Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the first source currently cited in the first sentence (Waxman, Schraub & Hosein 2022) is meant to be a WP:BESTSOURCE, then it is difficult to see how the word "weaponization" could be used in a Wikivoiced title. In the three times that the source uses the words "weaponization" or "weaponized", they are twice within quotation marks. The only use outside quotation marks also is not an endorsement of the concept: "In short, people can disagree in good faith over whether or not something is antisemitic. While this may seem tritely obvious, it is an important observation to make precisely because large swaths of the discourse about antisemitism are suffused in allegations of bad faith: the beliefs that antisemitism allegations are, alternatively, maliciously weaponized in service of ulterior agendas or cavalierly dismissed in order to shield favoured political programmes." Llll5032 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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