Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Rensmann

@Onceinawhile, why did you remove an addition cited to Lars Rensmann as unreliable? He's a political scientist who's published extensively on the topic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

One adequate reason is that Rensmann is already cited three times in the article, including once in the same section. That's excessive for a single opinion maker. Zero^talk 06:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Excessive in that it imbalances the article? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Excessive in that Rensmann is only one commentator who is not especially important and spreading his opinions all over the article is clearly undue. Zero^talk 11:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Concerning “Lars Rensmann wrote in 2024 that, while claims that Jews weaponize antisemitism are widespread[…]”, another problem with this is that it’s misleading to portray the controversy over weaponization as a Jew vs. non-Jew issue. At least in the U.S., the most important example of weaponization is the use of false charges of antisemitism to justify attacks by MAGA politicians on university autonomy, academic freedom, and the rights of peaceful protestors. Almost all of the people in positions of power who weaponize antisemitism are Christians, not Jews. It is also the case that many of those who object to this weaponization are Jews, so it’s definitely not a Jew vs. non-Jew issue. NightHeron (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

That you disagree with Rensmann’s view does not constitute a policy-based objection to the content. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

But if you want to include a passage that identifies the issue as Jews vs non-Jews, for balance you need to also include some RS that dispute that way of framing the issue, of which there are many. For example, an article on the front page of today’s NY Times had the headline “Mamdani’s success in N.Y.C. primary highlights a divide among U.S. Jews”. NightHeron (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The article does not lack for sources that espouse a perspective opposed to Rensmann’s. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

My point is more specific. Is there any place in the article where a source is quoted disputing Rensmann’s view of the matter as a Jew vs non-Jew issue – for example, pointing out that a large proportion of the Jewish population (including the Israeli Jewish population) sympathizes with the plight of the Palestinians, is strongly opposed to Israeli policies toward them, and is also opposed to the weaponization of the charge of anti-semitism? And pointing out that some of the major figures who weaponize anti-semitism are not Jews, but rather right-wing Christians who discount and disparage all Jews who don’t tow the Netanyahu-Trump line on the Middle East? A widely publicized example was Trump’s slur against Kamala Harris’s husband, calling him a “crappy Jew”. NightHeron (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

That is pretty specific. Do you have a source in mind that you’d like to include? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Last year ABC News reported [1] on Trump’s disparagement of Jews who vote for Democrats and Jews who don’t support Israel. When the right-wing radio host called Kamala Harris’ Jewish husband Doug Emhoff a “crappy Jew”, Trump seconded that slur. The ABC article also covered Emhoff’s response, in which he talked about Trump’s anti-semitism.

When right-wing Christian supporters of Israel attack Jews who don’t support Israel, calling them self-hating Jew or a “crappy Jew” or (in Trump’s words about Jews who vote for Democrats) a Jew who “hates their religion”, it’s clear that those who weaponize charges of anti-semitism in order to deny legitimacy to criticism of Zionism are not necessarily Jewish, and those who are falsely accused of hating Judaism because they oppose Israeli policies are not necessarily non-Jewish. So Rensmann is wrong to refer to the dispute as Jew vs. non-Jew. NightHeron (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

This strikes me as an original case against Rensmann's apparent priorities as he writes about popular and scholarly discourse around antisemitism. The article presents a diversity of views as it is—are you arguing that no scholar's view that fails to consider weaponization of antisemitism to be a chiefly American and Christian phenomenon should be included in the article? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It occurs to me that, since the reference to Jews in this passage giving Rensmann's opinion is in a paraphrase, not a direct quote, you can fix the problem I've described by simply replacing "Jews" by "supporters of Israel". NightHeron (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

No, definitely not, because the source says The Livingston formulation suggests that Jews illegitimately raise and construe antisemitism where there is none, and they do so in bad faith to advance their own or Israel's purposes. Such attacks against Jews for raising issues of discrimination, exclusion, and violence against them and for presumably "weaponizing" antisemitism remain common in the public sphere. But they should have no place in serious scholarship examining contemporary antisemitism… ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

So how does the most important dispute now in the U.S. about weaponization of anti-semitism, namely the campaign by Christian MAGA politicians against the autonomy and academic freedom of universities, fit into Livingston's and Rensmann's analyses? And how do the many Jewish opponents of this right-wing campaign figure into their analyses? What's missing in the article is a clear acknowledgment that this is not a Jew vs non-Jew issue. NightHeron (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I’d encourage you to look to sources on this subject to get a read on whether this article excludes any major viewpoint. For one, there is no such thing as “Livingston’s analysis”.

It sounds like your dissatisfaction with the article is that it does not reflect (strongly enough? at all?) your own understanding of the discourse in question. But this article draws from a wide breadth of sources, with differing and directly opposing viewpoints that are represented and attributed in our prose. These fall, to be generic and imprecise, under a spectrum from “the charge of antisemitism is a nefarious manipulation in service of Zionist power”, to “disagreements about the constitution of antisemitism lead to allegations of bad faith, some of which have basis and some of which do not”, to “the notion that antisemitism is rhetorically weaponized in discussions of Israel is offensive to Jews”. Some of these perspectives are more tonal than descriptive.

Without a complaint rooted in the source material, your opposition seems to just be a desire to RGW. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I’m not trying to Right Great Wrongs, only Great Inaccuracies and Great Sources of Confusion. When Rensmann says that “Such attacks against Jews […] for presumably "weaponizing" antisemitism […] should have no place in serious scholarship,” is he saying that attacks against non-Jews for weaponizing antisemitism does have a place in serious scholarship? Or is Rensmann simply ignorant of the fact that many of the people now being attacked for weaponizing antisemitism are right-wing Christians?

I did give a link to an ABC News source that’s an example of the extensive news coverage of the dominant “weaponizing” that’s going on right now in the U.S.NightHeron (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t want to follow this white rabbit, since one arguable case against the inclusion (Zero0000’s) has been raised and I’m fine with it, but NH, in the future, your points about framing and weight would be better made if they referred to specific reliable sources contradicting the material you want excluded. I understand you think that this topic can’t be reasonably assessed without primary focus on American Christians, but your ostensibly supporting claim that in the U.S., the most important example of weaponization is the use of false charges of antisemitism to justify attacks by MAGA politicians is nothing but an opinion, and one that does not come from any reliable source (feel free to raise some and show me wrong) but is just, to you, the right view. Almost all of the people in positions of power who weaponize antisemitism are Christians, not Jews is another claim supposedly supporting your argument that is nothing but your own perception—and this time I know I’m not wrong to say that no source has taken it upon itself to even roughly estimate the relative proportions of incidents of weaponizing antisemitism by the religion of the wielder and concluded it’s “almost all” Christians. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Anyone who’s been following mainstream news media in the U.S. (the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC News, CNN, etc.) can see that more coverage has been given to the MAGA assault on universities, based primarily on false charges of antisemitism, than on any other types of weaponization of antisemitism. That’s a fact, not an opinion. The article should not give the impression, as the quote from Rensmann does, that Jews are to blame for weaponization or that the opponents who object to this weaponization are non-Jews criticizing Jews. NightHeron (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Expert scholarship that seems to "gives [a different] impression" (in tone and implication) from the general tenor and editorial focus of mainstream news media coverage (as assessed off-the-top by a single editor) is still expert scholarship. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Doesn’t sound like that to me. This quote, and others in the article, are simply saying "be careful not to mix up weaponization of antisemitism with real antisemitism". That should be said once in the article – it does not need to be repeated multiple times in different people’s voices. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I removed it because the publisher, the European Institute for Counter Terrorism and Conflict Prevention, is clearly not WP:RS. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The publisher is of little relevance when the author is a reliable source, and reliability depends on context. That a chapter by Lars Rensmann in an EICTP publication is a reliable source for Rensmann’s evaluation of the notion that Jews weaponize antisemitism is quite clear. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The source is a political advocacy organization, so we should be cautious.

The text you added was Lars Rensmann wrote in 2024 that, while claims that Jews weaponize antisemitism are widespread in public discourse, "they should have no place in serious scholarship examining contemporary antisemitism."

Can you explain what he is saying? It seems to me he is trying to deny that this concept exists, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Just because someone says something, doesn’t mean we should quote them.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

That the source is an advocacy organization is indeed reason to be cautious, but this article uses numerous publications from advocacy nonprofits and think tanks, which often produce high-quality research and publications. Again, given the context of use (reporting Rensmann’s own view), the source is perfectly reliable.

In this quote, Rensmann says that serious discussion of antisemitism should be above the claims of Jews weaponizing antisemitism that he describes as widespread in public discourse. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I don’t understand the point in your second paragraph. If he is saying that “real antisemitism” and “weaponized false claims of antisemitism” are different things and should be treated separately, that is such an obvious point that I don’t understand why we need to say it. Apples are not pears, even if you might need to look closely to confirm. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

No, you are not understanding what he is writing. Maybe someone else in this discussion can take a crack? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Onceinawhile. Also we use RS to determine what's due and European Institute for Counter Terrorism and Conflict Prevention is not RS. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

With which of Onceinawhile's positions are you expressing agreement?

Reliable authors published by unreliable publishers (of which I haven't seen evidence that the EICTP is one) are, in my experience, evaluated independent of the facts of publication, as an WP:SPS. A chapter by Lars Rensmann in an EICTP publication featuring other reliable expert sources like Florian Hartleb, Armin Pfahl-Traughber, Malik Fielitz, and Wyn Brodersen as a citation for the view of Rensmann (clearly a relevant scholar to the article topic) on discourse relating to weaponization is obviously reliable. Zero0000 has argued that the information may overweight Rensmann in the article, which is at least arguable, but the reliability of this source is not in reasonable question (and nobody has raised a case showing that it may be). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

1RR and removal of sources

@Zanahary: you have crossed 1RR. Please self revert. Please also explain here what you are doing. First you removed a number of high quality sources because they weren’t in the main body. When they were then added to the main body, you deleted them from there. Then added some back but only to the lede, and deleted others. This doesn’t appear to be good editing. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, how did I violate 1RR? I removed old content (not a revert), then you restored with additional body text, then I reverted your restoral and addition (my one revert, by my understanding), then I self-reverted as an interim technical step, so that I could write some body text relating to the self-hating Jew pejorative with the citations that were defined in the lead text whose restoration I’d just reverted. I use Visual Editor, so it is easier to just use the existing cite notes than it would be to copy their wikitext over from the previous version. Then I immediately wrote that text and removed the citations that did not refer to the article topic. I don’t believe my self-revert counts as a revert, so I believe I just reverted you once. But maybe my timeline or understanding of what constitutes a revert is off? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 10:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary: the first edit you describe above as "removed old content" is a revert. See WP:EW, H:RV and, most importantly, all the archives at WP:ANI and WP:AE that confirm the same. Undoing edits, whether made yesterday or 10 years ago, is a revert. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

H:RV says that reverting is directly editing the page to match an earlier state, which I did not do. The removal of content ≠ undoing an edit, and in this case my edit was the former and not the latter. Were it not for this distinction, all removals and maybe all edits could be considered reverts. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary: this is not worth debating – it is 100% certain. See from WP:EW: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Then see the list of exceptions underneath, which your actions do not fall under. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

You’ll have to take this to a noticeboard if you want to settle it as a 1RR violation—I just don’t agree with you that my first edit in contention was a revert. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

OK. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Zanahary. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• I do not find this edit to be an improvement[2]. This article is already difficult to read and Zanahary's edit made the content on self-hating Jew to be less understandable than what it was in the previous version.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  The earlier content was overlong, severely lacked in-text attribution in its presentation of viewpoints, and was not directly supported by the sources cited. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  Can you explain how it was not supported by the sources cited? Also, why did you remove the source quotation provided? That seems like a simple helpful thing that helps us quickly verify sources and detect the very problem you're complaining about. At least the citation quotes should be restored ASAP so we can determine whether the sources indeed support the content or not.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  The removed text didn’t properly attribute any ideas in-text and instead reproduced them in wikivoice, with some weasel phrases like "has been said". This entire article attributes ideas to their authors, as it should, and that text did not. "Scholars note" is another weasel phrase, per WP:SAID. There’s nothing in the sources to directly support implications of betrayal, which the prose alleged.

  Simply, that text took an assemblage of arguments, presented them (poorly) with either no in-text attribution or with weasel phrases, and gave no air to the views criticized in the cited sources. The status quo in this article is that arguments and assessments are generally presented in the voices of their authors, often with lots of direct quotation to avoid imprecision wnd synthesis, and are not affirmed implicitly nor explicitly by Wikipedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  And the removed quotations were not directly related to the article topic, which is the deliberate deceptive levying of charges of antisemitism to suppress political dissent. Criticisms of the identification of anti-Zionism or criticism of Israel with antisemitism that do not allege bad faith are not within this article’s scope. They’d be relevant to an article about disputes related to the definition of antisemitism, or the relationship between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, or to allegations of antisemitism in general, but not to this article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Balance and undue weight in the lead

Regarding the sentence currently in the lead:

The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized, with scholars of contemporary antisemitism saying it is a common rhetorical device and trope employed across the political spectrum to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism, particularly in anti-Zionist discourse on the left.

I believe this sentence violates the spirit of WP:LEAD and WP:DUE. Its placement at the top of the article preemptively undermines the concept of weaponisation before the term is even explained or contextualised. It would be analogous to beginning the Antisemitism article with:

The charge of antisemitism has itself been criticized, with scholars of Israel and Zionism saying it is a common rhetorical device and trope employed across the political spectrum to delegitimize concerns about Israel and Zionism, particularly in Zionist discourse on the right.

This kind of framing would rightly be seen as inappropriate in that context, and I believe the same standard should apply here. If there are scholarly criticisms of the term "weaponisation" or concerns that it delegitimises genuine antisemitism, those are important, but they should appear in a clearly marked criticism section in the body of the article, not in the opening summary.

I'm proposing that the sentence be relocated to a relevant section in the article, where its nuance can be preserved without introducing undue weight or bias in the lead. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate because criticism of the notion of antisemitism is not a major aspect of the topic of antisemitism—certainly not major enough that putting it in the lead would be proportional. Legitimately controversial concepts and ideas do have controversy reflected in their article leads, if the articles and leads are well-written. But analogy aside (because it’s subject to the particularities of unrelated topics; in this case another Wikipedia article and the body of literature on antisemitism)—the lead follows the body, and the body contains a substantial amount of content that is represented by this text in the lead. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. That single sentence summarises what is currently a large section of the body, entitled “Responses”, a section that is well sourced and introduces the work of scholars of antisemitism (in contrast to the rest of the body, where a large part of the content is based on polemical opinion pieces by a mixture of experts and non-experts). Removing it would make the article POV and go against our MoS:LEAD guidelines. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Bob and Zanahary. In controversial topics, such as this one, it's right to include any responses in the (usually) last paragraph of the lede with due weighting. I think this does this, since the preceding paragraphs already cover the "pro" side of the argument. Lewisguile (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. Although I wonder if we should be saying "some charges of weaponizaion have themselves been criticized" rather than "the charge of weaponization has itself been criticized". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the current wording is accurate, as the critical perspectives generally criticize the very concept (calling it a “stock rebuttal”/“retort”, a “trope”, etc.) as opposed to limiting themselves to particular examples. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think there's evidence of some scholars saying "okay, this sometimes happens, but not as often as people claim", which means while "some" might be correct, so might "many" or "most" (or even "a few", I suppose, but that seems unlikely). I.e., the critics aren't specific enough either way, so I'd rather leave out the weasel words. Lewisguile (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that's right. I guess there are three responses: the term "weaponisation" is problematic (as the term "playing the race card" is when used about black people), the term "weaponisation" is not itself illegitimate but some/many charges of "weaponisation" are made to chill legitimate calling out of antisemitism, or the term weaponisation is totally fine and we can analyse specific instances. But that's too complex for the lead, where we should keep it concise and simple. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. And, in the case of people like Thompson or the stuff about left-wing antisemitism, there's probably a fourth category of responses which say that while a specific example is antisemitic, said example was also exaggerated or weaponised for political purposes at the same time (which doesn't detract from the initial antisemitism but may raise additional problems about why some groups'/individuals' antisemitism is considered more unpalatable than others'). Which is where it starts to get really gnarly. Lewisguile (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all for the feedback (Zanahary—Bobfrombrockley—Lewisguile). I appreciate there's a well-sourced Responses section and that leads should fairly summarise all major perspectives. That said, the current sentence goes beyond summarising criticism and risks undermining the article's core concept before the reader has even encountered a definition of it.

Let me clarify by flipping the logic: If Antisemitism had a large Responses section discussing how antisemitism claims are sometimes exaggerated or weaponised, would we place that in the lead? Almost certainly not, because doing so would give the impression that antisemitism is itself a dubious or overused concept, which would breach WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Yet that's essentially what's happening here.

The phrase the charge of weaponization has itself been criticized implies a broad, possibly even disqualifying critique of the entire framing before the reader has had a chance to engage with the topic. That's not balance, it's front-loaded scepticism.

If there's a need to include such critical perspectives in the lead, perhaps it could be softened to reflect that this is a viewpoint rather than the defining context for the concept. For example:

Some scholars have criticised the term "weaponization of antisemitism" as a rhetorical trope used to dismiss legitimate concerns about antisemitism, particularly in anti-Zionist contexts.

This version makes room for nuance without presenting a rebuttal to the topic itself as an established truth.

Open to further suggestions, but I do think the tone of the current wording places a thumb on the scale. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

If controversy and criticism is a major enough part of the coverage of a concept, then reflection of said constroversy and criticism is due for the lead. If that were the case for the concept of antisemitism, then it would be due for the lead. How does the charge of weaponization has itself been criticized suggest the criticisms as "a defining truth" any more strongly than your proposed wording? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It's presented as a standalone sentence immediately following definitions of the term. It frames the concept as contentious or even illegitimate before the reader encounters any substantive examples or discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The concept is as contentious as the lead prose suggests, per the extensive body of literature criticising it and its application. Compare to race card. As for the reader encountering a summary of criticism before encountering examples, that's just how articles are structured. The lead summarizes the entire article, including reception, before detailed sections begin. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The current phrasing implies that the concept is inherently flawed or dishonest. That goes beyond summary. It's subtly dismissive.

By contrast, phrasing such as:

Some scholars have raised concerns that the term "weaponization" may itself be used to delegitimize genuine concerns about antisemitism...

...still reflects the same criticism, but attributes it clearly as a viewpoint, not an editorial framing of the entire subject. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The current phrasing implies that the concept is inherently flawed or dishonest. No it does not. It says something unambiguously true, which is that the concept has been criticized. The current phrasing says the concept has been criticized—that's very clearly a presentation of a viewpoint. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I think we may be talking past each other a bit, so let me clarify. I'm not disputing that the concept has been criticised. My concern is how the current phrasing positions that criticism immediately after the basic definition, in a way that subtly frames the term itself as suspect.

Saying the charge of weaponization has itself been criticized isn't merely stating that critics exist. It's using the criticism as a lens through which the concept is introduced. That's why the tone feels discrediting. It carries implications not of balance, but of casting doubt on the term's legitimacy from the outset.

My proposed rewording still includes the same criticism but it makes clear it's an attributed scholarly perspective, not a structural judgement about the topic itself. This is in line with how we handle leads in other controversial topics: the criticism is mentioned, but not given a tone of "correction" or presented as implicitly overriding the topic's validity.

I'd genuinely welcome other editors' views on this as I think this is a subtle editorial judgement about tone and balance, not simply whether criticism should appear. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ll move it back down to the end of the lead, where it was until recently. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Neveselbert, I'm happy with Zanahary's suggestion and think that should resolve the issue. I was the one who moved that line up because I was unhappy with "smear tactics" being the primary lens for the same reason you have objected to the critique as providing a lens.

However, it's not the term that people primarily criticise, but the act/concept. Also, I've probably said this before, but trope isn't technically the right term in the context you've used it, either. A trope is essentially a symbol or metaphor used within a body of work or within speech—i.e., it's a stereotype or motif.

An accusation or claim may therefore use tropes (or rely on them, perpetuate them, create them, feed into them, be rooted in them, etc), but it isn't the trope itself. So the grammar of your suggested wording would be a little off anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with @Neveselbert but propose a slight amendment: "The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized by some as delegitimizing concerns about antisemitism."

This because not all scholars of antisemitism say this and there is no significant RS that says they do, so we cannot put this in wikivoice. Plus, people who are not scholars have said this. As Neveselbert said, if we do not add the qualifier of "some" it implies that there is a generally accepted critique when there is not one, and if there was, would change the nature of the article entirely. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The lead also says weaponization has been described as a smear tactic. Should that also be hedged with “by some”? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

How is falsely accussing someone of antisemitism to discredit them not a smear? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s not the topic at hand—we’re discussing adding “by some” to the lead language about criticism, and I brought up the parallel of the smear text. Both assessments are made “by some”, and there’s no need to add text saying so (it’s quite obvious) to either clause. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't strictly object to adding "by some", or condensing that last sentence, but I agree with Zanahary that we should do so for both statements of opinion. It also adds in weasel words so isn't ideal. However, I think an alternative would be to move the second sentence of the first paragraph to the beginning of the last paragraph, and then merge the first and second paragraphs into one, like so:

The exploitation of accusations of antisemitism, especially to counter anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel, is sometimes called weaponization of antisemitism. Claims of weaponizing antisemitism have arisen in various contexts, including the Arab–Israeli conflict and debates over the concept of new antisemitism and the working definition of antisemitism.

Charges of antisemitism made in bad faith have been described as a form of smear tactic, and have been likened to "playing the race card". The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized as delegitimizing concerns about antisemitism.

This has the benefit of avoiding imprecision (both in terms of "some" and in terms of who has made such comments), while also avoiding any "framing" of the article one way or another, since it appears at the end of the lede. Lewisguile (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this phrasing - will you go ahead and make the edit, @Lewisguile? Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. Lewisguile (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this unduly shrinks the considerable criticism—I think it should be attributed in the lead to “scholars of contemporary antisemitism” and the text about it being especially noted in leftist discourse restored. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but why did you keep the inaccurate "with scholars of contemporary antisemitism saying it is often used to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism" part? I thought we agreed that was part of the weasel words, as not all scholars have said that, so were going to go with your proposed The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized as delegitimizing concerns about antisemitism.? Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

How is that inaccurate? It represents text in the body. And when do you think consensus was reached that that’s weasel-wording? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no text in the body that says 100% of scholars of contemporary antisemitism say this. And maybe we didn't call it WP:WEASEL but I thought we agreed that the lead is imprecise and needs improvement? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The lead doesn’t imply that, though. I think this was addressed above when Lewisguile and I agreed above that adding “by some” to every summary of reception and analysis to the lead is unnecessary. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply it, it explicitly states it, and it's inaccurate, as @Neveselbert also noted. Not every scholar of the subject has said that, let alone that it is "often used" like that, and in fact there are scholars of antisemitism who also believe the charge can and has been weaponised (link). There is no mention of "all scholars of antisemitism" stating this anywhere in the body... sure, we do cite some scholars, including of antisemitism, but it would be synth (and, as you can see above and elsewhere, wrong) to say 100% of them do – so it also doesn't meet WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. If we try to correct for that by adding "some" to it, we again run into weasel words. The proposed version by @Lewisguile was accurate and concise and avoids this issue. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t agree that the lead text could be reasonably interpreted to mean that 100% of antisemitism scholars make this criticism. Just like saying “it was condemned by human rights groups” or “critics noted its progressive vocal technique” doesn’t imply unanimity, this text is just a very standard attribution of criticism. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry if I've caused any bother with my last edit. As there was a delay of a week between my last post and @Smallangryplanet's reply, I forgot/lost track a little, so only combined and moved paragraphs.

Looking back at my suggested wording, I can see that I did suggest removing the attribution previously—primarily because I was swayed by the argument that not every scholar of contemporary antisemitism says that but also because some people who aren't such scholars also level the same criticism.

However, I also accept that it isn't necessarily saying "every/only" scholars of contemporary antisemitism, either. It can be read both ways.

I was also the one who said "by some" was WP:WEASELy—but, for the sake of reaching a consensus, I would be happy to re-add "by some" to both opinions in the last paragraph, if that helps.

My objection was primarily based on imprecision, but "by some" is sometimes acceptable, and this is probably one of those instances.

So that gives us three options:

1. Leave it as it is (unlikely to satisfy Smallangryplanet).

2. Restore it to how it was before my recent edit (I could live with this, but Smallangryplanet might dislike this version more than I would).

3. Leave it as it is but add "by some" to both of the sentences in the last paragraph. (There might possibly be mild objections from myself and @Zanahary, but I'm willing to set mine aside for the sake of consensus. I can't speak for Zanahary, though.)

So, it seems to me that there may be at least mild objections to each of these—at least as they are—but we're inching very close to something we can all agree on. As such, maybe there's a compromise that combines elements of the above to reach a version we're all happy with? Lewisguile (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I have a preference for the second option (as I really think it makes most sense to separate criticisms of the concept in the lead), no substantial problem with the first one, and am more opposed to the third option, which I think would produce prose that is unwieldy and strange, especially since there are two characterizations in the second-to-last sentence: attributing both would be weird; attributing just one would be weird; and the whole project of preventing reading of characterizations as being unanimous strikes me as unnecessary and not worth sacrificing readability for. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I missed the fourth option, which I should include for fairness:

4. Use the version I suggested above, which Smallangryplanet was also happy with (but which Zanahary wouldn't be happy with). This version was inspired, in part, by the lede of race card, which ends similarly:

Critics of the term argue that it has been utilized to silence public discourse around racial disparities and undermine anti-racist initiatives.

For the sake of offering a compromise, here are some "combined" options:

5. Revert to the prior edit but remove attribution from the criticism in the last paragraph?

6. Keep it as it is (6a), or as per the prior edit (6b), but replace the generic statement with some specific sources. E.g., "Critics such as David Hirsh and [someone else we think we is suitable here?] say..."

Option 6 has the benefit of being more specific in general. We could, if we all agree, also do the same with the other opinion. Lewisguile (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a good overview of the current status, and yes, I believe we should add the specification of "by some" for that part because otherwise it is not accurate, and if that means also adding it in both cases that's fine. My question is: why do we specify "scholars of contemporary antisemitism" there and link to that page as if that criticism is exclusive in some way to them, a claim not backed by RS or the body? We don't give any indication of expertise for the weaponisation side, so why should we for the critics? Either we leave out both, or we add expert specifications for both. Since doing the latter will involve a whole lot of wrangling over what expertises to add, scholars of this or that, and the sourcing to back that up, let's avoid that and go with the former.

So I propose: Charges of antisemitism made in bad faith have been described by some as a form of smear tactic and likened to "playing the race card". The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized by some, with critics saying it is often used to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I think "by some" in both cases (without attribution) just ends up being clunky and redundant. If you simply remove "by some" in both cases, it's fine. However, as I noted above, I suspect @Zanahary will not be satisfied with that solution, which is why I had suggested some other alternatives. Are any of those alternatives acceptable to you, @Smallangryplanet? If not, I am happy to go with your suggested wording without "by some" in either case, but would obviously prefer something we can all get behind. Lewisguile (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does come over as needlessly clunky, and I've found a way to resolve it that I think everyone can accept without it, taken from the language of the race card lede you cited: Charges of antisemitism made in bad faith have been described a form of smear tactic and likened to "playing the race card", while critics have said the charge is used to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism. What do you think? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Nope, I don’t see this as an improvement over the current lead, and I don’t see how it even addresses your concern about hedging about the ubiquity of criticisms—it’s just combining phrases into one sentence. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this version should be fine. I do think it avoids the ubiquity issue and keeps it concise, without "by some" or the equivalent.

To keep this from dragging on, I will implement the change now on the basis that we have two agreed and one opposed. This does not, of course, prejudice anyone offering new wording which we might all get behind.

@Zanahary, what additional tweaks do you think we need to make this acceptable to you? The sticking point seems to be the "scholars of contemporary antisemitism" thing? However, I do agree that this isn't necessarily the whole picture, so would you accept a more specific description (e.g., "scholars such as x, y and z have said...")? Lewisguile (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, lost track of this! I've gone ahead and pulled this out of the archive, hopefully correctly. The current lead states in wikivoice that scholars of antisemitism have uniformly critiqued the weaponisation charge. In addition to not being true, in doing so it attributes expertise to one side but not the other, even though it can per the content. In the body we cite many experts, including scholars on antisemitism such as David Feldman, who have said the charge is weaponised in the manner described. This feels like an NPOV issue to me, and the version I proposed is imo the best way to ensure both sides are accurately and concisely described. Alternatively, this could also work: The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized as a rhetorical device and trope employed across the political spectrum to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism, particularly in anti-Zionist discourse on the left. This provides a neutral and general summary of the critiques, just as we do for the position itself. I hope others will agree, if not we should spin up an RfC to resolve the false information that is now in the lead. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that attribution was restored without consensus. Your proposed wording is good. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I went ahead and added it to the page. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)