Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sources

Here from WP:OR/N. Before doing anything else, I strongly recommend purging the article of all op-ed and advocacy sources and the claims cited to them, so as to prevent impropriety with the sources as well as the appearance of impropriety. According to User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen, these are:

• Muzher (2005)
• Stern (2019)
• Sela (2019) (How the BBC proliferates antisemitism in the UK)
• Anti-Defamation League
• Glavin (2016)

From there, editors of this page can determine which sources are written by subject matter experts and scrap the others. Then find more subject matter expert sources. Anything other than the highest quality sources is going to (rightfully) raise questions about what the sources are being used for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I BOLDly added the "Sources" heading to separate the section from the discussion above. Llll5032 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Thebiguglyalien! Thanks for your gathering of sources. In addition to your list, the following are op-ed and advocacy citations:

• Roth-Rowland (2020)
• Graeber (2020)
• Steinberg (2020)
• Gutman (2021)
• Ganz (2024)
• Lerner (2007)
• Leifer (2019)
• Omer (2021)
• Hirsh (2021) (Fathom)

Zanahary (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The idea of focusing on the highest quality sources is important. That doesn’t mean we should delete opinions (both supportive and critical), so long as they (a) don’t form the core of the article, (b) are in-line attributed, and (c) provide a balanced picture.

Zanahary, are these the only sources you consider “opinion sources”? i.e. we can now focus the article sourcing around the rest and remove unnecessary in-line attribution.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:VOICE, WP:SYNTH, and the consensus here all suggest keeping in-text attribution for the statements of analysis. Llll5032 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

There should be opinions in the article, but we shouldn't source them with the op-eds expressing those opinions. It's impossible to evaluate due weight by doing that. The sources should all be academic coverage discussing the opinions, preferably in a disinterested tone. This is the type of article where the sourcing needs to be airtight. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with op-eds if the author can be presumed an expert on the subject matter. Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Example, For the Safety of Jews and Palestinians, Stop Weaponizing Antisemitism has been reported on quite a bit but stands on its own imo. If you want an RS reporting it, then https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-780174

"Now, as an elder leader, with the benefit of hindsight, I feel compelled to speak to what I see as a disturbing trend gripping our campus, and many others: The cynical weaponization of antisemitism by powerful forces who seek to intimidate and ultimately silence legitimate criticism of Israel and of American policy on Israel." Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You can, but it's a far cry from best practice, and it's just asking for trouble in an article as contentious as this one. High quality secondary sources describing people's opinions should always always always be preferred over primary sources of the opinions themselves. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Every article in AI area is contentious, even when they are not. Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

My point exactly. Anyone editing in this area should have a phenomenal sense of how to cite academic sources in a disinterested fashion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure but I am not going to bury good sources just to placate the opposition, whose arguments here strike me as extremely dubious. Selfstudier (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If they're not academic, disinterested sources, then they're not "good" sources. They're mediocre sources to be used when nothing better is available. Also, if there's an "opposition", then something went wrong. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

WP actually wants opinion pieces for its articles, this idea that all sources must be academic is a myth. Nothing went wrong, par for the course. The amount of tags on this article is just ridiculous. Selfstudier (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: I appreciate your balanced and constructive approach here. One question - a consistent assumption in your comments is that this topic is contentious. Certainly this is a sensitive area which requires nuance and care, but I don't think it is accurate to call it contentious. Looking through the editing history of the page, and this talk page, there is no meaningful content dispute. Nor is there between the underlying sources. No-one disputes the existence of this phenomenon or its basic characteristics, and nor does the article or its sources attempt to debate whether a particular instance is weaponization or not. The race card article is not contentious for the same reason. I think we may be making a mountain out of a molehill. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The race card article is less controversial, even though it is about a controversy, because is based on common tertiary reliable sources exploring the subject along with a few highly relevant secondary reliable sources. It follows WP:BESTSOURCES in the fundamental NPOV policy: "When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." Llll5032 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the use-mention distinction in WP:NEO should be helpful. Zanahary (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032: my comment above is about a different question. Have you identified any particular claim being made in this article which is contentious? Or do you consider existence of the concept itself to be contentious - i.e. are you aware of any sources which dispute its existence? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The article has language about various contentions and disputes, but I agree with Thebiguglyalien and Zanahary that many of the cited sources on all "sides" are weak as defined by WP:RS and discussions at WP:RSN. Zanahary raised a productive policy-based question: How should we interpret the use-mention distinction in WP:NEO for this article? Llll5032 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes: (1) we need to agree on the core sources. In parallel, to clarify the wider terms of the discussion:

• (2) Have you identified any particular claim being made in this article which is contentious? Or do you consider existence of the concept itself to be contentious - i.e. are you aware of any sources which dispute its existence?
• (3) Does anyone think that all opinion pieces should be expunged from the article, leaving only core sources?

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes to removing opinion sources (except if descriptions of them are cited to secondary WP:GREL RS in proportionate usage) and using only WP:BESTSOURCES as defined by WP:RSN and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Also, if the neologism remains as the title of the article, then per WP:NEO, "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction)." Making those edits will help to clarify other questions about the article. Llll5032 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Also support removing all opinion sources. And if this article’s title stays the same and it is to become a neologism article, I don’t think “weaponization of antisemitism” is notable enough a neo, and I’ve seen no sources discussing the term itself. Zanahary (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

(Replying to Once) No longer a neologism, part of the language, lots of things are weaponized these days. I don't agree that it is necessary and it is not policy either, to remove opinion sources cited to experts, pretty sure such opinions would be reversed if the article were about something else.Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Another good reason to apply the standards of WP:NEOLOGISM is that the meaning of the phrase as defined by this article's sources is different from what could be assumed from a literal reading of the words. And, WP:NEOLOGISM suggests, a non-neologism would be defined clearly in some WP:TERTIARY and perhaps more mainstream secondary sources, as race card is. Llll5032 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The WP:NEOLOGISM policy is part of WP:NOTDICT. That policy states in the lede: Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meaning(s), usage and history.

As Zero wrote in a comment above on 2 March The first step is to realise that this is not an article about a phrase. It is an article about a widespread practice that is mentioned by countless sources. In other words, WP:NOTDICT / WP:NEOLOGISM are not relevant to this article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There is some similar guidance to WP:NEOLOGISM in WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Examples it cites, including Macedonia (terminology), Orange (word), Thou, and No worries, include secondary and tertiary analyses of the origin and usage of a phrase, and are not limited to a recitation of examples of use. Llll5032 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that this article's scope is not verbal but phenomenological, and "weaponization of antisemitism" is not apparently the common name for the phenomenon in question (which is variously described in sources with verbiages like "smear", "instrumentalization", "exploitation", "using ... to shield", "orchestrate"), I think this article should be retitled per WP:NDESC. Do you have any ideas, @Llll5032? Zanahary (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a title such as "Disputed accusations of antisemitism" would suffice for plain language, or a title related to Israel if it accounts for all the examples. WP:NDESC says titles should "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words", which might include both "accusation" and "weaponization", so there may be more questions to consider. Do you have ideas?Llll5032 (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It's hard, because "bad-faith" is most simple and clear, but also may violate neutrality (though not as badly as the current title). "Disputed accusations" is also too broad and doesn't specify the political aspect. Really I think the best thing for this article is to be moved to a new article with the broader scope of criticism of Israel and antisemitism. Maybe, for this one, "allegations of disingenuous charges of antisemitism", or a more concise version. Zanahary (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe so. A good title could enable a variety of RS to be cited for the boundaries between actual antisemitism and the bad-faith accusations. Llll5032 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

To Zanahary's comment, the core of this article is not about allegations, it is about the underlying act. Allegations are just a component of it, just as they are in topics about all sociological phenomena which are frequently unable to be proven with 100% certainty due to our inability to see inside other people's minds.

Action	Description	Wiki article
Act	Antisemitic prejudice or hostility	Antisemitism
Claim	Allegations of antisemitism
Act	Use of antisemitism claims for political purposes	This one
Claim	Allegations of antisemitism claims for political purposes
Act	Racist prejudice or hostility	Racism
Claim	Allegations of racism
Act	Use of racism claims for political or other purposes	Race card
Claim	Allegations of racism claims for political or other purposes

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If the first source currently cited in the first sentence (Waxman, Schraub & Hosein 2022) is meant to be a WP:BESTSOURCE, then it is difficult to see how the word "weaponization" could be used in a Wikivoiced title. In the three times that the source uses the words "weaponization" or "weaponized", they are twice within quotation marks. The only use outside quotation marks also is not an endorsement of the concept: "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." Llll5032 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of a phrase in a title is not confirmation of its reality in wikivoice. It only defines the topic of the article. Does the fact we have an article on ectoplasm mean we support its existence? Zero^talk 06:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What does WP:NDESC say? Llll5032 (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If it were the common name, its non-neutrality might be excusable. But it is neither the common name nor a neutral description; per WP:NPOVNAME it does not see use in a significant majority of English-language sources, and thus should be replaced with a neutral description, per WP:NDESC. Zanahary (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The onus is on editors who want to include any disputed content, and there does not appear to be consensus in this discussion that the article should include any written opinion or advocacy sources. Llll5032 (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagging

This article was badly excessively tagged, see this revision.

Please avoid readding the tags and use the talk page instead. I am willing to help resolve any concerns on this article.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The neutrality and OR banners should be restored. This article has been raised at the OR noticeboard, and a lot of the source talk above identifies original research as an issue. Zanahary (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This article has been raised at the OR noticeboard And?

Specify what the OR and neutrality issues are. Selfstudier (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

See above. Obviously editors find that this article has some OR problems. Why should there be no tag? Zanahary (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Specify the OR problems (and the neutrality problems). One by one. Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Dude, you've been nothing but aggressive to me in every one of our interactions. Short commands through gritted teeth don't read very imposingly through Wikipedia talk pages. Chill out. Maybe try it with one of the other editors who have raised OR and sourcing concerns, they might have the stamina. Zanahary (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Ttfn. And see your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Why not just explain the issues here and I will try to fix them.

When adding a tag to an article one is required to explain the reasons for it on the talk page anyway.

So why not explain the issues now, and then if they don't get resolved we can consider readding the tag.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

To quote bbf:

There is no discernable criteria for why these opinions are noteworthy. No secondary sources are cited to show that they are noteworthy. Similarly, when general statements are made ("it has been argued that X" type statements, as in the lead), the citations supporting them are examples of such arguments, not reportage or analysis describing such arguments being made by others. This basically means the article is an extended piece of original research. Are there any strong secondary sources or tertiary sources weighing up the opinions here? If not, I think we have fatal problems.

Zanahary (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding this.

"There is no discernable criteria for why these opinions are noteworthy. No secondary sources are cited to show that they are noteworthy."

This article is based on a significant number of reliable sources. Am I missing something?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This article has an undefined scope, contains information from sources not pertaining to bad-faith allegations of antisemitism, and is full of sources that are just opinion editorials that seem to use a common turn of phrase. Zanahary (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

1. This article has an undefined scope - I disagree

2. Contains information from sources not pertaining to bad-faith allegations of antisemitism - What information/sources specifically are you referring to?

3. Full of sources that are just opinion editorials that seem to use a common turn of phrase - I don't quite understand this one, again could you please be more specific?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Okay.

2. Everything I tagged

3. This article contains opinion editorials that use a phrase but do not describe a concept. See WP:NEO. Zanahary (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Resolved? If not, please explain why you think the article has an undefined scope.

2. Please give at least one specific example.

3. I'm simply still not sure what you mean here.

Also, I again recommend you fix these issues yourself since you are the one most familiar with them and you seem to have the time and effort available to do so. Although that said, I am still willing to work with you to help resolve these issues.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You reverted my attempt to fix these issues. That’s the context of this discussion. Zanahary (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I only removed tags from the article. I made no changes to the content or sources of the article, and did not revert any attempts to fix any issues. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that a tag is not a fix, but the identification of a problem. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We seem to not be making any progress here, and I notice that previous discussions had the same problem of going in circles and not getting anywhere (For example 'Conceptual issue', 'Restorations of irrelevant content' and 'In-line citations for every sentence?'). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You can look at any one of the tags I added that you removed for an example. I explain it in the metadata. If this isn’t helpful to you, I am not going to list them, so see if you can give it a try. Zanahary (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I've genuinely tried to help here but have not been presented with specific issues that are actionable. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Don’t despair. You’ve been here for about two hours. Take a break from leaving comments with bold text—maybe take a scroll up and read some or all of the long discussion that preceded your arrival—and give other editors some time to answer your inquiries in ways that meet your demands (no referrals to earlier discussion, no referrals to the tags you removed, no referrals to ongoing discussion—am I missing any?). Zanahary (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In fact, since you seem to want concrete edit requests, and don’t want to engage with anything less decided, you’re free to wait for the discussions to unfold, and we can ping you when we have what you want. Thanks! Zanahary (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I am reverting the mass tag removals, per WP:WTRMT. Much of the disputed content was warred in, despite WP:ONUS and lack of talk page consensus related to the tags in several sections above. Tagging for improvements with specified metadata is a recommended approach. Editors can address relevant tags by making improvements that are requested in the tag metadata. @Zanahary, if some of the tags for "relevance" related to the sources' lack of words related to "weaponization" or "instrumentalization", could you add the reasoning to the tag metadata? Llll5032 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe I had reasoning metadata for all or most of the tags I added. Zanahary (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not mean to say you had not supplied reasoning. Because of the edit warring in the article, being specific about what is necessary to satisfy the objections in the tags takes on more importance. Llll5032 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

And I have reverted the revert, WP:TAGBOMBING is disruptive behavior as I already mentioned above, since when even more tagging took place. Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The tags should be removed since they are all, or at least most of them, unjustified and unnecessary.

Explain the issues here and I will try to resolve them. Isn't that a better way to resolve the alleged issues?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

If you read the 10 talk page discussions above, the arguments related to the tags are discussed there. Llll5032 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Which one do you want to discuss first? Selfstudier (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, would you like to discuss the RSN problem that I notified you about by pinging you in the Conceptual issue section? Llll5032 (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

No need to ping me for an article that is obviously on my watch list. Selfstudier (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

So you have no reply to my question about the apparent consensus at RSN that a source you cited twice in this article's first sentence is not generally to be used for facts? Llll5032 (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I get the feeling you're not actually trying to improve the article. I don't know why you can't just make the changes you deem necessary yourself, nor why you can't explain the problems here so that I or others can fix them for you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not make most of the tags, but the alternative would be removing the content, which is not as conducive to consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Is that really all you have to say? You're really not going to fix the article yourself or explain the reasons for the tags? If you're not interested in improving the article then why bother with the tags at all? Also, as I've pointed out already, an editor adding a tag has an onus to clearly explain the specific issue. Most (all?) of the tags I removed had no talk page entry explaining their rationale.

I continue to be here trying to fix issues, but I continue to not recieve identification or explanation of issues.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You’ve come to the bottom of a long talk page full of discussion raising concerns of original research and sourcing to demand that every editor who disagrees with your revert summarize the aforementioned discussion to you, lest they be condemned as not trying to improve the article. Stop casting aspersions, especially to @Llll5032, who’s been very measured and neutral in their editing here. Zanahary (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate what I already said at your talk page, if you have problems with any editor's behavior, their talk page is the correct place to raise that. Not here. I suggest sticking to content issues.Selfstudier (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I am responding to an editor’s arguments where they are made. Per your own proposed procedure, you should have not made this comment here. Zanahary (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Making sure you get the message since you ignored it the first time. I can leave you another message at your talk page if you would prefer? Selfstudier (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, I continue to be here trying to find solutions but I'm not being presented with what the problems actually are.

Per Template:POV "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. (I'm assuming this applies to all other tags as well)

Telling an editor who is trying to resolve a tagged issue to "read the 10 talk page discussions above" obviously is not specific at all and therefore not actionable - and neither is it reasonable.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a constructive approach would be to restore the tags so that each could be edited with a Wikilink to the respective talk page section? Llll5032 (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We're not making any progress here. Tags are not a good thing on an article. Why add a tag asking for an editor to fix something, rather than just tell me, who is here now and willing to help, what the issues are and I'll fix them.

Tags need to have specific issues that are actionable. If there exist specific issues that are actionable in this article, please present them here and I will address them immediately.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I renewed a question in the current section, if you want to join that discussion. Llll5032 (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

A convoluted dicussion is not a specific issue that is actionable. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The action would be to remove the source doubted by RSN from the Wikivoiced first sentence of this article. Then, cite it in later in the article as a viewpoint, or remove it from the article. Llll5032 (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

And why exactly should the source be removed? Because it has been "doubted" by a few editors?

At least on the surface the article cited seems reasonable to me.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the cited discussions at RSN and are you familiar with the WP:SPS policy? If RSN consensus says that the source is not normally cited for facts, then why does it account for two of the five cites in the first sentence of this article? I added "better source needed" because a good first sentence uses WP:BESTSOURCES. If editors disagree, then perhaps RSN should be asked again for the context of this article. Llll5032 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it agreed that the sentence

"The weaponization of antisemitism, also described as the instrumentalization of antisemitism, is the making of false charges of antisemitism."

is supported by sources? (it doesn't matter where, article or body).

The whole sentence is clearly supported by cite 1, for instance.

As for + 972, I don't object to their being attributed and moved to the article body, they will still support the lead there (note that of the three discussions at RSN, the latest one is 2015 and was much disrupted by a blocked sock). Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would agree to the +972 cites being moved now to the body, with the understanding that RSN and talk page consensus may need to offer more clarity regarding if it can be used there. The first sentence requires WP:BESTSOURCES that support each claim in their own words without editor synthesis. That was requested by spintheer, to whom we responded, and it has been a main request of several other editors at Talk as well. So an uncited claim in the first sentence would need a CN tag until a high-quality RS clearly says it. If cite 1 to Consonni supports the last part of the sentence, then can you add a quotation about it to its refquote? Consonni, who mentions each title phrase once within her chapter, may not satisfy the use-mention distinction in WP:NEOLOGISM if a neologism remains the title of this article, but we agree that her work is worthy of inclusion. Llll5032 (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is no agreement on +972 or any other cites in the article as support for the lead sentence, then we have no agreement so a first step might be to ask at RSN whether +972 is reliable for the material cited and go from there. Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Asking RSN sounds reasonable to me. Llll5032 (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS, can you explain why you added even more words from this source, disputed at RSN, to the first sentence? Llll5032 (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I have removed one +972 source (may return it later to article body) and shifted the 4 other refs to support the entire sentence.

I intend to ask at RSN whether +972 is reliable at cite 4, OK with you? If it is not, then please ask at RSN yourself in whatever form suits you. Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It is OK with me if you ask at RSN. Llll5032 (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that, also note that BobFromBrockley commented more recently "we have some strong regional media outlets (e.g. a recent RfC re-affirmed al-Jazeera as a reliable source); and editors can use independent sources such as +972 or Forensic Architecture for some of the detail that the bigger platforms might miss. In short, there's no reason to relax our standards simply because the NYT coverage is inadequate." Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, done here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I only cited the +972 article since it provided the most direct/concise explanation for my edit. I wasn't trying to double down on using the +972 source, which I understand is currently in dispute, and I respect the legitimacy of that dispute.

But my edit was not based on that source alone and most of the other sources in the article appear to me to support/use that definition as well - that the weaponization of antisemitism is "the making of false charges of antisemitism for political purposes."

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I see some new tags. Predictable, sigh. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, these are minimal and reasonable tags that call attention to areas that need it. Are there any that you think are abusive or unreasonable? Zanahary (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Since you clearly have the time to spend on this article, why not edit it instead of tagging it? Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Because this article has a lot of editors with strong opinions working on it, and is subject to revert sanctions. Tagging is a normal part of the editing process when edits are expected to generate discussion—and on this article, particularly for lede edits, I expect every edit to generate discussion. Zanahary (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I find discussing tags unproductive, personally. They just lead to discussions like this. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they’re less productive when the discussion begins with a vague lament about tags. I’ll make the edits. Zanahary (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Some of the tags were removed before any conditions in WP:WTRMT were satisfied. Llll5032 (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I've just read through this talk section and struggled to understand it, mainly because there are very few links to actual diffs so it is hard to see which tags are being argued over. It might be helpful if editors making the points above edited their comments to hyperlink to the diffs they are referring to. On the general question of tags: I see tagging content as better than removal of content if there is a lack of consensus, as it doesn't spark a revert war but rather encourages editors to strengthen their contribution. It is then wrong to remove the tags unless there is consensus that the tagging is unfounded. Where an argument is live, the tags should remain. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

References

In-line attribution of every sentence?

An editor has gone through the article and added in-line attribution against every single sentence. It incorrectly suggests that everything in the article is opinion. Some of these statements in the article are so WP:SKYISBLUE that they arguably don’t need sources at all.

There are no sources at all which dispute the basic tenets of this article – i.e. that there is a social phenomenon where false charges of antisemitism are made for political purposes, and that such charges can be impactful. Does any editor here seriously question any of this? Onceinawhile (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Attributing opinion pieces and individual arguments, especially on contentious matters (see the conceptual disputes section) is completely standard for Wikipedia.

There are no sources at all which dispute the basic tenets of this article

There need to be high-quality sources which support the basic tenets of the article—we need non-opinion reliable sources that verifiably describe such a phenomenon as this article's topic. I and several other editors have raised that the article lacks this, and has serious problems in its scope with original research, verifiability, and synthesis. Zanahary (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterization. Stepping back for a minute – do you believe that this phenomenon may not be real? That its existence may be a mere opinion?! Onceinawhile (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Answered above. Did you mean to comment twice? You need to source information on Wikipedia. A topic's existence, definition, notability, and tertiary coverage editing are all to be established in reliable, independent sources, whose content Wikipedia reflects without any original analysis. Identifying a common rhetorical formulation or accusation made in opinion sources, then adding to the article a bunch of content about various tangentially-related topics, from sources which do not mention the article's supposed topic, does not work for Wikipedia. Zanahary (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You are simply choosing to ignore the scholarly sources in here. Or else you are mischaracterizing them. This conversation needs to be reset before we can move forward – let’s please finish the thread above. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless high-quality independent sources (WP:BESTSOURCES) appear unanimous for making a claim, then in-text attribution should be used here instead of Wikivoice. There are some guidelines at WP:VOICE. Llll5032 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:VOICE is helpful. It says:

• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. and
• Avoid stating facts as opinions.

A number of clear uncontested facts in this article have been erroneously converted into looking like “opinions”. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That guideline's example for a fact that should not be stated as opinion is "the sky is blue". The opinions stated in this article are all some variety of "the charge of antisemitism is employed in bad faith" and "that argument is itself antisemitic and weak". Clearly not "the sky is blue". These cannot be voiced without attribution. Zanahary (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Let’s finish in the thread above please. Otherwise this conversation will not be too difficult to follow. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

No, let's do it here. Another editor is already on the thread. Zanahary (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, but your point above cannot be addressed until you agree to a method for all of us to communally agree whether a statement from a published scholarly work requires in line attribution. WP:VOICE suggests that “seriously contested assertions” is an appropriate dividing line. So if the assertion can be shown to be either “original” (to use your word above) or “seriously contested” then yes it requires in-line attribution. But if it is neither of those things, then it does not. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the sources cited in the conceptual disputes section which prominently criticize these arguments' motivations and contents, they are disputed. Zanahary (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Blanket statements like that achieve nothing. Those sources dispute certain elements. Many other elements are entirely undisputed. For example, it is entirely undisputed that the phenomenon which is the subject of this article actually exists. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Just be specific. What assertions attributed in the article do you want to state in wikivoice? Zanahary (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Happy to enter into a good faith discussion on this in the coming days, on a point-by-point basis. I hope we are now agreed that if it can be shown that a statement in a published source is not original, and you cannot show that it is seriously disputed, then it does not need in-line attribution. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not agree to these vague terms. Editing is not a contract. We follow the rules of Wikipedia, not any intractable derived logic of the arguments and opinions of the editors with whom we collaborate. Zanahary (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Back to square one then? You say you want to follow the rules, but when we just finally pinned down what those rules are, you seem to have changed your mind. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Dude. Edit or propose edits. We can discuss that. Zanahary (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

We cannot collaborate with you unless it is clear that we are working with the same set of rules. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I made this comment in the thread above, but maybe should have made it here: Even heavyweight academic analysis should be attributed if there is no clear consensus in the scholarly community that this analysis is the right one, in a highly contentious topic area. While we don't need to attribute peer reviewed journal articles for facts, should still inline attribute for their analysis if there is a substantial body of academic opinion that disputes the analysis. Pretty much every claim in this article needs inline attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, particularly because the Bibliography and sfn structure makes about half of the sources unclear in the cites. Llll5032 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Ben White relevance

The relevant passage from the White source: Israeli officials, as well as Israel advocacy organizations internationally, have a long history of charging Palestinians and their allies, as well as Israel’s critics and human-rights campaigners, with anti-Semitism. Prominent individuals are not exempted. Famously, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter was excoriated by pro-Israel advocates for his 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Speaking at a town hall meeting in January 2007, Carter described how he had “been called a liar . . . an anti-Semite . . . [and] a bigot,” even though not a single critic of the book had “contradicted any of the basic premises.”15 The very same weekend, renowned Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt used an op-ed in the Washington Post to charge Carter with “almost ignoring the Holocaust” and thus giving “inadvertent comfort to those who deny its importance or even its historical reality.”16 Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a leading light of the anti-apartheid movement, faced similar smears after comparing “what happened to us black people in South Africa” with what Palestinians experience under Israeli rule.17 In 2009, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) slammed the choice of Nobel Peace Laureate and globally renowned human-rights advocate as a commencement address speaker on two U.S. college campuses, claiming that “his statements about Israel have time and again conveyed outright bigotry against the Jewish homeland and the Jewish people.”18 A year later, liberal journalist Michelle Goldberg leveled heavy criticism at the ADL for having “shown itself willing to smear human-rights activists when it thinks Israel’s interests demand it.”

This source doesn't allege that these charges of antisemitism were weaponized or made in bad-faith. I don't believe it's relevant to the page, whose scope is the bad-faith levying of charges of antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It says, right there in the first line "Israeli officials, as well as Israel advocacy organizations internationally, have a long history of charging Palestinians and their allies, as well as Israel’s critics and human-rights campaigners, with anti-Semitism".

Is it your position that all these charges were made in good faith and not for political purposes? Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

My position is that the source takes no position on the question of earnestness/bad faith. It just describes accusations. If this article were about criticism of Israel and antisemitism, then it would clearly be relevant. But this article is specifically about bad-faith charges, which this source does not describe. Zanahary (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I would leave it to the reader to decide what it says. To me, it is clear that the author is implying that all these charges were not in good faith, "even though not a single critic of the book had "contradicted any of the basic premises"", for example, or "shown itself willing to smear human-rights activists when it thinks Israel’s interests demand it." Smears are not good faith accusations. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Both of those lines are quotes, and if included, should be attributed and altered in-wiki to refer to those specific statements as opposed to the larger passage here which is not expressly relevant. Zanahary (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Now you mention it, the article content is very wishy washy and should be beefed up to make it clear that these accusations were meritless. Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Weaponization by definition implies bad faith. One resorts to a tactic of exploiting some 'idea', meme or informational tidbit to attack a person or group. In attack mode, whatever looks like it may cause damage is adopted for that reason, regardless. The idea or meme is not examined for its merits, but is assumned to damage the targeted group, and its efficacy in this regard is what determines its use. Zanahary appears not to grasp the obvious here, and therefore the quibbling is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Weaponization by definition implies bad faith.

Sure. The source does not mention weaponization. It also doesn't say that the charges of antisemitism were made in bad faith, though it quotes two critics who say so. This passage does express that the author believes these claims to have been erroneous, but erroneous claims of antisemitism are not the same as bad-faith claims of antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Reading the full article gives a different picture:

• Title: "Delegitimizing Solidarity: Israel Smears Palestine Advocacy as Anti-Semitic" => The word smear means "make unjust or unfounded accusations"
• First sentence of abstract: "In response to growing Palestine solidarity activism globally—and particularly in countries that have been traditional allies of Israel—the Israeli government has launched a well-resourced campaign to undermine such efforts." => This is a textbook description of weaponization, and bad faith.
• Later paragraphs: (1) "Thus, while the conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism by the Israeli government is not new, we are currently witnessing a concerted campaign to advance such a smear in what constitutes a response by Israeli officials and allied organizations to a growth in Palestine solidarity activism in Western Europe and North America, in general, and the BDS campaign, in particular." and (2) "A number of pro-Israel organizations, however, including some enjoying close ties with the government, were not interested in “rebranding” or “marketing” Israel; they were convinced that the best approach was to go on the offensive, smearing and attacking key Palestinian, Israeli, and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with accusations of ties to what they called terrorism and, inevitably, anti-Semitism. As BDS garnered increasing support around the world— among labor organizers, students, scholars, artists and cultural workers, and faith communities—the Israeli government decided on a change of tack. While not abandoning its efforts at rebranding, it mandated the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, and other branches of state, to go on the attack. The goal? To see BDS, anti-Zionism, and Palestine solidarity itself equated with, criminalized, and outlawed as a form of anti-Semitism." => again, very clear long-form descriptions of bad faith.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Michelle Goldberg leveled heavy criticism at the ADL for having “shown itself willing to smear human-rights activists when it thinks Israel’s interests demand it.” - this sentence alone describes bad faith, regardless of any of the other content: I don't even remotely understand the argument that is being made here. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, this opinion, attributed in the source, would be relevant if attributed in the article. The current text is not. Zanahary (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

See and follow the links at Jessica Corbett, Ex-Harvard Hillel Leader: 'Stop Weaponizing Antisemitism',Common Dreams n30 December 2023, particularly now that MIT is being sued, outrageously, for intentionally approving of antisemitism on campus. One expects such nonsense from StandWithUs, but these remarks by the former leader of Hillel, uttered in late December, are cogent.Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Ben White piece is not a strong source. While published in a presumably peer-reviewed academic journal (in a section entitled "essays"), it is clearly not a research-based academic article in the conventional sense, but a long opinion essay. It is best thought of as commentary. Certainly, its analysis would be disputed by other academics, and so at least should be attributed. But the author, the Executive Director of the Britain Palestine Media Centre, which is presumably a lobbying organisation, does not appear to be noteworthy or to have any scholarly expertise or experience; he is an advocacy voice and independent journalist.[1] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Academic sources on wikipedia articles are, relatively, few and far between. A huge number of sources we admit in the I/P articles are opinions by well-known journalists. I do not understand why any position expounding a 'pro-Palestinian' viewpoint must leap over a high bar (wiki best practice), and its venue challenged as a 'lobbying organization', when perhaps 90% of what we use from pro-Israeli sources could be characterized as advocacy/lobbying, written by people without any particular qualifications in the topic, other than citizenship, background or some university degree.Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I get your point about double standards but I think we need a high bar on both sides given how contentious this topic is, not a lowering on either side. And ideally strive for solid sources that aren’t on a side at all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I tagged the second paragraph for some attribution needed. It cites White and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a book that editors at RSN said needs attribution for the authors' views. Llll5032 (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)