
• Critics of the Israeli government shouldn’t be branded with the moral stigma generally associated with anti-Semitism.
• Israel’s supporters who consider criticism of Israel antisemitic are making an illogical argumentative leap.

None of these suggest bad faith, exploitation, etc etc Zanahary (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, to take the first, I think that sentence can go away because it is anyway present in one of the citations for the succeeding sentence, where it seems more apt. Selfstudier (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Which also takes care of the second. Glubbs lament almost reads like an IHRA example, that criticism of the Israeli government should not automatically lead to being branded an antisemite and in those days, no less, when there was no "new" antisemitism and no IHRA either. Its an historical example of no great import I think, but not invalid for all that. Selfstudier (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s irrelevant without a charge of bad faith, instrumentalization, etc. This article is not about charges of excess in the raising of allegations of antisemitism, it is about bad-faith weaponization. I’ve removed it duly. Zanahary (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

For the third (or second, really), I personally don't care if that is in or out, I agree with his "which requires a suspension of rationality and sound judgement" but telling the critics they are irrational and illogical won't succeed even if true, for that would cause a paradox.

In sum, I hardly think the article overall is much affected by these three (or two). Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I see that altho I did not agree to the deletion of Glubb, it has been anyway removed. In future I will waste no further effort in such discussions as these, since clearly discussion by edit summary is all that is wanted. Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There is clear consensus from the above discussion that these paragraphs are relevant to this article. I will add them back. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely not consensus; Selfstudier's last comments are about how he doesn't think the contested passages are of much importance and he specifically didn't agree to the removal of Glubb (not the other two). Zanahary (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Noone agreed with your claims that these are not relevant to the topic of this article. They clearly are relevant, particularly if you read the wider context in the underlying sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I invite you to expand their prose in the article with the relevant context, then. Readers should be able to grasp relevance without having to read the source. Zanahary (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to restore the content. Zanahary, why would you remove the content again without consensus? Isn't that edit warring? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

10 May 2024

Zanahary, perhaps I'm missing something; but the paragraph you just added from Lars Rensmann seems to me a good example of someone weaponizing claims of antisemitism. Sounds like he's saying claims of misuse of the term antisemtism are an antisemetic trope. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That he's alleging antisemitism neither implies that his claim is weaponized, nor does your evaluation of it as such change that it is reliably sourced. If that's how this worked, one could just scrub any attributed charge of antisemitism from Wikipedia on the grounds that it "seems a good example of someone weaponizing claims of antisemitism". If you do find a reliably-sourced criticism of Rensmann's argument, though, please add it! Zanahary (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

All the additions merely demonstrate that the topic exists, although some editing is needed here and there. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

More directly: if this were a reason not to include something, we could remove all criticisms of the notion of the race card as racist from Race card, because it seems like an example of pulling the race card. Zanahary (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I guess I must be antisemitic as I think weaponization of antisemitism actually exists. Perhaps he explains this further. But that one paragraph appears extremely offensive to me and I'm concerned about the direction of this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that's your reading of Rensmann, but it's irrelevant; this is not a forum about the weaponization of antisemitism. Rensmann's is a sourced, attributed perspective from an academic book about antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

And now you've added yet another one while at the same time arguing that the opposite views be removed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What? I'm not arguing that the opposite views be removed, or else I would argue for the removal of every view but Rensmann's. I am adding attributed, sourced academic perspectives on the charge of bad faith in discussions of antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense. You have added nine such quotes and backgrounds to the quotes today alone to an already lengthy article basically pushing the same POV. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is stuff about Marcus views scattered about in different places, shouldn't all of that material be in one place? We have:

Kenneth L. Marcus, while warning in 2010 against denying or minimizing antisemitism, also cautioned against overuse of the "anti-Semitism card", paralleling concerns raised by Richard Thompson Ford with the broader misuse of "the race card": that it can be dishonest and mean-spirited, risks weakening legitimate accusations of bigotry, risks distracting socially concerned organizations from other social injustices, and hurts outreach efforts between Jewish and Arab or Muslim groups. (under Description)

and

In 2010, Kenneth L. Marcus wrote that although Mearsheimer and Walt called such accusations "the Great Silencer", they had not themselves been silenced, having received a wide audience for their book and appearances. Marcus also wrote that many pro-Israel commentators who had condemned what they viewed as antisemitism in anti-Zionist rhetoric had also taken pains to say that many criticisms of Israel are not antisemitic. (under Conceptual disputes)

and

In his 2016 review of Kenneth L. Marcus's The Definition of Anti-Semitism, Robert Fine referred to an "extensive literature on the allegedly illicit uses of the word 'antisemitism' in political argument. Its use has been condemned, for instance, for 'overstating' the suffering of Jews and neglecting that of other people, for legitimising Jewish power and stigmatising those who criticise Jewish power, and more concretely for defending the supposedly indefensible actions and existence of the Jewish state. This political culture situates antisemitism emphatically in the past, treats uses of the term 'antisemitism' as anachronistic when applied to the present day, and casts doubt on the motives of those who claim to experience or witness it in the here and now." (also under Conceptual disputes)

and

Kenneth L. Marcus wrote in 2015 of the Livingstone Formulation: "Jewish victims of anti-Semitism are so often smeared for bringing allegations in "bad faith" that the gambit now has a name". (a third item under Conceptual disputes)

Anyone care to explain the difference between History, Description and Conceptual disputes?

Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

And well done, Z, you have now written 32% of the page. Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Zanahary (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

And now you have added a personal story by a minor British politician. This article is swiftly becoming what the article is about -- weaponization of accusations of antisemitism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a politician directly addressing the broad charge of bad-faith allegations of antisemitism, in the context of the second most-major context of the concept's representation in reliable sources (the Labour thing, after, of course, Israel). She even refers to the "weaponization" verbiage. I don't see why this wouldn't be in the article. This topic is inherently discursive, it literally refers to a charge pertaining to a charge. There's a breadth of opinions on it, and lots of sources expressing different views, ranging from "antisemitism is weaponized to silence anti-Zionism" to "the accusation of raising charges of antisemitism in bad faith is an antisemitic ad-hominem that evokes conspiracy". All these views, represented as they are in reliable sources, ought to be represented.
Also, if I interpret you correctly, I think you're saying that I am acting in bad faith. I'm not, and expanding an article with good sources is not the sort of thing that should arouse that suspicion in you. Zanahary (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

A politician relating a personal story in a debate. How many tens of thousands of arguments like this have occurred in many debates in many countries over the decades? You can't just Google weaponization and antisemitism and stuff the article with so many, many cites that you like. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree if I'd cited only the transcript, but her words were quoted in a number of secondary sources, including the cited Harpers piece. Anyways, everything in this article could be framed so trivially: "a theorist complaining about dishonesty", "a politician criticizing AIPAC". All this stuff is reliably sourced and of unambiguous relevance. Zanahary (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

By your reasoning, we should add every statement on the subject by every politician in every political body that is published somewhere. Of course so many of those statements are a direct result of weaponization of antisemitism, making this article a part of the problem the article seeks to document. Many in the last week by US politicians purely to make political points for the next election. Condense this to general statements on each side and include some of these documents as see also links. Otherwise, this article is a lengthy, repetitive bore and a POV mess. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If there’s an overal condensing, that’s one thing—I’m totally in favor of limiting sources to academic stuff, and getting rid of op-eds, which includes the Smeeth comments—but I’m not going to go in and start cutting content that I didn’t add. I don’t think that would be well-received. Zanahary (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually don't understand the difference between History and Descriptions, except that the stuff in Descriptions seems to be about analyzing the rhetorical and affective qualities of bad-faith raising of antisemitism. The stuff under conceptual disputes is all in critique and receptive analysis of the charge of bad faith in discussions of antisemitism.

I agree the article ought to be reorganized. I was thinking of organizing it under different subject matters—like the Labour stuff, various Israel topics. But then there's a lot of content that doesn't specifically refer to any particular public discourse relating to one event or another, it's just pertaining to discussions of antisemitism in general. That's not a problem; I think a new organization can be made. Zanahary (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Added Feldman confirming that it exists "a long history of Israel and its supporters portraying anti-Zionism and other criticisms of Israel as antisemitic". But we kinda knew that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Hirsh as well as Marcus, all over the place. Selfstudier (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

When an editor goes on a spree with rapid-fire edits to an article in a contentious subject area that skew the article toward their personal POV, without first achieving consensus on the talk-page or agreement from other editors that the lengthy additions satisfy WP:DUE and WP:RS, isn't the natural response for us to revert all of them and ask the editor who's doing this to read WP:BRD and to first seek consensus on the talk page for each of their desired changes? NightHeron (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

NightHeron, you don’t know my personal POV. And adding well-sourced content to an article is not a BOLD edit that would generally require consensus on the talk page—this is relevant content, all directly related to the topic at hand, the vast majority of which is sourced to academic works on antisemitism. If someone wants to remove any of the added content, they need to argue for why it shouldn’t be in the article, whose scope is not being expanded by any of these additions. Zanahary (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

And I’m open to discussion about due weight and sourcing, but characterizing my editing as a spree to suit my personal POV (I’m just writing as I research, and alleging to know my POV (which I’m sure would surprise you) is in violation of AGF) is an unnecessarily bristling framing of an article being expanded with reliable sources. Zanahary (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD and WP:ONUS and you'll see that you're wrong in claiming that it's our responsibility to first show that your additions violate WP policy before we revert them. Concerning WP:AGF, I never said that your edits are in bad faith. I'm sure you sincerely believe that your POV is the right one, and that the article should reflect that. The issue is not good faith or bad faith; it's adhering to Wikipedia core policies. NightHeron (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you sincerely believe that your POV is the right one, and that the article should reflect that.

I hope I haven’t said anything this rude or condescending to any editors in this discussion.

Content must first be disputed in order for ONUS to fall on me. I’m open to that: dispute it (and if you think the Smeeth example has been sufficiently disputed, remove it). But no issue has been raised with the rest of this content besides that it was added too quickly, which is not a content dispute. Zanahary (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, 3 hours ago an editor put a tag on the article about the current lack of balance, which is exactly what I referred to with the word "skewed". Lack of balance is a content issue.

adding well-sourced content to an article is not a BOLD edit that would generally require consensus on the talk page No, that's wrong. BOLD edits or series of edits might be ones that the editor who inserted them sincerely believes improve the article, but that doesn't mean they're not BOLD. Any edit that significantly changes the stable version (and for which no consensus yet exists) is a BOLD edit. NightHeron (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

We need to somehow link this article to Anti-Zionism#Allegations of antisemitism. Thoughts? Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

And I suppose New antisemitism#Accusations of misuse of the term to stifle criticism of Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention Criticism of Israel#Criticism of Israel and antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

And even Zionism#Anti-Zionism or antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Certainly these are all related. Indeed, I'm not sure I've ever heard of the "weaponization" criticism outside of the Israel / Zionism context. All this multiple (and divergent) coverage shows how difficult it is to keep unbalanced versions from cropping up in Wikipedia. This article seems to assume (in place) that it is weaponization when anti-Israel statements are labeled as antisemitic. I see you've put lots of effort into this article, so I do think it's good to stand back and see how this issue is addressed in the encyclopedia overall. ProfGray (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This article seems to assume (in place) that it is weaponization when anti-Israel statements are labeled as antisemitic As in those articles above, there is the "title", the "scope" and the article content. Articles generally start with some sort of titular premise (Gaza Strip famine or Israel and apartheid, for example) but then the content should include contrary/additional/critical views for a NPOV.

Here, we can imagine the "first" allegation (that something is antisemitic), the "second" allegation (that the "first" is weaponization) and also a "third" (that the "second" is antisemitic), taking us back to square one.

The principal articles dealing with the "first" would be Antisemitism, Criticism of Israel and perhaps New antisemitism.

This article attempts to deal with the "second"

We might need another to deal with the "third", not sure about that one, perhaps AZ and AS? Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)