Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism

Requested move 21 April 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Weaponization of antisemitism → Weaponization of antisemitism accusations – To avoid any possible misinterpretation of existing title, notwithstanding usage in sources. Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. Support per discussion above. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This should be a comment per WP:RMCOMMENT, not a bulleted support.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 14:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per discussion above. "Weaponization of antisemitism" does not historically exclusively refer to the bad-faith use of antisemitism in political discourse, and a renaming of this sort would constitute a hijacking of the term.


 * This RM is premature imo. I defer to the poll above (and encourage all to contribute their thoughts) so a clearer path toward consensus may be achieved based upon the diversity of the discussion so far and - if necessary - a more proper RM may be conducted. Mistamystery (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why your concerns would be a reason to keep the existing title, "Weaponization of antisemitism", over the proposed title, "Weaponization of antisemitism accusations". Graham (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At risk of speaking for MM, it seems like they think the RM is premature and the new title would still require another move. Zanahary (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that to suggest that you think that the outcome of this RM would be prejudicial to a future proposal? If not, I don't see the relevance. Graham (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as I explained above. MM's objection seems to be that the article should include material that is not actually about the subject for which this page was created. This page is not about everything that people using these words might be referring to. The purpose of the proposed change is to specify the page topic more precisely. Zerotalk 13:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an awkward formulation (...of accusations of antisemitism would be better) and I prefer "weaponization" not be in the title, considering it's neither the common name nor a neutral description. I'll think on it. But certainly the proposed title is superior to the current one. Zanahary (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose while I understand this is an attempt to clarify that this is about the weaponization of accusations; but it could simultaneously be understood as accusations of weaponization, thus casting doubt on very concrete evidence of how antisemitism has been weaponized for defending Israel. Furthermore, it is not just accusations that are being weaponized but also antisemitism itself as a definition (and also as a historical guilt for Germany), since it is a real phenomena that triggers extreme reactions. Plus the current title is perfectly fine and is supported by most RS and even less reliable sources dealing with the topic per WP:COMMONNAME:, , , , , , . Makeandtoss (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Weaponization of accusations of antisemitism" would solve the first problem (which I honestly don't see as serious). I think you are mistaken about your second point. Expanding the definition of antisemitism in bad faith is not an example of antisemitism itself being weaponised. The purpose of expanding the definition is to enable the accusation to be made. What is weaponised here is the definition, not the antisemitism. Zerotalk 14:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand but 1- the accusation doesn't have to be made in order for antisemitism to have been weaponized and 2- weaponization of antisemitism extends beyond the accusations.
 * Elaborating 1- fear of being accused (pre-accusation) of being antisemitic is already a weaponization of antisemitism under expanded definitions because it has led to self-censorship or not taking action. 2- weaponizing the memory of antisemitism and the Holocaust is enshrined in Israel's national identity (no accusations being made here either), taking the controversies surrounding the Yad Vashem museum for example and elaborations in the works of Finkelstein The Holocaust Industry and Beyond Chutzpah. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources outlining a definition of weaponization of antisemitism? It would help to clarify these conceptual disputes. Zanahary (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Already had this discussion previously, we don't need a definition for the obvious. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're asserting that no accusation needs to be made in order for something to be "weaponization of antisemitism" and that it extends beyond accusations. What is the basis for these assertions? Zanahary (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I asserted no such thing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I don't understand. What did you mean by this? I understand but 1- the accusation doesn't have to be made in order for antisemitism to have been weaponized and 2- weaponization of antisemitism extends beyond the accusations. Zanahary (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's Makeandtoss. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops, my sincere apologies. @Makeandtoss Zanahary (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Common Name argument does not hold. A bunch of op-eds that say "weaponizing" is not a basis to call this "weaponization of antisemitism". Zanahary (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Weaponization" is a very unusual and quite loaded way to describe the "bad-faith use of antisemitism." Marokwitz (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that a reason to oppose the move? Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn’t it be? Zanahary (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ask them. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There were several better options provided in the poll above. Marokwitz (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * For some reason I can't notify WikiProjects about this discussion. Can anyone? RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: with a view to the previous discussion and the concern that the base term is not precise and unambiguous enough (and my prior suggestion of the proposed title). As a side note, some of the objections above in relation to the base term appear to have little to no bearing on the current discussion, which is whether or not to add a further clarifying word. Objections to the move simply because users don't like either term aren't actually relevant to this specific RM; they're more like a form of (in this case pointless and irrelevant) filibustering, since this is not a vote, and reasoning not directed at the move in question is simply not pertinent. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: “Weaponization of antisemitism accusations” seems more correct that “Weaponization of antisemitism”. I can see the arguments for having an article on Weaponization as long as all the sources actually use the word “Weaponization”, “weaponized”, or similar. Otherwise using sources that don’t say “Weaponization” is technically WP:SYNTH.
 * One example is the Beyond Chutzpah book. There is no “Weaponization” used in the book or “weaponized”. Instead the author calls it “misuse of antisemitism”. “Misuse” is a broader term that “weaponization” falls under so I would support renaming to “Misuse” with a section on “Weaponization”, or removing all sources from the article that don’t actually use the word “weaponization”. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Except if it is clear from the context that it is weaponization, that is, misuse of antisemitism accusations for political purposes. Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be a non-neutral description compared to "Rhetorical misuse", "Bad faith", etc. And it's not the common name. Zanahary (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See even “ misuse of antisemitism accusations for political purposes” is more clear than “Weaponization”, at least for me as reader. With “weaponization” I keep visualizing people brandishing clubs, paper swords, rifles, etc, labeled “antisemitism” hitting others on the head, etc., and that is not what the topic is about. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that "weaponization" is just too rhetorical for an article title. I see we don't have any other articles with that formulation, even though there's lots of sources using the very POV-y and rhetorical formulations of "weaponization of whiteness", "weaponization of language", "weaponization of information", etc. Zanahary (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It says in the first sentence "When antisemitism accusations are exploited for political purposes,..", OK, exploited instead of misuse. And we're waitin on an RM to see if the title gets changed to include accusations. This idea that title is all is wrong, there is a scope and it says what it is right off the bat.
 * We can argue about the word itself but fact is it is used a lot these days and to cover all kinds of things but typically when a thing (food, whatever) is used in a non standard way to achieve some end, usually political.
 * For instance there is a current spat between Bernie Sanders and Netanyahu where the latter is making liberal use of the antisemitism accusation in relation to US universities and Sanders says that is using antisemitism to distract attention from Israeli government policies. At least to to me that is a good example of weaponizing antisemitism accusations for political purposes and I think many would agree. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The entire phrase "weaponization of antisemitism accusations" is incidentally used by Raz Segal in his very precient A Textbook Case of Genocide piece in Jewish Currents. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Misuse" could help address the valid objections based on synthesis about including sources that do not specify "weaponization" or any other variations of the word "weapon". Llll5032 (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. What if I write instead:- I agree that "Weaponization" could help address the valid objections based on synthesis about including sources that do not specify "Misuse" or any other variations of the word "use".
 * They mean the same thing as long as the context is clear. Not liking the word doesn't mean that is wrong, especially since reliable sources use it in just the way it says in the scope. Selfstudier (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The few RS that use "weaponization" (sometimes in scare quotes ) can be understood without OR to be referring to a misuse or the possibility of such, because misuse is a more general word. But misuses cannot be assumed to be a weaponization when a source does not say it. Llll5032 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They can if the context is clear that the weaponization is misuse (or vice versa), simply debating the meaning of words is not what this is all about, may as well just give up on that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What this is all about, as defined by the paragraphs that Selfstudier participated in compiling, is rarely called weaponization by RS. Selfstudier, if a RS of high quality carefully outlines the scope of the topic (per the use-mention distinction) while using your preferred language of weaponization for the title, then please make use of such a RS in the article. Llll5032 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are trying to make the scope match the title which is not a requirement. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why should a scope and title not match? Llll5032 (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they should, I said they need not. Example title - Gaza Strip famine, scope - "As a result of Israeli airstrikes and the ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel, which includes restrictions on humanitarian aid, the population of the Gaza strip is facing starvation and famine."
 * People are arguing that the title is wrong because there isn't a famine officially but so what, if sources are speaking about a famine, regardless of whether it is "official", then that is a legitimate title. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The term has been all over the news for the past six months. If you want RS explaining the term, take your pick. Even the Jerusalem Post has run a piece on it. I fail to see how it's rare. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's take Raz Segal in this article where he says "the weaponization of antisemitism accusations to justify Israeli violence against Palestinians".
 * Now, do you think that's something that should be in this article? And if not, why not? Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Or in the linked article "There is a growing tendency among both Jews and non-Jews to label those with whom they have profound political differences, especially on the subject of Israel-Palestine, as antisemitic" and goes on to explain how that works in practice. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This reads like nonsense. Sources only use "weaponization" when referring to misuse; if you're saying you've encountered "benevolent weaponization" as a concept in a source or scholarship, please do enlighten us. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The meaning need not be opposite of a source to be synthesis. The examples in the NOR policy make clear that a variety of other differences can be synthesis and not allowed. Llll5032 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Aren't you the one suggesting an OR opposite that doesn't exist? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Synthesis requires the drawing of a conclusion from separated sources not present in any one of them. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This may be the best sentence from SYNTH to address the question: "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article." If the title of the article is changed to "misuse", then consensus could improve for the use of the included sources that do not make arguments with words related to the more specific "weaponization". Llll5032 (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How so? What if "weaponization" sources don't specifically say misuse? Taking the same rigid, non-common sense approach one would just end up with exactly the same problem in reverse. Thematically, what sort of example of a misuse would not be a weaponization? Iskandar323 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Answered above. Llll5032 (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See What SYNTH is not Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Which passage of that essay do you believe is applicable? Llll5032 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If one wishes to argue synth, research it properly. Generally, what someone thinks is a valid synth argument, isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So, which passage of that essay do you believe is applicable? Llll5032 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per Iskandar323. The proposed title is more precise: it better and more accurately conveys to the reader what the article is actually about. As is, people (myself included) might plausibly click on this article and think they are going to be reading a historical overview of how antisemitism has been weaponized by antisemites against Jewish people (an article more like History of antisemitism, for example). That, of course, is not what this article is about. It's about false, weaponized, or misused accusations of antisemitism. The debate over "misuse" vs "weaponize" as the operative verb can carry on even after this aspect of the title has been clarified. Flipand Flopped  ツ 03:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment – I’m concerned that this could be understood as accusations of weaponization, as pointed out by Makeandtoss. I’d prefer something like: Weaponization of the term antisemitism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Titles about accusations themselves tend to start with "Accusations of", so re: our usual style, it shouldn't be a huge source of confusion. However, there's a chance that confusion could be passed onto the reader. One alternative is "Weaponization of accusations of antisemitism", but it's a bit cumbersome. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought of that first. And then "claims of" to reduce by three syllables. But two of's is awkward. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Awkward, but not as much as “…of antisemitism accusations”. Zanahary (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The name of this article must change, but the suggested title is not an improvement. I completely agree with User:Zanahary above, "A bunch of op-eds that say "weaponizing" is not a basis to call this "weaponization of antisemitism".", I will support other options. Galamore (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose under @Makeandtoss's argument. The proposed title is ambiguous. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The name of this article is POV and adding accusation won't change that. Any adult reader understands that weaponization is an accusation, not a neutral term. Nobody describes their own behavior as weaponization. Better to have an article about the discourse of antisemitism in America (or are weaponization claims a global phenom?) or the uses of antisemitism charges, or the like. ProfGray (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is an article on antisemitism. Are you saying that the term is not also used to falsely accuse others of antisemitism for political purposes? As for: Any adult reader understands that weaponization is an accusation, not a neutral term we use the term murder and a vast number of other negative terms in innumerable article titles. Please read WP:NPOV. Look, false accusations of antisemitism are harmful to Semites. Kinda like accusing the current president of running a Gestapo on Holocaust Remembrance Day. But, who would do that? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi. Our role is not to determine whether a term is "used to falsely accuse others" because we don't need to adjudicate False or True accusations. Our role is to figure how to write in NPOV style about charges of antisemitism, which is a subtopic of antisemitism. In Google Scholar, I see 671 hits for "accusations of antisemitism," 416 hits for "charges of antisemitism" and 29 for "weaponization of antisemitism" (sometimes in scare quotes, possibly for same concerns I'm expressing here).
 * I think it'd be best to have a section within antisemitism on this topic ("charges of antisemitism"), which itself should have a balanced title and gives balanced consideration to the institutionalization of such charges, their efficacy, and controversial aspects, such as (alleged) bad faith or unduly motivated accusations. ProfGray (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this well-written comment. Zanahary (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is totally NPOV illiterate argument. Again, like others in this page, you're basing this partly on your own OR about how positive or negative the words feel. In reality, none of the words are positive, because it's not a "positive" subject. Misuse isn't positive. Instrumentalization (using antisemitism as a tool) isn't positive. Secondly, it is wholly irrelevant that no one self-identifies as performing "weaponization". As a very immediate analogy, what proportion of antisemites do you think call themselves antisemites? Answer: not a lot, and so, by that metric, "antisemitism" itself would not be NPOV. Wholly policy non-compliant logic. Self-definition alone is not a relevant factor. And finally, no, it's not a US phenomena, but a broad concept. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi. It's not a matter of "positive" per se (and did I not use that word?) but rather whether it is the most neutral term that we can find, avoiding loaded terms. That's why I check wording from scholars or reliable journalistic writing.
 * Your point about self-identification is worth discussing, though I'm not sure this is the best place. Generally, in a contentious situation, the more neutral and less loaded terms can be discerned by usage and reactions to usage. I train people to avoid calling individuals "antisemite" or "racist" because it is reifying and reductionist, unless self-identifying, and instead to label their statements or actions. Even then, I'd rather use less loaded terms when possible, since these terms are loaded (moral condemnation). ProfGray (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The name of this article is POV If that is an issue, resolve via an RM, not by way of an assertion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree that my finding that The name of this article is POV will not itself resolve the problem. But I think the first step if for people to recognize the problem, so that's why I'd rather comment and try to persuade, rather than vote!. Moreover, I don't think an RM would suffice, alone. That's why I discuss, above, the importance of thinking through how antisemitism discourse (representation, accusations, etc) is first placed in the main article and then expanded into parent-child articles in a balanced, NPOV manner.
 * FWIW, I personally (morally) believe that "weaponization of" [accusations of unethical conduct] is a problem in the real world, so I want the content to be developing in a robust and thoughtful way in WP. ProfGray (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the problem is instead the content, edit. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – The article is not about antisemitism itself being used as a weapon. Additionally, I should note that many of the "oppose" comments do not seem to oppose the proposed title when compared pairwise with the existing title. Whether the title should include the word "weaponization" is a valid discussion for another RM, but those comments not addressing the pairwise comparison should probably be discounted in this RM. Graham (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would prefer moving the article to Weaponization of accusations of antisemitism, as suggested by others, so as to avoid any misconception that we are referring to accusations of weaponization rather than the weaponization of accusations. That being said, provided that we are clear about our reason for the move, I would still prefer Weaponization of antisemitism accusations over the existing title. Graham (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose the proposal is not a helpful improvement and 'tilts' the article that questions whether the term is ever really misused, which undermines the factbase presented (i.e. the term is misused). I have no problem changing the title (i.e. "Misuse/Abuse of the term Antisemitism"), this is not useful. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning oppose because I think the current article title is clearer than the proposed one. "Weaponization of accusations of antisemitism" is a satisfactory alternative and more clear than the proposed title. My first thought at seeing the proposed article title was that it would make the article about the accusation that antisemitism is sometimes weaponized. I tend to think "instrumentalization" may be a better word than "weaponization" though. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Although sometimes referred to as instrumentalization, there is some difficulty with using that word as part of the scope as it is quite frequently used to refer to matters that would be out of the intended scope. It is also something of an awkward word for the majority of readers I would think, for whom weaponization would be quite clear. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By my count, we do not have any articles whose titles use “weaponization” to describe bad-faith engagement of any kind. It’s just not neutral language. "Bad-faith charges of antisemitism" could work. Zanahary (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I refer you to Weaponization of everything "The phrase also implies understanding to what extent something can be weaponized." It is a part of everyday language at least where I come from and everyone knows what it means. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That article is about a phrase, and its title is the name of the phrase. It is not a descriptive title, because obviously a Wikipedia article about “the weaponization of everything” would have a terribly polemical and unhelpful title. Zanahary (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ? There is a WP article about the weaponization of everything, it's scope is its title and ""Weaponization of everything" is a phrase referring to an expansion of the definition of what a weapon is, and correspondingly the expansion of what constitutes a threat, attack, and defense. Again, most people know what it means.Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, an article about a phrase. It is obviously not a descriptive title. Zanahary (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * iyo. I beg to differ. Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. Anyways, for the reasons above, I support a move to Bad-faith charges of antisemitism. Zanahary (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * aka weaponizing antisemitism accusations. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also Weaponized incompetence, which is also oddly applicable in this topic area. Seems to be one of the favoured civil POV-pushing strategies of socks, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "is a concept in popular psychology" Zanahary (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said, everyone knows what it means. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Think we have polluted the RM sufficiently now. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Think we have polluted the RM sufficiently now. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose seems arbitrarily more difficult and harder to understand though i recognize the intent. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I like buddhe's idea above of ""Weaponization of accusations of antisemitism" User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear, I don't mind any one of the three, the existing, the proposed or "Weaponization of accusations of antisemitism". The scope is the title plus the first sentence and imo it makes no difference which of the three in that sense. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Graham.  Alto respite  🌿 17:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose: not an improvement over the current title; makes it more cumbersome. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support while reliable sources use the term 'weaponization of antisemitism' the proposed move would be an improvement because it specifies the page topic more precisely. TarnishedPath<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support for the sake of greater specification, as others have stated above. David A (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Itemized POV concerns
To preface, the fundamental arguments against both the continued titling of the article under "weaponization of antisemitism" (or even the newly proposed "weaponization of antisemitism accusations"), and preserving the current (and supposedly neutral and all-inclusive) definition of "weaponization of antisemitism" as "antisemitism accusations [...] exploited for political purposes, especially to counter criticism of Israel" are plain and simple for the following reasons:

1. There are no sources presented that reliably support the currently presented definition, most crucially anywhere in the lede. Instead, an assemblage of sources of varying relevance and quality have been cobbled together in a clear instance of SYNTH to create the impression of a unified definition that does not, in fact, exist under these terms and scope.

I am asserting that the definition currently in place in the lede is pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There is no encompassing definition (either in whole or part) from any of the sources provided that make (or back) this specific claim. Furthermore, any assertion that the existing definition that "antisemitism accusations [...] exploited for political purposes, especially to counter criticism of Israel" equates to "weaponization of antisemitism" or "playing the antisemitism card" is derived from sources presented is categorically false, and has been assembled from a patchwork of disparate items arguing separate matters.

2. More than two thirds of the sources presented in the article do not - in fact - describe and elucidate specific acts of supposed instances of "weaponized" use of antisemitic accusation. The solid majority instead cast generalized and vague aspersions and charges of "weaponization" without either citing specific instances, or clearly identifying the manner in which the supposed instances may be differentiated between "weaponization" accusation as opposed to legitimate antisemitic claim or critique. The majority of these citations (especially those that fail to explore and validate specific instances) read squarely and uncritically as if the authors merely generally disagree with the invocation of antisemitic accusation under any circumstances, and generally consider its use in debate to be in bad faith.

3. Of the 45 citations in the "History" and "Description" sections, the term "weaponization" only appears in sources nine (9) times, and of those, only two stand on solid, scholarly ground (with the remainder either on shaky ground, are questionably invoked, or are from opinion pieces). A further four use variations on "antisemitism as a weapon" but we have already addressed issues of inappropriate exclusion of previous scholarly use of the phrase or similar (which would be handily resolved if this article were renamed "instrumentalization of antisemitism", as both use cases would be covered under such a generally umbrella in different, appropriate sections) Either way, less than a third of the articles cited use this language, and only half of those attempt any form of justification in invoking terms like "weapon" or "weaponization".

Equally so, there are sources included that are claimed to support the presented Israel-centered thesis, but actually cite instances of "weaponized antisemitism" entirely outside the bounds of this supposed exclusively Israel-centered discourse.

As is highlighted below, the arguments presented in this article do not currently add up to a convincing thesis that an article entitled "Weaponization of antisemitism accusations" reflects any form of neutrally positioned or established discourse. Instead, we have a collection of mostly unsupported (or speciously argued) Accusations of weaponized antisemitism  (or more practically phrased: a timeline of charges of bad faith invocation of antisemitism

Breaking down and analyzing the lede, each insistence and argument has been isolated, with its citations provided scrutinized to see if they, in fact, support the asserted points.

For the "History" and "Description" sections (which make up the bulk of the article), I have created a very simple criteria to assess the viability of the sources provided on the following grounds:
 * Does make a general charge of bad faith instrumentalization of antisemitic accusation?
 * Does it invoke specific instances or level specific charges?
 * Does it describe such instances as "weaponization" or similar?

Lede
When antisemitism accusations are exploited for political purposes, especially to counter criticism of Israel, Illustrative examples:
 * : "The weaponizing of antisemitism against US critics of Israel was evidenced in 2019 when Florida's upper legislative chamber unanimously passed a bill that classifies certain criticism of Israel as antisemitic"
 * it may be described variously as a weaponization of antisemitism, instrumentalization of antisemitism, or playing the antisemitism card.
 * it may be described variously as a weaponization of antisemitism, instrumentalization of antisemitism, or playing the antisemitism card.
 * it may be described variously as a weaponization of antisemitism, instrumentalization of antisemitism, or playing the antisemitism card.

Sources present neither provide nor support the above definition. While separate sources mention "weaponization", "instrumentalization" and "playing the antisemitism" card, none squarely define such supposed instances (which is an accusation in of itself) as generally covering the general exploitation of antisemitism for political purposes (itself a POV assertion, as "exploitation" would have to be proven on its own merits, and its not even mentioned in the sources). Sources provided are either mere charges of "weaponization", or passing reference with no substantive argument or critique:

First source collection:
 * Landy/Lentin/McCarthy: Contains charge of "weaponization". Despite use of the word "evidenced", the charge is the opinion of its authors, not an evidentiary or critically established example.
 * Consonni: The mention of either "weaponization" or "instrumentalization" only refers to - in passing - criticism leveled by other scholars as part of a working definition argument in 2013.
 * Rothberg: This is an interview, and - in effect - an equivalent to an opinion piece, at best. It is not suitable as an anchor source for an article lede.
 * Roth-Rowland: This is an opinion piece.

Second source collection:
 * Finkelstein: Charge of "playing the antisemitism card".
 * Hirsh: Thoughtful "both sides" analysis/think piece of rhetoric around accusations of use as "weapon". It explores the issue and does not provide a definition similar to what is asserted.
 * Bronfman: Opinion piece.

Such accusations have been criticized as a form of smear tactics and an "appeal to motive". Examples of criticism as appeal to motive:
 * : "As I’ve demonstrated in Part 1 of this volume, the purpose of these periodic extravaganzas is not hard to find: on the one hand, the perpetrators are turned into the victims, putting the spotlight on the alleged suffering of Jews today and diverting it from the real suffering of Palestinians; on the other hand, they discredit all criticism of Israeli policy as motivated by an irrational loathing of Jews… The transparent motive behind these assertions is to taint any criticism of Israel as motivated by anti-Semitism and—inverting reality—to turn Israel (and Jews), not Palestinians, into the victim of the “current siege””
 * : "Specifically, when Muslims and Arabs in America defend the rights of Palestinians or criticize Israeli state policy, they are often baselessly presumed to be motivated by a hatred for Jews rather than support for human rights, freedom, and consistent enforcement of international law."
 * Some writers have compared this to playing the race card. When used against Jews, it may take the form of the pejorative claim of "self-hating Jew".

Again: SYNTH / POV / OR:"such accusations" have not been "criticized as a form of smear tactics", they have been characterized by those arguing that such invocations of antisemitic accusation are in bad faith (therefore constituting a form of smear tactic if said weaponization accusations were found viable, which cannot be presumed based upon mere accusation).

Third source collection:
 * White: This source pertains exclusively to the BDS debate, which is covered separately
 * Mearshimer & Walt: General charge, no specific example cited
 * Amor: WP:CRYSTALBALL, portends to predict the future
 * Steinberg: Interpretive opinion on the implications "smearing" in argument.

Fourth source collection:
 * Finkelstein: General charge, no specific example cited
 * Plitnick & Aziz: General charge, no specific example cited
 * Abraham: Rhetorical speculation, no specific example cited

Fifth source collection:
 * Quigley: General charge, no specific instance cited or qualified
 * Marcus: Advice, at best. No specific instance cited.

Citations 7-10
 * Bertov (double cited) / Abraham / Chomsky / Waxman, Schraub, Hosein: General charges, no specific instances cited or analyzed

Suggestions of such actions have been raised during phases of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, in the adoption of various organizations' controversial working definitions of antisemitism,   during the 2014–20 allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, at the 2023 United States Congress hearing on antisemitism, and during the 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on university campuses.

Citations 11-13: Mearshimer & Walt / Muzher / Chomsky: General charges with no specific instances cited

Citations 14-20:
 * Middle East Monitor - shaky partisan source, opinion piece
 * Guardian: opinion piece
 * Amor: an open letter
 * HRW: suggestion that letter is connected to "weaponization" discussion as defined is leading and OR
 * Double down news?
 * Harvard Crimson: outdated opinion piece
 * Democracy Now: hardly RS for definition sake, otherwise partisan accusation

Conclusion
There are no grounds to assert that charges of "weaponization of antisemitism" or "antisemitic accusation" aren't equally incidents of bad faith argumentation for the purposes of potentially silencing debate, most especially when most of the accusations leveled in sources cited in this article are unspecified and are general aspersions to phenomena presumed to be substantive, but rarely explored and argued in detail. A heavy amount of misleading synth and OR has been deployed in this article to create a falsely neutral starting position that there is a stable definition (there isn't) and that it is only the "weaponization" accusation itself that is subject to bad faith charge. The accusations are flying here in both directions, and should be given due and equal scrutiny under their appropriate sections.

On these grounds, I reinforce my above stated preferences for both renaming and resolving extant POV issues. I know that "instrumentalization" is considered by many here to be an uncomely term, but it is far more neutral, has sufficent use in sources already provided, and allows a more general umbrella for the examples provided in the article so far to preserve under a more generally appropriate definition, in which other examples of "instrumentalization of antisemitism" may appropriately reside under a broader and more inclusive definition of "antisemitism accusations exploited for political purposes" that covers the breadth of interpretations and cited instances covered across RS, scholarly research, and the current discussion.Mistamystery (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The conclusion says it all, yet another argument for changing the title. Again the hopelessly wrong argument that a descriptive title needs a definition when it doesn't. Again, the hopelessly wrong argument that an article title is a POV issue when it isn't. Looking forward to the RM. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As Selfstudier says, a descriptive title does not need a definition. The article is not claiming that "Weaponization of antisemitism" is a common name. We are saying the article is about "Weaponization of antisemitism". If we can agree on another title, then that's what an RM is for. Makes no sense to have both an RM and NPOV tag. The NPOV tag is just a shame-tag. I'll remove it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So what would be the response if the conclusion section were not buttoned with a mention of a potential alternate title? That is not remotely the point of the POV post and could easily be excised it if is proving to be a distraction to the matter at hand.
 * These quick and dispensary responses merely seem like a workaround to avoid addressing any of the POV issues raised when a postscript about potential solutions was not remotely the point nor emphasis. Also, I'm not the only editor who was insisting upon the preservation of the tag until long discussed POV issues in the article are satisfactorily addressed, and - in the interest of lessening any confusion
 * The argument is not merely that there is no common name for the term "weaponization of antisemitism", but that there is no case for neutral use, nor grounds for even the definition provided - which points to merely POV but factuality issues in the article.. And I think the evidence on this front is pretty clear. The majority of the article doesn't even refer to specific instances of supposed "weaponized" antisemitism accusation, but generic commentary that casts aspersions toward a general spectre of such supposed behavior, yet almost entirely avoids discussion or analysis of specific incident.
 * I'm going to adjust my postscript shortly (to abate any further confusion that this is remotely tied to a RM effort), and restore the POV tag, and await detailed responses on the numerous POV issues in the current article outlined. Mistamystery (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There isn't any confusion, all your efforts and walls of text are devoted to changing the title. Just put up an RM and stop writing stuff. Once the title is decided, all your points will automagically disappear.Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve not yet read this entire comment, but your first point about this article’s cobbled-together (synthesized) reification of the article topic is absolutely true. Zanahary (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This was taken to the OR noticeboard here and generated a distinct lack of interest, so editors don't agree with this view, which itself appears to be synthesis. Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A previous discussion failing to generate interest is certainly not evidence for editor consensus, and the invocation of such a discussion would not be a substitute for an argument. But regardless, that discussion saw all commenting editors, excepting yourself, affirming some concern about OR or neutrality. Zanahary (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They nevertheless cared insufficiently to come here and edit, or else they did and the current status of the article reflects that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Selfstudier, that does not make sense as an argument. That a change has not yet been made does not mean that there is an unlitigatable consensus to never make that change, nor that there is an unlitigatable consensus that a discussed problem is in fact not a problem. Zanahary (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I have read all of the above three times – I was surprised to see that you don’t appear to have attempted to make a direct case that anything in the article is POV.

Our Template:POV states: Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. 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. An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant.

If you still believe there are POV concerns, please could you connect your position directly to this text from the template above? I don’t see anything in your comments about any of the core POV concerns, such as balance, neutrality, fair representation, quality of sourcing etc.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * just checking you saw this comment. I would really like to understand your position, as you clearly feel strongly. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Onceinawhile appreciate the follow up. I have day job obligations and an otherwise busier than usual week. Want to make sure I am thorough in my response to your question, so will be a day or two before I am able to get back to you on this. Best, MM Mistamystery (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The more words you use the more diluted your message. I don’t think you are saying that the word antisemitism is not used as a cudgel against those daring to criticize Israeli actions, the IDF, Netanyahu, prosecution of the war, the plight of Palestinians, and many other issues over decades. As I understand it, such accusations are the subject of this article. So, I don’t see the POV issue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * How is this an NPOV defense? Whether an editor contests or accepts that antisemitism is “used as a cudgel” is irrelevant; we go off of sources, not what editors think is a reasonable observation. As it stands, this article’s sourcing is analogous to citing op-eds alleging specific instances of, for instance, dishonest charges of abuse, for an article on “weaponized abuse” or, pending the move, “weaponized/instrumentalized/misused accusations of abuse”. This article is using these op-eds, which are largely specific, as the primary sources for an originally-researched analysis of a supposed broad phenomenon. Without a real secondary/tertiary (depending on how you delineate) source connecting these individually-addressed instances/arguments to a validated (via acknowledgment and affirmation of existence) broader phenomenon of bad-faith charges of antisemitism, their inclusion in this article is non-neutral original research. Zanahary (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See my comment above, this article was already taken to the OR noticeboard here and no-one is interested in such an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Be respectful. And the discussion you linked sees everyone suggesting some change, with the article’s only defender being you. Zanahary (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * with the article’s only defender being you. Not close to true. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are quotations from every editor besides SS and another editor who opined that the article would always be contested in terms of its neutrality in that discussion:
 * So, yes, the little discussion generally agreed that the article has a problem with neutrality or use of sources. Zanahary (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * These comments are more than two months old - the article was significantly developed since then; it is now double the size in kb vs. when this NORN was opened. And the discussion had just five editors, only two of which were "uninvolved", of which one made a neutral comment that you did not quote above. So the above quotes boil down to the two-month-old views of a single uninvolved editor, who explicitly did not review the article before commenting. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we agree that that old discussion doesn’t have much bearing on present assertions about this article’s state. It generated little discussion and no apparent action, petered out, and the article has changed a lot since. Certainly there’s no reason to dismiss any invoked arguments reminiscent of that (again: non-consensus-generating) discussion’s. Zanahary (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And what did they do about it? Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now I'm doing something: I'm raising the argument on this article's talk page. Please feel free to engage with it. Zanahary (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What argument? Please provide one that I haven't heard before. Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Be respectful When I'm not being respectful, you'll know. Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Mistamystery, thanks for taking the time to compile your lists, which are especially constructive for considering RMs and usability of some of the sources. Llll5032 (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * These comments are more than two months old - the article was significantly developed since then; it is now double the size in kb vs. when this NORN was opened. And the discussion had just five editors, only two of which were "uninvolved", of which one made a neutral comment that you did not quote above. So the above quotes boil down to the two-month-old views of a single uninvolved editor, who explicitly did not review the article before commenting. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we agree that that old discussion doesn’t have much bearing on present assertions about this article’s state. It generated little discussion and no apparent action, petered out, and the article has changed a lot since. Certainly there’s no reason to dismiss any invoked arguments reminiscent of that (again: non-consensus-generating) discussion’s. Zanahary (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And what did they do about it? Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now I'm doing something: I'm raising the argument on this article's talk page. Please feel free to engage with it. Zanahary (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What argument? Please provide one that I haven't heard before. Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Be respectful When I'm not being respectful, you'll know. Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Mistamystery, thanks for taking the time to compile your lists, which are especially constructive for considering RMs and usability of some of the sources. Llll5032 (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't really have any suggestion about the way forward here, but it is clearly the case that (a) a large proportion of the sources used are primary sources and we have a major lack of independent secondary sources showing that they are noteworthy; (b) a large proportion of the sources are opinion pieces, with no clear criteria for why these particular opinions are the relevant ones; (c) many of the sources make more vague or modest claims than the claims they are appended to in footnotes, or only briefly make a claim about weaponisation in passing; (D) that many of the opinion pieces are in fairly marginal sources. The problem is that the thesis of the article was identified and then sources sought to bolster it, rather than starting with an actual topic and looking for the most general, neutral overviews of the topic and the most widely accepted scholarly takes. It is therefore fundamentally flawed so hard to see how to fix it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

More sources to be added
7 May 2024 Weaponizing Antisemitism to Stifle Criticism of Israel Featuring: Adam Horowitz Raz Segal Shira Robinson

25 March 2024 Weaponizing Anti-Semitism in U.S. Universities and Society

Amanpour and Company He Wrote a Definition of Antisemitism; Now He Says It’s Being Weaponized Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In the third video, Stern doesn't say "antisemitism" is weaponised; he says a very specific definition (the IHRA definition that he wrote) is. In the first two videos, the expertise and noteworthiness of the contributors isn't totally clear to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The IHRA definition...of antisemitism. Anyway this is not as yet in the article. and nor are the other two. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jews-arent-weaponizing-antisemitism-theyre-often-israels-most-vocal-critics https://www.jns.org/no-right-wing-jews-arent-weaponizing-anti-semitism

https://fathomjournal.org/book-review%E2%94%82the-definition-of-anti-semitism// Zanahary (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not an expert. Selfstudier (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nor are, to name a few, Matthew Abraham, Abraham Gutman, Helen Benedict, Marshall Ganz, or Harold R. Piety. I don’t really have a problem with that, as gathering whether an author is an “expert” is quite subjective and difficult when we’re looking outside of peer-reviewed academic sources. I’d prefer we limit ourselves to those sources, which exist, rather than mine op-eds, but as long as there’s no consensus to keep the sources strictly academic, these may help to complete the article. Zanahary (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You edited after I replied, don't do that in future thank you. My reply was directed at the natpost link which I see has been removed from the article by a different editor in any case.
 * As to the other two, Robert Fine is OK although Idk why you need to use a book review for his opinion, and the JNS source is complete crap. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not sure why a book review would be the go-to here either. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to contest any opinion based on the non expertness of the giver, feel free. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Rahim Mohamed and Adam Levick are not experts and their opinion is not noteworthy. The late Robert Fine was an important expert, but he can't see how his text is useful here. Can you spell out how that would be used? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine was already added I believe. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

'Non-primary source needed' tags in lede
Are these tags appropriate? I'm inclined to remove them but I'm not sure. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * When a source says “dogs are scary” and is the sole citation for the article text “some writers have opined that dogs are scary”, it’s being used as a primary source. Especially for an article’s lede, unattributed article text like this needs to come from secondary sources. Zanahary (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't mind making the lead more focused so that we get right to the heart of the matter and don't need to deal with these distractions. Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * These tags are definitely appropriate. We need heavyweight secondary sources to make these claims. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Dueness of Livingstone formulation material
This business about the Livingstone formulation is undue, there is a lot of material in the article about issues faced by the UK labour party (I have tagged it as undue weight for the moment), why would that have any relevance for weaponization of antisemitism in general? Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. After reading the long paragraph about the "Livingstone Formulation," it still doesn't make sense to me. Suppose K.L., a critic of Israel, makes a statement that D.H., a defender of Israel, believes is antisemitic and K.L. believes is not. Suppose that the statement in question has nothing to do with Israel, and K.L. accuses D.H. of weaponizing antisemitism to defend Israel. D.H. claims this is illogical. But it obviously isn't, because the charge of antisemitism, like the charge of racism, is a way to discredit a person. If people believe that K.L. is an antisemite, they won't pay attention to his criticisms of Israel. Isn't this obvious? So I don't see what the "Livingstone Formulation" is all about. It seems like a fancy name for a nothingburger. I'd favor removing the paragraph per WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That you don’t understand the formulation, or find the concept unfair or problematic, doesn’t really matter—it’s represented in a breadth of reliable sources, and has been present in the article for months. Zanahary (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not everything that is adequately sourced satisfies WP:DUE, and this is an example of a long paragraph that adds nothing of importance to the article. The concept either intrinsically has no meaningful content, or else is just poorly described in the long paragraph. In either case it is undue. NightHeron (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel it’s clear, but why don’t you try reading one of the many sources (cited or new) describing the concept in question and editing the article text for clarity? Zanahary (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, first things first, the Livingstone formulation, it has a name, so what is it? According to Hirsh 2011 paper:
 * "This paper is concerned with a rhetorical formulation which is sometimes deployed in response to an accusation of antisemitism, particularly when it relates to discourse which is of the form of criticism of Israel. This formulation is a defensive response which deploys a counter-accusation that the person raising the issue of antisemitism is doing so in bad faith and dishonestly. I have called it The Livingstone Formulation (Hirsh 2007, 2008).
 * There is the word "sometimes", then there is "particularly"..."criticism of Israel" (an AZ position usually), followed by an accusation of AS, followed by an accusation of bad faith and this last in the sequence is what is being referred to as the LF. It is not clear whether this is based on the equation AZ=AS always or it is just "sometimes".
 * Comparing a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard doesn't appear to have anything to do with the given sequence. I think we are mixing together different ideas in the paragraph I have marked as undue weight and we also shouldn't use the word weaponization if the sources don't use it, we need to relate the material directly to the definition of the formulation. Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the sources, there seem to be at least 3 possible definitions of "Livingstone Formulation." The article David Hirsh, citing source [74] (in the "Weaponization..." article's numbering), defines it as (1) the claim made by those accused of antisemitism that the accusation is made in order to delegitimise their criticism of Israel. The long paragraph about it in the "Weaponization..." article defines it in two different ways: (2) as the charge of weaponization when the original allegedly antisemitic statement had nothing to do with Israel, and (3) as a charge of weaponization that claims that the charge of antisemitism was made in bad faith, that is, (quoting [75]) an allegation of a "lie" and "not an allegation of error, or over-zealousness." If definition (1) is correct, the concept deserves at most a 1-sentence mention that this is a name to the charge of weaponization that was given by David Hirsh after a dispute on the subject between him and Ken Livingstone. In the case of definition (2), it would be nice to have an explanation from a pro-Israeli RS as to why they think that when the charge of antisemitism against a critic of Israel concerns a statement the critic made that was not about Israel, the antisemitism charge could not have been made for the purpose of discrediting the critic. In the case of definition (3), it would be nice to have some clarification from a pro-Israeli RS as to how they distinguish between a charge of weaponization that is alleging that the antisemitism charge is due to lying vs due to over-zealousness. For example, in the case of Trump, many RS (such as the NY Times) describe him as a habitual liar. But the word lie generally means a falsehood that the person who lies knows is false. Often people who are passionate about something (Trump about his defeat in 2020, Zionists about Israel) have probably convinced themselves that the falsehood is actually true. In that case the falsehood can be attributed to over-zealousness rather than to deliberate lying. I don't see how one can meaningfully distinguish between the two in such cases. So how does definition (3) of the term "Livingston Formulation" distinguish between an accusation of weaponization that alleges bad faith vs one that alleges over-zealousness? Of the 3 definitions, the first one is clear, but (2) and (3) are murky without clarification from RS. Moreover, if Livingstone Formulation is nothing but a term thrown around by one side of the dispute that has no clear definition, then the whole paragraph is undue. NightHeron (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your qualms with the concept (Hirsh never interacted with Livingstone, by the way) doesn’t really stand in the way of the many sources, from scholarly articles in sociological and legal journals to books on antisemitism published by academic presses, that refer to it. When so many reliable, high-quality sources cite the concept in relation to this article’s topic of bad-faith charges of antisemitism, it is simply due. Zanahary (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not if it is claimed as a name that has no definition. Hirsh says in his 2018 book "Ken Livingstone is not responsible for the Livingstone Formulation, and he did not invent it; it is an honorary title rather than one which he really earned." Which is, to say the least, confusing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is Hirsh himself just recently on X and there he says that "the" definition can be found here, a 2016 book chapter (rather than his 2011 paper I mentioned earlier).
 * This version says "This paper defines the features of the rhetorical device which I have named the Livingstone Formulation. It is a means of refusing to engage with an accusation of antisemitism; instead it reflects back an indignant counter-accusation, that the accuser is taking part in a conspiracy to silence political speech. The Livingstone Formulation functions to de-legitimise scholarly or political analysis of antisemitism by treating analysis of antisemitism as an indicator of anti-progressive discourse.  This mode of refusal to engage rationally with antisemitism is often facilitated by the treatment of antisemitism as a subjective sentiment rather than as an external and objective social phenomenon.  This paper offers a large number of examples of the Livingstone Formulation taken from diverse public discourse; from both explicitly antisemitic and also from ostensibly antiracist social spaces." Which is not the same as what he had in 2011 termed the Livingstone formulation. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are logical traps in the formulation, if someone makes an AS accusation, one must not question the accuser's motive (LF) but must instead prove the negative, that they are not an antisemite.
 * But this can be turned about, the accuser is equally questioning the responder's motives by making the accusation to start with.
 * What it means, when all is said and done, is that evidence should decide the issue and not the mere facts of the accusation and counter accusation. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your qualms with the concept do not knock down its apparent notability, per a breadth of reliable sources. Zanahary (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Who said I had qualms? I merely wish to know what it is. Its definition appears to be a moving target.
 * What I am clear about is that your editing completely misrepresents the situation and I will remedy that in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You can check the sources! Zanahary (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed undue material and it has been restored against WP:BRD as well as against the consensus in this discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You removed long-standing material. Consensus has not been achieved. You need to explain based on policy how it’s undue; identifying “logical traps” in an argument is not a policy-based justification for a due weight removal. Thanks for restoring the tag, I didn’t mean to leave that off. Zanahary (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not remove long standing material, I removed recently added material per the above discussion which atm has a consensus that this material is undue and which is why I tagged it for that initially. I restored my own tag, having removed it after removing the undue material. You remain against WP:BRD and against consensus here. I am willing to wait and see what other editors have to say about that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re mistaken. You removed content that has been there for months. That was a bold edit. I reverted. Zanahary (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All the material in this article is new, so WP:QUO doesn't apply (added with no consensus). In any case, QUO only lasts until the material is challenged, which it has been and the WP:ONUS is now on you to garner a consensus and atm, you are 3 to 1 against. Feel free to undo your restoration anytime. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop restoring challenged material. Also, it appears UNDUE to me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You’ll have to make an argument for that. Zanahary (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As was said above, the ONUS is on you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not; the content in question is old. Zanahary (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, there's a consensus (i.e., everyone but you) that the disputed content is undue. Secondly, the problem we're addressing is that your recent flurry of edits made the article unbalanced. That can be fixed by removing the content that's not particularly significant. That doesn't necessarily mean removing all your recent edits, since some of the content you added might be more relevant, recent, and significant than some of the older content. The basic issue is to fix the article so that it satisfies WP:DUE and WP:Balance. NightHeron (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like you’re confusing some content. The stuff boldly removed by SS is months old. Zanahary (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you are not going to self revert your restoration, which is what you should be doing, I have done it for you.
 * I already explained that ONUS trumps QUO, even if the stuff had been in the article for 10 years, which in this case it hasn't because this is a new article and everything in it is only months old. In addition, there is a consensus that the restored material is undue, why you would think it is due is quite beyond me.
 * In fact there is arguably still too much reliance on Hirsh and we may need to revisit that at some point. Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure whether or not the Livingstone F material is due in this particular article but I find it quite ironic that those editors opposing it here are making exactly the same points about it that have been levelled, with at least as much justification, against “weaponisation of antisemitism”; that it’s not a thing because it has more than one potential definition or that it is merely a term thrown around by one side of the dispute that has no clear definition. That’s precisely the problem with “weaponisation of antisemitism”. (Meanwhile, lots of RS media articles and academic papers refer explicitly to the “Livingston Formula”, but I believe its WP article was deleted long ago for very similar reasons to those used against this article.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * LF has one definition, that of its author, who varies it at the margins from time to time for whatever reason but the essence of it remains as I have summarized it in the article. Weaponization, being a description, has no author and no definition so the comparison between apples and oranges fails.
 * Nor has anyone has said that LF is not due (it's in the article) so that's another straw man.
 * If any editor thinks that an AfD would work, that option remains available. One merely wonders why this has not been attempted to date. The short answer is that while LF might have been deleted for lack of notability (assuming that was the reason), that isn't the case here, the trouble is more deciding what to include and then how to arrange the material in a sensible fashion, which is something we could get to once all the other matters are ironed out. Selfstudier (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I must have misunderstood you when you said "This business about the Livingstone formulation is undue" I interpreted you to mean that mention of it was undue in the article. If that's not the case, what's the actual dispute here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It began when I made these edits, clarifying what LF is and removing what I considered as excessive material related to LF. This was reverted and I opened the discussion here, subsequently deriving a consensus that the material is in fact undue. The reverting editor just added something else and that has been removed as well. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus is generated using policy-based arguments. Just repeating "it's undue" is neither policy-based nor an argument, and exercises by editors in amateur rhetorician-logicianship to debunk widely-cited arguments and concepts do not make a policy-based argument relating to content's due weight.Anyways, here's a bunch of (lazily link-formatted) good sources, by authors other than David Hirsh, that refer to the concept. Plainly due.

Israeli state power and the Zionist movement in the UK: the case of the counter-campaign against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rightsLooking Left at Antisemitism[https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca.5.2.115/html Harrison, Bernard. "In Defense of the IHRA Definition (Despite Its Defects as a Definition)" Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, vol. 5, no. 2, 2022, pp. 43-66. https://doi.org/10.26613/jca.5.2.115][https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca.4.2.85/html Spitz, Derek. "In the House of the Hangman One should not Mention the Noose: Jewish Voice for Labour’s Attack on the Equality and Human Rights Commission" Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, vol. 4, no. 2, 2021, pp. 47-92. https://doi.org/10.26613/jca.4.2.85]50 DAYS IN THE SUMMER: GAZA, POLITICAL PROTEST AND ANTISEMITISM IN THE UK[https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/157768985/TUB_Decoding_Antisemitism_EN_FIN.pdf Becker, M. J., Allington, D., Ascone, L., Bolton, M., Chapelan, A., Krasni, J., Placzynta, K., Scheiber, M., Troschke, H., & Vincent, C. (2021). Discourse Report 2: Decoding Antisemitism: An AI-driven Study on Hate Speech and Imagery Online. (Decoding Antisemitism: An AI-driven Study on Hate Speech and Imagery Online). Technical University of Berlin Centre for Research on Antisemitism. https://decoding-antisemitism.eu/]Weiner, Cheryl A. “I Am Not Going to Hide Who I Am”: How Jewish Girl Activists Navigate their Relationship to Voice, Visibility, and Representation, Lesley University, United States -- Massachusetts, 2023.Antisemitism and the Left: Confronting an Invisible RacismWELL-INTENTIONED WESTERNERS AND ISLAMIC ANTISEMITISM[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contending_with_Antisemitism_in_a_Rapidl/rEJFEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Livingstone+Formulation%22&pg=PP1&printsec=frontcover Contending with Antisemitism in a Rapidly Changing Political Climate. (2021). United States: Indiana University Press.][https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca/3.1.46/html?lang=en Rensmann, Lars. "The Contemporary Globalization of Political Antisemitism: Three Political Spaces and the Global Mainstreaming of the “Jewish Question” in the Twenty-First Century" Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, vol. 3, no. 1, 2020, pp. 83-108. https://doi.org/10.26613/jca/3.1.46][https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0449010X.2014.900365?casa_token=6l9Y9c_bo1sAAAAA:nYL8bCtYjbiAv9IvyO2X-xfa_HM3Dm1assLgYHpj2WNdMKz6eg7d9rH6PqY4-gcpMcjeQm8F2Ibx3Q Khan-Harris, K. (2014). Civil Reactions. Jewish Quarterly, 61(1), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/0449010X.2014.900365][https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca.4.1.72/html Mendelsohn, James and Howard, Bernard Nicholas. "A Lesser Bigotry? The UK Conservative Evangelical Response to Stephen Sizer’s Antisemitism" Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, vol. 4, no. 1, 2021, pp. 37-72. https://doi.org/10.26613/jca.4.1.72] [https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca/3.2.58/html?lang=en Mendelsohn, James. "A Looming Threat? A Survey of Anti-Shechita Agitation in Contemporary Britain" Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, vol. 3, no. 2, 2020, pp. 39-72. https://doi.org/10.26613/jca/3.2.58][https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/26698/ Allington, Daniel; McAndrew, Siobhan and Hirsh, David. 2019. Violent extremist tactics and the ideology of the far left. Technical Report. Commission for Countering Extremism, London. [Report]]The Hard Truth about Soft-Core Denial: How Antizionist Antisemitism Skews Holocaust Memory“Everyone I know Isn't Antisemitic”What Is an English Jew?: The Legal Construction of Jewish Identity under the UK Equality Act of 2010[https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110537093-019/html?lang=en Antizionistische Identität Der Kampf gegen Israel an US-amerikanischen Campus From the book Antisemitismus im 21. Jahrhundert][https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537121.2023.2169491?casa_token=c3NN5jcaS5IAAAAA%3AYCRo49yh8lIg-f2uUbWEJ71QioDJkkxRHCgYsMVtCwnzCewwnMrFr62A1QNtLryl1Uir5CW7mynhqw Landes, R. (2023). Lethal journalism and own-goal antisemitism: the tragic march of folly at the turn of the millennium. Israel Affairs, 29(1), 73–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537121.2023.2169491][https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca/2.1.23/html?lang=en Glasman, Joe. "Antisemitism in Political Parties (AIPP)—Aims and Methodology" Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, vol. 2, no. 1, 2019, pp. 65-72. https://doi.org/10.26613/jca/2.1.23][https://shura.shu.ac.uk/18854/ KLAFF, Lesley (2018). Contemporary antisemitism on the UK university campus: a case study and context. Justice magazine, 59, 18-25. ]CONTEMPORARY ANTISEMITISM AND ANTI-ZIONISM: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE SOUTH AFRICAN EXPERIENCE.[https://shura.shu.ac.uk/14598/ KLAFF, Lesley (2015). The Left and Jews in Britain Today. In: The Left and Jews in Britain Today, Birkbeck, University of London, November 3rd 2015. ][https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca_1.2.10/html Topor, Lev. "Explanations of Antisemitism in the British Postcolonial Left" Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, vol. 1, no. 2, 2018, pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.26613/jca/1.2.10][https://academic.oup.com/mj/article-abstract/40/1/71/5698025 Lipstadt, Deborah (2020). Holocaust Denial: An Antisemitic Fantasy*. Modern Judaism - A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience, 40(1), 71–86. doi:10.1093/mj/kjz019][https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/dlr127&div=17&id=&page= Goldfeder, Mark (2023) "Codifying Antisemitism," Penn State Law Review: Vol. 127: Iss. 2, Article 4. ]Why the 2010 Equality Act does not make the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism redundantThe Peculiar Appeal of the "Jewish Question"The media, antisemitism, and political warfare in Jeremy Corbyns Labour Party, 2015-2019][https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca.6.2.141/html Landes, Richard. "“Erases, Replaces . . .”: The Global Progressive Left, Antizionism, and Postmodern Supersessionism" Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, vol. 6, no. 2, 2023, pp. 29-58. https://doi.org/10.26613/jca.6.2.141][https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca.5.2.125/html Yakira, Elhanan. "Blaming the Jews: Politics and Delusion" Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, vol. 5, no. 2, 2022, pp. 139-146. https://doi.org/10.26613/jca.5.2.125][https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537113.2019.1603625?casa_token=ouMo_Oa7dgMAAAAA:-XccNfst23SKHOeFMlVFxZlpKV8QmSCIScXjNC_jw7rVNdRetDAioPK0dXKGHPiNqF35Zao4wElFwA Grosvenor, P. C. (2019). British Labor and the Socialism of Fools: The Return of Left-Wing Antisemitism. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 25(2), 240–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537113.2019.1603625][https://shura.shu.ac.uk/14585/ KLAFF, Lesley (2016). Jeremy Corbyn : why the British Labour Party is no longer a safe place for Jews. International Relations and Diplomacy, 4 (7), 427-433. ]Klaff, Lesley Daniella, Political and Legal Judgment: Misuses of the Holocaust in the UK (May 8, 2013).Daniel Allington, ‘Hitler had a valid argument against some Jews’: Repertoires for the denial of antisemitism in Facebook discussion of a survey of attitudes to Jews and Israel, Discourse, Context & Media, Volume 24, 2018, Pages 129-136, ISSN 2211-6958

Excuse the link-mountain. This is not even close to all of the good sources referring to the concept. Obvioulsy I am not suggesting we ought to load the article up with all these sources; these are just to illustrate the breadth of the concept's application: it's quite widely-known. The Livingstone Formulation is a greatly influential concept in the study of contemporary antisemitism and discourses relating to Israel and Zionism whose suppression in this article masks a major perspective on the article topic. Thus, due. Zanahary (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not argued that the concept is not due, so that was all a waste of effort, I have left due material in and removed the unnecessary and additional fluff " He terms this "crying Israel", as opposed to "crying antisemitism".", for example, and the stuff about Macpherson. The LF is really quite straightforward, that is if an allegation of AS is countered with an allegation of weaponization rather than dealing with the accusation on its merits, that's it, that's all, nothing more. All the rest is decoration. Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What proportion of these sources use the words "weaponization", "weaponizing", or "weapon" regarding antisemitism? The question might be of relevance for DUEWEIGHT because it appears that only a minority of other sources in this article use those words. Llll5032 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What proportion of these sources None of them. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You apparently did not look through them, because a number of them do. Still, as you correctly point out below, it’s not required. Zanahary (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * a minority of other sources in this article And as has been repeatedly stated, it is not required that they do. There are however, more than a sufficient number that do. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The dueness question is simple, what new information is being added to LF beyond it's definition by all these sources...answer, none. You seem to be confused about something, LF is defined (by its author) whereas weaponization is not, it is a description.Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You read all these sources?? Within them is contained a range of scholars’ perspectives on the concept and the phenomenon to which it refers, as well as a range of applications to different areas of society and patterns in discourse. Zanahary (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Answer the question, what new information is added to the definition? That is all that is due, a bunch of examples and rearrangements of it are not due, they would be due in an article called Livingstone formulation, why don't you write one and then link it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid I can’t summarize every single source above. But I’ll add to the article, and you’re free to challenge any material you find undue. Zanahary (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As long as we don't get into disruptive editing against consensus, feel free yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are convinced, notwithstanding consensus, that all this stuff is due, then start an RFC and ask the question "Should... blah blah blah.. be included". Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I recognize that this discussion is hobbled by the lack of tertiary sources describing the phrase "weaponization of antisemitism". But does the Livingstone controversy appear to be the first frequent use of the phrase by advocates? Llll5032 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I recognize that this discussion is hobbled by the lack of tertiary sources describing the phrase "weaponization of antisemitism". You can keep saying that but its not the case, I am not hobbled in the slightest.
 * The Livingstone controversy is not the same thing as the Livingstone formulation.""Ken Livingstone is not responsible for the Livingstone Formulation, and he did not invent it; it is an honorary title rather than one which he really earned." (Hirsh) Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @NightHeron, how is one sentence from Deborah Lipstadt undue? And why did you restore the Netanyahu material? Did you look at the final sentence? It has no relevance to the article topic. Zanahary (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @NightHeron, how is one sentence from Deborah Lipstadt undue? And why did you restore the Netanyahu material? Did you look at the final sentence? It has no relevance to the article topic. Zanahary (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Idk why you have put the same comment twice but this is what I specifically asked you not to do, editing against consensus re the LF, who cares what Ken Livingstone said? As Hirsh has said "Ken Livingstone is not responsible for the Livingstone Formulation, and he did not invent it; it is an honorary title rather than one which he really earned." Why do I have to write this three times? Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Be respectful. A reliable source by an expert (maybe the contemporary expert) on antisemitism thinks it is important. Zanahary (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said already, write the article about the Livingstone formulation and include it there. And how was I being disrespectful exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally, framing discussions as an exhausted series of commands, including finishing with “Why do I have to write this three times?” is hostile and unhelpful. Please find it in you to engage civilly, or don’t engage.
 * That a new article could be written about the LF does not preclude LF-related material from being included in this article. There’s also no apparent consensus to go against—this is completely new material relating to a concept that is already in the article. Zanahary (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus has already been reached on that matter despite your editing against it and persistent arguing from a minority position of one. The only disrespect here is towards other editors, by yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Livingstone is not an important figure in this topic (despite the use of his name, which deserves a brief mention), while Netanyahu happens to be Prime Minister of Israel. NightHeron (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The first Netanyahu source is extremely weak (that he’s the PM of Israel is a reason to be discerning—we can’t put every noncommittal criticism made by activists writing op-eds of such a figure in the article); the second has zero topic relevance. I started a new section below. Zanahary (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Some recent videos on this topic


Onceinawhile (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I put a couple those above in section More sources to be added. Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't think Horowitz or Ganz are sufficiently relevant/noteworthy/expert to be due here. Stern may be, but he's not talking about the weaponisation of antisemitism only of the weaponisation of a particular definition, so might be better placed in the IHRA WD article. Al-Jazeera and CNN are RS platforms while Massachusetts Peace Action definitely isn't and Jadilayya probably isn't. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

ICC arrest warrants
‘Unforgivable,’ ‘antisemitic,’: Israeli leaders react with anger to ICC decision That didn't take long: "Israel's hard-line national security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, dismissed the ICC as an "antisemitic court," while right-wing Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich described the decision as a "display of hypocrisy and hatred toward Jews.""

Not weaponization at all, right? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Is this a discussion about article content or a WP:OR presentation of what you believe is the weaponization of antisemitism? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an example. But the arrest warrants would have to be issued first and RS indicating that it's weaponization of antisemitism. And Ben Gvir isn't a great spokesman for such as a convicted supporter of terrorism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article says weaponization is "The exploitation of accusations of antisemitism for political purposes, especially to counter anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel". Seems that's what I am looking at. Of course, others may see it differently.
 * To answer your question directly, both. It's potentially article content and it's OR (allowed on talk pages) to the extent that I personally don't see how one can call a court antisemitic without that being weaponization.
 * And that's just for seeking the warrants (a decision approved by a panel of experts) dread to think what they might say if the warrants are actually issued. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting at is posting what you think is an example, followed by Not weaponization at all, right? is really just needless provocation on a talk page already filled with arguing. This isn't the place to discuss if that is an example of weaponization of antisemitism. Please stick to discussion on how to improve the article rather than just raising the temperature. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Dreyfus affair is a good example of this. Let's stick to what sources say. Longhornsg (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good grief, a century old case of antisemitism. Am I missing something, or did you miss what SFR said about raising the temperature? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure how this is raising the temperature? It's a fact-based example of how a court and a court case can be antisemitic. Longhornsg (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can this forum please wrap? I'm sure there's somewhere else enthusiasts can discuss whether it's possible for a court to be antisemitic. Zanahary (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Netanyahu relevance
There’s a new, undue bit about Netanyahu in the Description section (which is weird on its own). It cites a single sentence in an op-ed by a prominent activist. That sentence is the only one that has any relevance to the article topic. The bit also cites, for some reason, a completely irrelevant BBC story, which has nothing to do with this article’s topic. I removed it, and @NightHeron restored it. I tagged it, and @Objective3000 removed my tags and accused me of “shame-tagging”.

The removal of the BBC bit should take no discussion. How is it relevant? Zanahary (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * “Promiscuous use of antisemitism allegations” is what this article is about, particularly by politicians for political purposes. And accusing the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court with blood libel and as one of the "great antisemites in modern times” is stunning. When did the ICC accuse Jews of murdering Christians in order to use their blood in the performance of religious rituals? Seems quite DUE to me. I also think reducing Aryeh Neier to just some activist is unfortunate given his long contributions to human rights, philanthropy and civil liberties. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You may find it stunning, but the source doesn’t even allude to weaponization of antisemitism. Do you have any source connecting that comment to the article topic? If so, it must be added. If not, it is wholly irrelevant, and the content needs to go. Zanahary (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, one has to admire Neiers predictive power, at least. I don't see that whether he wrote one sentence or ten has any relevance, the pithy one liner makes the point well enough. The BBC article is obviously connected indirectly because it is also about Netanyahu, antisemitism accusations and the ICC, which is what Neier is referring to. Maybe it just needs rearranging so that's clear. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, its inclusion is WP:SYNTHESIS. A source that has nothing to do with the article topic should not be used. If a relevant source doesn’t contain the quote an editor wishes it did, that does not mean we can just bring it in from an irrelevant source. Zanahary (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are we drawing a conclusion from separate sources that is not contained in any of them? That would be synth. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The implied conclusion that the quote in the BBC is relevant to the topic of weaponization of antisemitism is synthetic. Zanahary (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the conclusion being drawn is that "Netanyahu's assertion that ICC indictments would be antisemitic is indicative of his promiscuous use of antisemitism allegations" which is, it seems to me, within scope. The material could do with some rearrangement perhaps, to make that clear. Sources could be added that make it clear he is not alone in this as sundry other politicians have agreed with his assertion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Without a source relating other politicians and this BBC-reported quote to the article topic, it’s all irrelevant. Zanahary (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I rearranged it, better? Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s good until “ Shortly thereafter,” at which point it just veers away from the article topic. That quote, which no source has related to the article topic, should be removed. Zanahary (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * which no source has related to the article topic Neier has, tho. That's why it is a) relevant and b) not synth. Selfstudier (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Neier has, but he doesn’t raise that quote. Hence, the quote has not been presented in any source as relevant. Zanahary (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is just nitpicking, they are both about the same thing, N's reaction to the warrants, if you want to rephrase the quote as prose, go right ahead, I am not married to the quote itself. I am going to alter it again anyway, per below. Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And now so has Kenneth Roth Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does Roth discuss that quote? Does any source discuss that quote in relation to this article’s topic? Zanahary (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't see Roth until I had already changed it around but it is straightforward to to change things around again so it does since Netanyahu said both things (and some other stuff) and there lots of refs with him saying both things. Roth is clear about what he thinks of it both specifically and in the general. Selfstudier (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK now I clarified that both N's quotes are those being criticized by Roth. And all the given sources are about the same thing, ICC warrants and N's reaction to that. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Zanahary (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Netanyahu
Worth adding:

Also recently published articles/stories:, ,. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)