Unexplained tag

Hey @Zanahary,

You've added an old tag back in without adding a new topic to explain why it's needed per WP:ONUS and WP: OVERTAGGING. There was no ongoing discussion to justify it either. You say it's WP:UNDUE, but that's not the same as "original research", so deserves further discussion if you want to re-add it. I don't think you've currently explained why it is undue, given the number of sources included and their general reliability.

Sources as given are:

  • "12 Israeli human rights organizations have since expressed "grave concern" about attempts to associate Amnesty's report with antisemitism, and they have rejected the Commission's failure to recognize Israel's apartheid. These organizations argue that weaponizing antisemitism to silence legitimate criticism actually undermines attempts to address rising antisemitism." This is a Politico article shared via Amnesty International, both of which are considered generally reliable over at WP:RSP, quoting 12 Israeli human rights organisations. This is therefore notable and verifiable. Why do you think it's not due?[1][2]
  • Kenneth Roth, a human rights lawyer and former exec director of Human Rights Watch, is also cited: "This weaponizing of the charge of "antisemitism" to try to stop such perfectly legitimate and accurate criticism of Israel's apartheid in the Palestinian occupied territory is cheapening, and hence harming, the important fight against antisemitism." On what basis is his view undue?[3]
  • Jeff Handmaker, Associate Professor in Legal Sociology at the Hague-based International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam and a Visiting Research Fellow in the School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand, says: "Amnesty's report is important and for many advocates it is affirming of what they have been stating all along is a racist regime of systemic discrimination. However, for many longstanding critics of Israel, accusations of Israeli apartheid are not new, nor is the predictable backlash against them whereby antisemitism has been weaponized by Israel and its supporters. This backlash is now been directed against Amnesty International" [4]
  • The Nation: "As Human Rights Watch noted, the first example opens the door to reflexively labeling as antisemitic human rights organizations and lawyers who argue that current Israeli government policies constitute apartheid against Palestinians"[5]
  • Slate: "There have been a few lines of attack on Penslar, and there are thus a few issues at hand. First, there is the notion that he called Israel a regime of apartheid. & What makes the series of events at Harvard so disheartening is not that the attack on Penslar is unique but that it transparently gives the game away: There is no set of credentials that can prevent a person who is earnestly trying to do work in this space from getting sucked into the politicization and, yes, weaponization of antisemitism. This is the way that current public debates over antisemitism tend to go, in Congress and on debate stages, on social media and between friends, within families and within organizations. But when fact and understanding and nuance of the issue are all considered secondary, what gets sacrificed isn't just an individual's career or standing or time, but comprehension of the actual issue that is antisemitism"[6]

Maybe the last two are less useful, but there are more than enough sources to support the statement in general and they are quite clear, not tangential as you suggest. Lewisguile (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lewisguile, I’ll be able to answer in depth soon, but look in the archives for similar discussions about original research in this section of the lead in the past year. In short, the other listed contexts are attested by sources that say “the charge has been raised in context X”, while the apartheid context is just cited to a bunch of examples of the charge being raised in context of discussions of Israeli apartheid. With no source that says it’s been raised in the context of the apartheid claim, the prose in the lead is just an original finding/summary. @Left guide gave a good explanation, if I recall correctly, for why this is functionally OR/undue weighting. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's undue or not is different to whether it's OR, so we should be accurate here. But the current wording doesn't say those are the only contexts in which it has been raised, only that it has been raised in those contexts. Which is true from the sources cited above.
The idea that we need a source to say "weaponization of AS is often seen/accused in the context of x" seems to be a distinction that doesn't have much merit behind it, if multiple high quality sources do talk about it in that context.
I'm happy to look at the archives later, but either way, if the tag has been there for several months, someone ought to amend the lede so the tag isn't needed or just remove the tag. A tag which hasn't led to any progress isn't doing its job. Lewisguile (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The amendment would be the removal of the content. We could just as honestly state that the accusation has been raised in a number of publications including The Nation and Slate. It can be verified as true and cited as such. But the fact that we can't find any source that says that the accusation has been raised in The Nation and Slate means that we have no reason to state it ourselves in the lead. Wikipedia follows, not leads. No source has stated that the accusation has been raised re: discussions of Israeli apartheid. Why do we? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't follow. We don't need a source to confirm it appeared in The Nation and Slate if it appeared in The Nation and Slate; sourcing those publications is enough to support the statements which appear within them. You're also forgetting Amnesty International, the 12 Israeli human rights orgs, the former exec director of HRW, etc. They also all say some variation of "weaponization of antisemitism re: Israeli apartheid". You've yet to show any sources which say otherwise, or provide a policy-based reason for why this shouldn't be included.
If the issue is that it's not lede-worthy, then let's discuss that instead. But the arguments of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR seem to be a reach. Lewisguile (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the analogy. Maybe @Left guide and @BobFromBrockley can help, given their good explanations in the previous discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Slate column doesn't give an example of a scholar saying that calling the apartheid definition antisemitic is weaponisation. It itself says that attacks on Penslar are examples of weaponisation. It's the columnist not the scholar making the point.
The Nation article also doesn't give an example of anyone saying that calling the apartheid definition antisemitic is weaponisation. It itself alleges that the IHRA definition is weaponised. It touches on apartheid as it says As Human Rights Watch noted, the first example [in the IHRA def, i.e. “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination; e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”] opens the door to reflexively labeling as antisemitic human rights organizations and lawyers who argue that current Israeli government policies constitute apartheid against Palestinians or that Israel’s founding involved ethnically cleansing “the Land” (Ha’Aretz) of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the Nakba. The hyperlink to HRW is to a text that doesn't mention weaponisation but says: The wording of the first example above on “racist endeavour” opens the door to labeling as antisemitic criticisms that Israeli government policies and practices violate the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the findings of major Israeli, Palestinian and global human rights organizations that Israeli authorities are committing the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians.
So I've moved these two examples to other parts of the article where they're more relevant. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be discussed rather than edit warred over. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary, @Rafe87, @Smallangryplanet. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm yet to see a convincing argument for why this is OR, undue or anything else. It's cited to multiple reliable sources, some of which are green WP:RSP and experts on the topic. Lewisguile (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that it is OR is that we are using primary sources to give examples, rather than using secondary sources who describe it.
This is related to the issue of due weight, because in the absence of secondary sources, we have no evidence that the primary sources we cite are sufficiently noteworthy to include.
As I've said before, I find this whole article problematic, as it is based on a google search for a term, used by a range of notable and non-notable people, often in passing. Because most of the people that use the term are critics of Israel attacking anti-antisemites, an article based on their commentary ends up with something of a POV slant.
Compare our articles False accusations of rape or False accusations of child sexual abuse, which are based on research that has carefully quantified the prevalence of such accusations, and not on op eds by the defenders of people against whom accusations have been made. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another analogy that maybe will be clearer: we could state that the accusation has been raised in the 20th and 21st centuries, cited to a range of sources raising the accusation published within those two centuries. But no source actually states the fact that the accusation has been raised in the 20th and 21st centuries. Thus, it is original research, despite the fact that it's verifiable and factual. Another: we could state that the claim has been raised by both male and female writers, which is true, but no secondary source has bothered to say, so we shouldn't (and can't, per our policies on original research). Briefly: claims that no reliable secondary source makes should not be made in the prose of a Wikipedia article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary, that's still an unconvincing argument. We don't need sources for WP:SKYBLUE statements. If multiple sources have commented on an issue, then we can say multiple sources have commented on an issue, because it's descriptive of the multiple sources we've cited. What we can't do is interpret that—e.g., by saying that such claims are now more numerous, or more popular, or more controversial, etc.
@Bobfrombrockley, that seems like an issue of WP:UNDUE more than WP:OR. I disagree with the framing that we need a secondary source to confirm a primary source is notable, however. Primary sources can be used and can be useful. Experts can also still be reliable even if they're primary sources, provided they're within their subject of expertise. Moreover, analysis and interpretation are generally considered secondary sources per WP:USEPRIMARY, except where the critic is describing their own subjective experiences. You've also only mentioned the latter two sources, which I said in my post were less important. What about the first three? The first one says "12 Israeli human rights organisations", so would you prefer we add extra wording to that explain that, for example? Or is your objection to the example of apartheid altogether?
Either way, I think we should use the right tag. An argument isn't strengthened by tying weaker arguments together. Undue covers your argument well enough, and we can discuss any needed edits on that basis. Lewisguile (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should also ask, how do you suggest we fix the tag (whichever tag it is), @Bobfrombrockley? We should try to obtain consensus on final wording per @IOHANNVSVERVS' suggestion upthread. Lewisguile (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sky is blue doesn't apply here—that's for things everyone knows and understands already, not for things people can go and fact-check themselves without a secondary source as an intermediary. No secondary source says this accusation has been raised re apartheid. Why should Wikipedia? It is an original finding. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But feel free to select from NOR or DUE. To me, it clearly fails both. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I disagree these are all primary sources. WP:UNDUE makes the most sense, and fits WP:LEDE anyway (lede follows body, where this is a minor topic). I've removed it on that basis from the lede. It's more than justified in the body, so we can leave it there. Lewisguile (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Geddie, Eve (20 March 2024). "EU needs to acknowledge the reality of Israeli apartheid". Amnesty International. 12 Israeli human rights organizations have since expressed "grave concern" about attempts to associate Amnesty's report with antisemitism, and they have rejected the Commission's failure to recognize Israel's apartheid. These organizations argue that weaponizing antisemitism to silence legitimate criticism actually undermines attempts to address rising antisemitism.
  2. ^ Geddie, Eve (13 March 2023). "EU needs to understand the realities in the West Bank". Politico. Retrieved 19 April 2024.
  3. ^ Roth, Kenneth [@KenRoth] (February 29, 2024). "This weaponizing of the charge of "antisemitism" to try to stop such perfectly legitimate and accurate criticism of Israel's apartheid in the Palestinian occupied territory is cheapening, and hence harming, the important fight against antisemitism" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  4. ^ Handmaker, Jeff (18 February 2022). "Opinion – The Silencing of Amnesty International's Report on Israeli Apartheid". E-International Relations. Amnesty's report is important and for many advocates it is affirming of what they have been stating all along is a racist regime of systemic discrimination. However, for many longstanding critics of Israel, accusations of Israeli apartheid are not new, nor is the predictable backlash against them whereby antisemitism has been weaponized by Israel and its supporters. This backlash is now been directed against Amnesty International
  5. ^ "How a Leading Definition of Antisemitism Has Been Weaponized Against Israel's Critics". The Nation. 27 December 2023. As Human Rights Watch noted, the first example opens the door to reflexively labeling as antisemitic human rights organizations and lawyers who argue that current Israeli government policies constitute apartheid against Palestinians
  6. ^ "I Regret to Report There's a New Antisemitism Controversy at Harvard". Slate. 26 January 2024. There have been a few lines of attack on Penslar, and there are thus a few issues at hand. First, there is the notion that he called Israel a regime of apartheid. & What makes the series of events at Harvard so disheartening is not that the attack on Penslar is unique but that it transparently gives the game away: There is no set of credentials that can prevent a person who is earnestly trying to do work in this space from getting sucked into the politicization and, yes, weaponization of antisemitism. This is the way that current public debates over antisemitism tend to go, in Congress and on debate stages, on social media and between friends, within families and within organizations. But when fact and understanding and nuance of the issue are all considered secondary, what gets sacrificed isn't just an individual's career or standing or time, but comprehension of the actual issue that is antisemitism.

Arab Higher Committee

Apologies if this has been discussed before and I've missed it, but I am bemused by the long paragraph on AHC allegations about chemical warfare, which seems to me tangential at best to this article. Do we have a secondary source describing this as weaponisation, or is this an example we're giving? If the latter, is this just because Eban used the phrase "antisemitic incitement"? This seems pretty slight for such a long paragraph. If people think its inclusion is justified based on secondary sources, it can surely fit in a concise sentence or two. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it’s way too long, and I’m not convinced a single source identifying it as weaponization makes it due for inclusion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've removed it for now. As a concise statement, it could be:
On 22 July 1948, the Arab Higher Committee presented a formal complaint to the United Nations about various war crimes Israelis committed during the 1948 Palestine war, including the use of biological warfare during Operation Cast Thy Bread.[1][2] Abba Eban, representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, denied the operation and attempted to block further investigations by accusing the Arab states of "antisemitic incitement" and "wicked libel";[2] Israeli, Arab, British, and Red Cross documents later confirmed the well poisonings took place.[3][2][4]
Suggestions for tweaks are welcome. Also happy to discuss where it belongs, if it all.

Lewisguile (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cohen, Avner (2001). "Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control" (PDF). The Nonproliferation Review.
  2. ^ a b c Wind, Maya (2024-01-30). Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom. Verso Books. p. 121. ISBN 978-1-80429-176-4.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference typhoid was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference wellpoisoning was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Dorothy Thompson

@Zanahary, why did you remove the information about Dorothy Thompson, when there is a source explicitly stating "The tactic of using the term anti-Semitism as a weapon against dissenters from Israeli policy is not new. Dorothy Thompson, the distinguished journalist who was one of the earliest enemies of Nazism, found herself criticizing the policies of Israel shortly after its creation. Despite her valiant crusade against Hitler she, too, was subject to the charge of anti-Semitism." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because only a single source identifies her as a victim of weaponization, whereas other sources (including the other cited) generally consider the backlash she faced to be an earnest response to the things she said, not weaponization. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Stonebridge source discusses it also. "For Thompson, there was a clear moral and political continuity between her support of Jewish refugees in the late 1930s and her advocacy for the Palestinians in the early 1950s. Others disagreed. Amid accusations of anti-Semitism, she lost friends, work, and political influence. Today, many see the silencing of a bold humanitarian advocate in her story, and it is not difficult to understand why." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a clear framing of weaponization, which is a quite specific charge. In any case, due or not, it cannot be included without representation of the fact that many sources do not characterize it as anything but natural, earnest blowback. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"That's not a clear framing of weaponization" - Yes it is.
Please be more cautious in removing sourced content. Next time consider opening a talk page discussion first. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is, of course, not an argument. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stonebridge says she was accused of antisemitism (because she said antisemitic things) and suffered for it, not that any “weaponisation” happened. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also our single source for weaponisation, Brownfield, was a non-academic columnist (his column was “the curmudgeonly conservative”) who basically didn’t believe there’s any such thing as racism[1], so I don’t think we should use him as a source on antisemitism. (This is one of the problems with using the Journal of Palestine Studies, which mixes real serious scholarship with polemics by - often fringe - non-experts.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS This edit, I feel, erases Thompson’s antisemitism, thus allowing the false impression that the allegations against her were smears. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of this edit? The quotation/info that was removed has been restored. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You just said “Please be more cautious in removing sourced content. Next time consider opening a talk page discussion first.” Then removed sourced content that gave the context for why the inclusion of the paragraph is problematic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove sourced content, I removed a quotation in a reference that was not relevant to the content it was cited to. After it was restored I rewrote the section to where the inline quotation fit properly. This is the BRD cycle working properly, and the section is much improved from how I found it, no? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry yes I may have been hasty. See below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And adding Gil Maguire (a novelist with no academic or journalist credentials) on MondoWeiss makes it worse not better. A reminder that RSP says “Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed” so using it in a footnote as a source for facts on a contentious topic isn’t a good idea. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that Brownfield and Maguire are poor sources. I'll add a tag and see if I can improve the sourcing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think so. It seems pretty clearly to describe "accusations of anti-Semitism" "silencing a bold humanitarian advocate".
Also Stonebridge does not say "she was accused of antisemitism (because she said antisemitic things)", rather she says "For Thompson, there was a clear moral and political continuity between her support of Jewish refugees in the late 1930s and her advocacy for the Palestinians in the 1950s", and that "thanks to the exponential growth of cosmopolitan human right rights sentiment since 1948 one argument might run, we can now appreciate Thompson’s stand in a way her contemporaries simply could not. Her visionary multidirectional worldly compassion has now come of age." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you read the bit you deleted where Stonebridge detailed Thompson’s antisemitism? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's included in this article. [2] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence you’ve added quoting Stonebridge strengthens the paragraph which is now better written. But we still don’t have a solid source for weaponisation, just Maguire and Brownfield who are non-noteworthy and would need attribution. (Also don’t think we need a sentence about her documentary - readers can click the link to her WP article.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on the changes I've just made and the addition of the Robins source? @Bobfrombrockley. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It currently reads much better to me. The Robins source covers weaponisation. To be extra clear, you could attribute Brownfeld and attribute or remove Maguire. For Brownfeld, I'd say something like Columnist Allan Brownfeld said, "The tactic of using the term anti-Semitism as a weapon against dissenters from Israeli policy is not new," discussing the subject of Dorothy Thompson. In the early 1950s... Does that work? Or maybe it could go at the end of the same paragraph instead? Lewisguile (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would be very much undue to mention Brownfeld in the article.
The content as I see it is currently based on the three good sources of Stonebridge, Robins and Kurth (another source I just added). Maguire and Brownfeld are suboptimal but not unreliable so I see no reason not to include them as additional citations. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. I was more thinking about putting the "weaponization" quote in there for those who complain it's not direct enough. But I'm happy with the version you proposed above. Lewisguile (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose use of Brownfield. We shouldn’t include a non-expert non-notable cranky fringe commentator just because they’re the only person who used “weaponisation”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; there’s no reason for such a poor source to be used. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of this discussion is that there is no consensus for including Brownfield in this article. I'm going to look at removing him. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a huge improvement. Thank
you IOHANNVSVERVS. It is well
sourced and carefully caveated. I guess now my only concern is that whether it is noteworthy enough to justify the length of text required to spell it out BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is a follow on discussion from Talk:Weaponization_of_antisemitism/Archive_9#Dorothy_Thompson. @Zanahary: I note that you did not respond to the last post in that discussion, waited almost three months and then removed the entire text unilaterally.[3] Can you explain your behavior? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal discussion you could take up on user pages. Here, let’s try to reach consensus on the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All editors here needed the link to the prior discussion, and on seeing it will all have the same question. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook example

This opinion piece would need a secondary RS to go into our article, but it is currently being discussed in social media as a textbook example of the weaponization of antisemitism. The headline is implying that it is antisemitic to condemn ethnic cleansing.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because Zionism typically supports ethnic cleansing. People keep equating Anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Dimadick (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forde's hierarchy

Martin Forde KC, who authored the report, also suggests there is a perception that the party is working under a "hierarchy of racism" under Starmer's leadership, in which antisemitism is taken far more seriously than anti-Black racism and Islamophobia.

This is not cited to any sources having to do with the article topic. It's a separate concept from the article's, and the sources don't link them. Why is it here? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think you're right. I could've sworn there was a third ref which directly linked the topic before—something from the Guardian or Independent which said there was a perception of unfairness which contributed to one faction making accusations of weaponisation? But maybe I imagined it, since I can't find it. I've self-reverted to remove it again, since I was the one that put it back in. Sorry about that. Lewisguile (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rafe87, this is where we were discussing the Forde Report. Do you have a specific source that says the hierarchy was a result of/is linked to weaponisation? I don't think the sources in the article support that. It would require that multiple RSes directly state this, and that it has clear relevance to the topic, to avoid WP:SYNTH/WP:DUE concerns. Lewisguile (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Hi, @Zanahary. I was looking over the example you gave of Cockburn and St. Clair in the #As accusation section. Is that mentioned elsewhere? It seems a better example would be Counterpunch (their publisher), since a couple of people have mentioned that, according to the references. But this feels like it would be better in one of the prior sections, along with Arnold and Taylor's reaction to it (this would give more space, I think, to cover views on the book). Lewisguile (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t seen other mentions of that book. Since the Arnold and Taylor source is not a review of the book, but rather a paper on left antisemitism that makes pretty brief mention of the book, I wouldn’t move it to a section about the book (and the fact that it’s the first mention of the book I’ve come across as I research tells me it’s probably not due for its own area of the article) ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean we should give it its own section; I meant it could go in what's now the "History" section, for example, along with the other authors who've written on the topic. E.g., "In 20XX, x and y wrote the book z, saying a, b and c. Critics d, e and f have said..."
But I'm also happy to leave it out. I just didn't want to remove the book completely if you felt strongly that it should be mentioned. Arnold and Taylor feel relevant enough to mention on their own anyway, so that's still there either way.Lewisguile (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retitling sections

I've gone ahead and given the sections new headings to, I hope, make the scope a little clearer and make it easier to decide where to put content. The old header "As accusation" was particularly opaque to me, since all the content is about accusations of one sort or another, and really, the thrust of that section was about responses/reactions to claims of weaponisation, so why not just name it that?

Secondly, "Historical allegations of weaponization" is a mouthful and "History" would do the same job.

"Descriptions and contexts" is also oblique and the "Descriptions" part arguably overlaps with some of the history. I went with "Examples", since these are examples of accusations made that post-date the "History" section. They're already grouped by context, so we don't need that in the title.

I hope this makes more sense. I'm happy to self-revert if there's consensus to keep the old titles or it turns out I'm missing some vital nuance with these new titles. Lewisguile (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the section on the Labour Party could go in either #Examples or #Responses, but since it focuses on what the EHRC and Forde Report concluded, that seems more firmly in the latter category than the former. Lewisguile (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These new headings are definitely better, thank you! As for the Labour thing, I guess it could be split up, but then we’d have to explain the affair twice. In general, this is not an easy article to organize: there’s something dissatisfying about separating the points of view, and there’s something dissatisfying about putting them together and trying to organize contexts into strongly overlapping categories (which are not really neatly separated in sources). This weaponization discourse has occurred both as a direct dialogue (affair happens, it’s called antisemitic, that designation is disputed as weaponized, that designation as weaponization is disputed as wrong) and through broad analyses ("so often people are slurred as antisemitic"; "so often people are slurred as weaponizing"). I think in general it leans towards the latter, so the current organization does the best job at following sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks. I think the article is shaping up to be better than it was, at any rate. Lewisguile (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is, and I appreciate your efforts and collaboration! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Me too! Lewisguile (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it is much improved, but I think that separating out the Responses from the Examples is wrong, because they Responses aren't in fact responses but more examples, discussed from a different angle. For instance, "The charge of weaponization has been used across the political spectrum, especially in the anti-Zionist discourses of the left and right" is not a response, but a bunch of examples. "Scholars have also documented the German far-right describing Jews as "using the Antisemitismuskeule (lit. 'antisemitism club')" is an example. I would strongly argue for finding a way of incorporating these responses into the new Example subsections BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Zanahary and I have both expressed similar sentiments, so there's probably consensus already to do that. I guess we don't need a Responses section at all? Maybe we can make the subheadings under Examples into their own section headers (dropping Examples altogether), with the Responses folded into those sections instead? I can take a stab at that later if it seems reasonable, but feel free to have a go first if you have the time/inclination. Lewisguile (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great! BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know, i actually think the separation is best, because a lot of the writing is not about specific examples but instead about a perceived phenomenon at large. A lot of the writing cited in the “Responses” section also has a direct relationship to the other sources in that section, as many cite one another (particularly citing Hirsh). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's also fair. What about if we kept Responses but limited it to the meta-discussions, while putting direct responses to claims made in the Examples section with those examples? Lewisguile (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think about it (not that I'm the boss—just not adding my voice to a formed consensus), but how about changing the quite meaningless organization of "History" and "Examples"? It seems like it's just an arbitrary separation of older examples from newer, and doesn't follow any historicization in the literature. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
History could be something like "Before 2000" and then Examples structured thematically, with the examples in the Responses section moved up (I moved the Labour one) but perhaps some of the meta-discussions left down there BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be quite random—sources don’t separate them as such ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"History" usually is an arbitrary cutoff, IMO. As I said in my other post, though, it could be renamed "Concepts", and focus on the ideas/terms, with the actual examples moved to the section of the same name? Otherwise, we retain the arbitrary split between Examples and Responses which serves to create two POV forks (mostly pro in the Examples and mostly anti in the Responses). It also means we describe some things more than once, or reference certain individuals multiple times, whereas merging things allows us to limit that.
It's not urgent either way. Maybe others can chime in or add some suggestions. There's always a degree of subjectivity in how things get divided into sections anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the examples/responses split is arbitrary. They're two separate bodies of literature, arguing opposite points, often citing those within their "sections" positively and, in the case of the "Responses" writers, citing the "Examples"/"History" writers negatively. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could just as easily put the rebuttals with the arguments for. Instead, we effectively have a pro section and an anti section, which is specifically something we should try to avoid per WP:CRITICISM. It's not a hill I want to die on, but it does also add to the other issue (of repeated text/info).Lewisguile (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't want to kill anyone (or myself) on any hill—just thinking, and not inclined to try to stamp my foot down on this issue, either. I think WP:CRITICISM advises against having a "bad things" section about a thing. But this article basically covers a dispute, at two layers. Per that essay, An acceptable approach to including criticisms in Wikipedia articles is to separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. I think the separation into sections follows that, while also better sticking to the sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if others weigh in. My concern is the same as Lewis': two different POV forks, with half an article giving one POV and the other giving the opposite. I've moved two paragraphs from the Responses section to the Examples section that I think are definitely examples, but will leave it there for now, and won't mind if am reverted! BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, we could also go the other way and remove most of the discussion from the examples, too, and put it into Responses. But part of the issue there is that the Responses section would balloon.
Since I think we're generally in agreement that the article isn't bad now, and this is just getting into the weeds, I may try to draft up an alternate version in my sandbox just to see what it might look like with some structural changes. That might allow me to experiment a bit more to see what works best. Then if it looks better, we can use it. If it doesn't, we can ignore it.
I'm saying "I may try", but now that I've suggested this, I will no doubt be compelled to do this ASAP and it'll almost certainly eat up too much of my time... But who needs a life, right? 😂 Lewisguile (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry one more thought, re this article basically covers a dispute, at two layers.
If the topic of the article is a dispute, then we'd want to keep the two-part structure but frame the opening more to explain this, e.g. one group of scholars/commentators allege that antisemitism is often "weaponised" while another group allege that the charge of weaponisation is used to justify or excuse antisemitism, and make a coherent article around that.
However, I think the problem is that there aren't two clear groups. Some charges of weaponisation are broadly accepted across the literature, and other charges (e.g. by David Duke) are broadly seen as antisemitic. Some of those against whom allegations of antisemitism have been made which have been called "weaponised" were in fact antisemitic (Dorothy Thompson), some are contested (Desmond Tutu) and some are accepted by almost nobody. That's really difficult to report in a NPOV way, which is why I think merging most of the Responses section into the relevant part of the Examples section will enable us to catch nuance better. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undue opinion

Circling back to a previous unresolved question, the massive amount of opinion content in this article, with no clear criteria for noteworthiness. Just a couple of examples:

  1. Norman Finkelstein takes up a really large part of this article. He is obviously noteworthy so I wouldn't want him to be removed entirely, but should his opinions really get a dozen mentions?
  2. Noam Chomsky also has a large number of mentions. A notable public figure, but no expertise on antisemitism.
  3. Brendan O'Neill is a contrarian columnist with zero expertise on antisemitism.
  4. Is an opinion piece by Jeff Handmaker due?

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from my comments in the above topic, maybe we could also remove the History section? Maybe have a brief "Concepts" section instead, which includes the key terms and their alternatives? Then just go into the new sections, which would include both the pro and anti in one place. We can also remove any sources that seem undue, and I suspect the remaining sources will each be used less anyway, since we won't have to address the same issue in multiple different sections. Lewisguile (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removing whole section might feel a little too radical! Not strongly opposed though. Brief concepts might be a good solution. And yes to removing undue sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Finkelstein is mentioned by name in five locations in this article. He's obviously an expert on this topic. Chomsky is mentioned in two locations, and it's not clear why he's being flagged as lacking expertise. BobFromBrockley, do you have any basis of your particular characterizations here? -Darouet (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that removing the history section, or relevant commentary from Finkelstein and Chomsky, would weaken this article and I oppose such proposals. -Darouet (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chomsky’s expertise is certainly not in antisemitism or the Israel–Palestine conflict. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chomsky has written multiple books on the topic, a partial list includes Middle East Illusions (2003), On Palestine (2015), Gaza in Crisis (2010), The Fateful Triangle (1983). We have Wikipedia articles for many of these books. And he's consulted regularly as an expert. Have you read any of these books? Or the reviews of his books? This opinion seems to be contradicted by easily accessible facts. -Darouet (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chomsky's written books on the topic of the Middle East, but that doesn't make him an expert. His primary expertise is as a linguist, which gave his views on geopolitics and media reporting of geopolitcs some public credibility.
More relevant to this article, he has zero expertise on antisemitism, and his opinions on it are not due.
As a good gauge of his expertise, how likely is it his books would be on a university reading list for a course on the Middle East (unlikely) or antisemitism (hard to imagine). BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is he not an expert if he's written multiple books on the topic?
And re: "More relevant to this article, he has zero expertise on antisemitism" – This article is not about antisemitism; it's about the smearing of critics of Israel as antisemites, so expertise on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is as relevant or more so than expertise in actual antisemitism. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To publish on a topic does not show expertise—otherwise we wouldn’t ever exclude sources for being authored by non-experts, since their very publishing on the topic would show their relevant expertise. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re Finkelstein:
(1) Finkelstein and Chomsky are mentioned once in the History section currently:
Chomsky and the academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Norman Finkelstein have said accusations of antisemitism increase after Israel acts aggressively: following the Six-Day War, the 1982 Lebanon War, the First and Second Intifadas, and the bombardments of Gaza. The Finkelstein citation here is an interview in the unreliable source CampusWatch. The next sentence goes on to unpack Chomsky's account a little more. The Chomsky content seems to me to add depth here; Finkelstein's interview doesn't seem due.
Then (2) Finkelstein (Beyond Chutzpah) gets two sentences in the Israel and Zionism section, the first of which has a secondary citation as well, suggesting that might be noteworthy.
Then (3) he gets two more sentences in the Israel–Palestine conflict sub-section, all citing Beyond Chutzpah, no secondary source suggesting noteworthiness.
Then (4) in Responses we have an antisemitism scholar giving him as an example of weaponisation as a denialist trope, i.e. here a secondary source confirms noteworthiness.
Additionally (5), he's one of the illustrative primary source examples listed in footnote 2 and again in footnote 3.
Personally, I'd drop (1), trim (2), and trim or remove (3). This would leave him with more appropriate amount of weight in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Finkelstein, this all seems good to me. I have mainly focused on trimming sources that were already there, cutting tangents and wordiness, and removing anything that seemed WP:COATRACKy, so I haven't gone through the notability of individual sources much. I appreciate you doing this bit. Lewisguile (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re Chomsky:
(1) He currently has the whole first paragraph of the History section, citing Fateful Triangle and no secondary sources.
(2) Then the passage with Walt & Mearsheimer and Finkelstein mentioned above, i.e. most of the sixth para of the section.
I see now the other mentions of his name are all in the refs from these two paras, so he has less weight than I initially thought, but I'm not sure he deserves so much space in that section. What's striking is how much space voices who are not antisemitism experts get in this article compared to scholars of antisemitism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was just there first because it's in chronological order (per it being a "History" section), and he is the oldest source that was in the article. Though, actually, he cites an even older source in Christopher Sykes, so Sykes may be the person to open with, citing him directly, with Chomsky as a secondary source for Sykes? Lewisguile (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've shifted the sources round a bit in that opening paragraph. It's now NYT (Sedgwick), Sykes and Chomsky, with only a small quote from Chomsky at the end. Chomsky could still potentially be cut from there, while leaving him in as a reference, but I thought I'd address the issue of weight first. Lewisguile (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weaponization_of_antisemitism
No tags for this post.