Talk:Working definition of antisemitism/Archive 1

Request for Comment

Please see Talk:Antisemitism#RFC: Should Wikipedia adopt the Working Definition of Antisemitism?

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Why?

Why does anybody need a Working Definition of Antisemitism? We don't have working definitions of anti- Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc. I don't think the article is too critical because the criticism is justified. The Working Definition of Antisemitism appears to me to be a political device designed to suppress any criticism of Israel. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

In the UK, most organisations (e.g. political parties) already have rules against discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or creed so antisemitism can be dealt with under these rules. The Working Definition of Antisemitism is therefore unnecessary and it does not deserve the huge amount of publicity it has been getting in connection with alleged Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. For the above reason, I don't think this Wikipedia article is unbalanced. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Mock wurzel soup, this page may have been created with the aim of giving it legitimacy but since more criticism of it was added some of it seems to be disliked with measures put in place to stop it from being added as I've outlined in two headings above. The page needs to be looked at by more objective people. 109.149.45.162 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Should we ask for a Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

We have it because it exists and RS and GNG covers it. Simple as that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I think you are reading them wrong they are not asking why this wiki page exists. They are confused why the definition of antisemitism exists at all.Jonney2000 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Stern

Re this edit, it is hard to provide a citation for someone not having done something, but the source already cited[1] explains why it was drafted ("the definition was drafted to make it easier for data collectors to know what to put in their reports and what to reject"), why it was effective and therefore worth promoting ("I encouraged the Department of State’s first Special Envoy for Antisemitism to promote the definition as an important tool. He used it effectively as the framework for a report on global antisemitism. And I advocated its use with his successor"), but then goes on to argue that has been misused ("The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus. In fact, at a conference in 2010 about the impact of the definition, I highlighted this misuse, and the damage it could do" - emph. added). To me, that seems straightforwardly like he is not criticising the definition, but warning of its chilling effects when misapplied. That is, the extant source justifies the caveat in our text, with no need for an additional citation. He also includes this footnote: "I provided a comprehensive review of the development of the EUMC “Working Definition” at a 2010 conference" linking here, i.e. to a source more or less contemporary with his criticisms, in which he expands on these positive features: " there has been no serious criticism of the definition by those whom it was designed to aid the most" and "It continues to be referenced more and more because of its clear utility." It then goes on to dismiss criticisms of the definition, but then, again, raises concerns about its misuse: "But I also worry that some Jewish organizations, which have discovered and used it, are doing so in an inappropriate way, which bastardizes what it was intended to do." I guess this citation can be added to the caveat if there is really a need for a second citation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your analysis, but it is of course WP:OR so we can't use it. I have also been looking for a secondary source which says he has never criticized the definition itself, but I haven't found it so far. Personally I don't have the same concern as you that without the caveat there is somehow an implication that he criticized the definition itself rather than just the usage.

To my mind the best way we can solve this is to redraft the introductory sentence of the section so that it is crystal clear that his criticism is focused on usage.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right about OR - but as the whole section rests on primary sources, is the whole section not basically OR? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(Am looking for a secondary source for Stern. The nearest I've found is this analysis piece in Ha'aretz and maybe this op ed in The Forward. Obviously neither of them say he criticised the definition; both say he criticised its misapplication to universities. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC))

Using a senate hearing transcript is definitely PRIMARY and not a good source.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed RevertBob deleted the caveat although I don't think we'd reached a consensus. We could: (a) redraft the introductory sentence of the section as per Onceinawhile suggestion, and/or do any of one of (b) delete the caveat (would be misleading in my view), (c) leave and restore the cn tag (except already in the primary source in next footnote, and hard to cite a negative), (d) footnote it with the primary source, or (e) delete the whole section as OR because based on primary sources as per Icewhiz comment. Can we discuss before acting unilaterally? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the point of having this unsourced qualifier there. Criticism of the use of a definition would still be criticism but the section quite clearly states what Stern's position is on the matter. RevertBob (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Jewish organisations statement

I've added a statement endorsed by 39 Jewish organisations from 15 different countries. Which User:Icewhiz has unwittingly removed claiming it to have "received little notice"[2]and the work of "fringe groups"[3]. Firstly, it was noticed by The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel and The Independent. Secondly, you said fringe were you referring to them all as such but I did you mean left-wing? RevertBob (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The Independent is a primary source - an oped by the organizer of the letter. It seems the RSes covering this even disagree on the count - TOI saying 36 and JPost 39 - which is not surprising as JVP has "upped" the count a few time (currently - their stmt says 40+ [4]) - which include several 1 man/woman "organizations". The organizations themselves are fringe - per TOI - "far-left Jewish groups". and the letter has received very little notice, and we should engage in promotion of fringe views that haven't received significant coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not commenting on the sourcing, it is sourced. But I do not think this (or any other section) need a huge list of who wrote it. Also far left does not mean fringe (especially as this is a newspapers editorial opinion, not even an academic one).Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Even if the letter is notable, certainly the long list of signatures is undue. The secondary sources both describe the signatories as "left-wing Jewish organisations", so if we follow the secondary sources we should say that. I don't think they are all fringe groups, but I am not convinced this letter is sufficiently notable to be included, especially at paragraph length. It seems like POV pushing to about 50% of the article to criticism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

They are all fringe - take a look at list. The best known of the bunch there is Jewish Voice for Peace (which is fringe) - they added a whole bunch of their own affiliates (e.g. Jewish Voice for Peace members in London (UK) is obvious.... other affilates aren't obvious via name only - e.g. Jews of Color & Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews which is a BLOG run by JVP (they are however open about this - about JVP on JOCSM - when they aren't signing petitions that is). Many of of the "organizations" listed have less members than I have fingers.Icewhiz (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

TOI is an essay about deleting article, why is this relevant? The Independent found the issue noteworthy enough to present an article. Even if we discount this as primary (on the basis that one of the authors being a key figure of one of the organisations which was its signatory), two RS in Israel found it noteworthy to publish articles about it, especially a right-wing paper like the Times of Israel. Sorry, the "wrong Jew" argument won't work here as JVP is a notable organisation.

I think you're getting deletion arguments of notability confused with RS arguments of including noteworthy issues in an article. Your arguments on these pages seem to subjective most of the time rather than based on rules and guidelines. I see fringe and undue banded around a lot when the content isn't liked.

Anyway I've cut the paragraph as per the consensus among more impartial editors. RevertBob (talk)

NPA please. TOI is a common abbreviation for Times of Israel - one of the sources you are citing - which is not, by the way, a "right-wing paper" (it is rather middle of the road). The Independent source cited is not an article - it is an op-ed by "Richard Kuper co-founded the UK-based Jews for Justice for Palestinians. Rebecca Vilkomerson is director of US-based Jewish Voice for Peace" - organizations that signed the letter - and is thus is not a RS, but rather primary opinion. JVP is a fringe far-left organization, which generally receives little attention.Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Times of Israel found it notable, and that is what matters, if RS think it is notable so should we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ohh and left and far left are not the same, in addition (normally) we have more then one source for such claims. So how many sources calm all these organisations are left wing?09:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Most of the "organizations" (scare quote due to the non-notability of a large chunk of them) do not have coverage. The more notable JVP (which organized this letter, and a large chunk of the signers are affiliates/sub-organizations of JVP) is routinely labelled a "far left" - e.g. by Forward or "groups on the far-left edge of the Jewish community, like Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews for Racial & Economic Justice" per Haaretz - both left-leaning publications (as well as several others). Icewhiz (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

One or two is not all. If n ot all; of them are notable that is irrelevant, we do not judge a whole group of people by the actions of a few notable examples.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If you keep referring to a highly notable organisation like JVP as fringe then you're really not doing yourself any credit. RevertBob (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I have not, I have just said that one does not mean the other.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

JVP is routinely referred to as a fringe by multiple sources, for instance - this Cambridge University Press book.Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you, Slatersteven. I was referring to Icewhiz. I'm going to ignore his attempts at turning the talk page into a forum. RevertBob (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Referencing

This article is inconsistent in its referencing style, with some sources in inline refs and some in the bibliography with sfn footnotes. I'm not very good at using citation templates and footnotes - can anyone make it more consistent please? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've had a go and trying to improve the citations. RevertBob (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That's brilliant. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I am going to re-separate the Further reading and External links sections. The latter is best kept to the official website etc, with more discussion based articles in the Further reading section, as per normal WP practice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC) I'm also confused why the Bibliography was taken out of alphabetical order too after I alphabetised it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll put the external links before further reading which the format most pages have if that's OK.

It was originally in chronological order which I think makes more sense when viewing and also easier to when adding new sources. RevertBob (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The standard order is Further reading then External links - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_article_elements - so I've reversed that. As with normal encyclopedias, alphabetical order is standard too. The bibliography style this article uses is quite uncommon on Wikipedia. Most articles use footnote citations - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources but that's not that big a deal BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why the bibliography should go in chronological order. Alphabetical order is completely standard on Wikipedia and in the real world.

Problems with this page

I think this page as it currently stands has the following problems: -Excessive detail in the lede, e.g. quotes like "without formal review" and "was not enough time to invent a new one" which should simply be in the body and not the lede, or the footnoted list of critics at the end of the lede. (And all these details seem to serve to amplify a particular POV relating to the WD). -Excessive use of opinion pieces as sources of information in the body. E.g. Lerman is quoted heavily and White a little, whose pieces are weak sources for claims of fact. -Undue weight given to criticism - the criticism section is 2000 words in a 4000 word article and all 18 items in the bibliography are critical pieces or attack pieces about the definition. This seems extremely unbalanced to me. Even the pre-criticism sections are filled with criticism, e.g. a third of the bit about the Labour party is given over to Lerman responding to the IHRA responding to Labour adopting it in modified form. -Excessive quotation. Or specifically, excessive quotation in the criticism section, where each critic is quoted at length. I am not going to delete any of this, to avoid proceeded in an adversarial way, and am going to try to add more material from academic and news sources to rebalance the article, but I wonder if anyone else agrees with me? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agree - it falls short of neutral POV. One example is the early and prominent reference to Stern linking to an 18 page testimony which does not illustrate the point being made. I'll aim to add some balance in the coming days. TrabiMechanic (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreee. This is a rather massive POV problem. Essentially this page has become Radical anti-Zionist views on the working definition.Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If RS note an criticism so must we. But it is clear the page is too bloated with opinions form both sides.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

We should reflect RSes - the mainstream ones noting various radicals (some of whom fall within the definition) who objects to the definition, but also reflecting the rather widely accepted (adopted by several bodies/governments) status of the working definition, positive reception, and the outright scandal(s?) caused by attempts to adopt only parts of the definition.Icewhiz (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure it would be fair to describe Hugh Tomlinson, Kenneth S. Stern, David Feldman...ect as radicals. And if we are going to note bodies that have accepted it we also should not who (and why) has not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Stern, Feldman, etc are not at all fringe and should be included (White and JVL, though, might be more fringe). I'm just not sure they should be included at such length, and they should be balanced by other equally notable less critical perspectives. I'm planning to add the latter when I have time, but trimming the critics will be more contentious, so wanted to see if we could reach consensus. So far, it seems there is agreement there should be less opinion material. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the lead summarises the key points in the article body quite well. I think it's difficult to do this without using those quotes.

Lerman is a scholar of antisemitism - his views are clearly relevant, I can't see White being quoted on the page. The rest of the critics are notable Jewish academics of antisemitism, jurists, one of the original drafters, and then Jewish groups.

Lerman's response to the IHRA response to Labour modifying the examples is clearly needed given IHRA seem to contradict themselves.

I also agree that more general content needs to be added to the page. RevertBob (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think ledes just need to summarise - the quotes are not necessary to the summary, and can go in the body.

Lerman worked in a European thinktank active in the area during this period and so is knowledgeable and notable, but he is more of an activist than a researcher now and, more importantly from a WP perspective, his OpenDemocracy articles are opinion pieces, so need to be used carefully as sources for factual claims, e.g. they might require explicit attribution in the text. His views on Labour's adoption may be notable if RSs say they are, but your justification for inclusion ("clearly needed given IHRA seem to contradict themselves") almost suggests POV-pushing. But my point was more to show that the weight of the article is skewed, in that not just the criticism section but the main account is loaded up with critical quotes. You're right White is now only cited once, in the "FRA removal" section - it's an opinion piece on a blog, so a bad source, and for this fact his opinion piece itself cites as a source something else by him, so it's a poor source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Perryman in OpenDem is another opinion piece being used as a source for factual claims. The facts citing Perryman, White, etc must be easily sourced from more robust RSs as this was covered by news media. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

POV would be putting one side across without the other such as support for the definition and/or examples without any criticism, allowing both is the opposite thus NPOV. Antony Lerman has a body of work as scholar of antisemitism for about 40 years and shoudn't be put into the box of being just an activist. Regarding them just being op-eds, what's included in the general body of this page is content which has been well researched, the sources of which are cited on the individual articles. The opinion part is what's included on the criticism section. In other words, facts researched from original sources by the authors of the secondary sources can be presented as facts (if accurate of course) but opinions should only be presented as author's opinions. RevertBob (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not arguing for the exclusion of criticism. I am arguing that views be presented proportionately - see WP:DUE Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. As I said before, well over 50% of the article being devoted to criticism cannot possibly be described as NPOV. Nor am I saying the facts Lerman, Perryman, etc report are wrong, just that it is better WP practice to use solid RSs rather than opinion pieces as sources of factual claims, and we don't do that here. Finally, I am not saying Lerman is "just an activist", but the pieces we cite by him are not scholarly publications from his work as a researcher with thinktanks; they are opinion pieces written to articulate a particular perspective (criticism of the definition), so we need to be careful when using them as a source for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Capitalisation of this page

Apologies if this has already been brought to the talk page, but should the article be capitalised? I've seen a lot of sources refer to the "working definition" in lowercase, if not most news sources. Wasn't sure if this was a case of newspaper style guides (e.g. "prime minister" instead of "Prime Minister") or not. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't see the reason why the word antisemitism is capitalised. RevertBob (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

overuse of opinion pieces from openDemocracy

I've removed a mass of content mainly sourced to opinions published in openDemocracy (and an odd letter in the Guardian). Many of the writers are involved (e.g. UK Labour kerfuffle) or are classified themselves by the definition. We should try to stick to higher quality source material. Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree. I thought we already established consensus on this talk page, above, that there is too much op ed material here. I have been adding in academic and news sources so it is less imbalanced, but all the opendemocracy stuff is totally undue. Lerman is obviously important in this debate, but others far less so. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Just looking at the edits: I am not against Klug and Lerman's pieces being mentioned here and included in the bibliography (along with Feldman & McGeever, who are scholars who work on this, and take a similar line to Klug and Lerman), but they should not be used as sources for facts, at least without attribution. Yes, Lerman has worked as a researcher on antisemitism in the past, but his openDemocracy pieces are polemical opinion pieces and we need to find additional sources for anything citing him as a factual claim. Gould's scholarly article should probably be mentioned here - I presume it is peer reviewed - but no need to quote her openDem opinion piece. Perryman totally non-noteworthy in relation to this article. If we end up with a consensus for re-adding Lerman, please please can we not re-add this as it is a duplication; if we say it we don't need to say it twice.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I agree that JVL are a fringe group whose opinion is not noteworthy for this article - barely any secondary coverage of their views on the definition. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The views of Lerman, Klug and other scholars of antisemitism are notewothy for the topic and inclusion in this article. 22:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevertBob (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The views of a retired scholar who hasn't published academically anything recently, but is active in writing anti-zionist opinion pieces is not DUE (and definitely should not be used for anything BUT attributed opinion). Please produce mainstream sources that refer to Lerman's opinion pieces in open democracy. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Re Lerman: The nearest I can find to a mention of Lerman in news reportage is the Jersey Evening Post reporting that Jersey would not adopt the WD (maybe should be in article) and quoting the local Palestine Solidarity Campaign citing Feldman, Lerman and Klug as authorities against the WD. I checked Google scholar too. Texts by Lerman from the 1990s are briefly cited by Klug on the new antisemitism[5][6] and negatively by David Hirsh[7] and briefly Gunter Jikeli[8] and Robert Fine[9], but the only citation in relation to the WD itself is Carduan[10] Klug, a philosopher who writes on antisemitism, is more widely mentioned both in the news media[11] and scholarly literature[12] so has a stronger claim to be mentioned in the article. However, if they are mentioned in the article, we need to be careful with attributing any facts to their opinion pieces, and we need to avoid long un-encyclopedic quotations. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio tag

@Icewhiz: per [13] and [14] much of the early article was from other wikipedia articles. This can often bring up automated copyvio alerts mistakenly. In order for us to check this, can you be specific re text you which may concern you? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not that, though it might only be the extensive quotations (which are a problem as well). Take a look at the earwig report.Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The comparisons make it look like there's no actual violation here, as all the quotations are attributed that i can see? But it does suggest that the quotations are excessive - better to paraphrase to be safe. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no - as over quotation is a copyvio by itself (e.g. you can't copy a NYT piece, placing an "according to the New York Times: "10k quote"." in an article) - at some point this exceeds fair use. Also not everything in the earwig report is quoted - e.g. this one has unquoted content in the paragraph beginning with "The EUMC working definition was prominently referenced by the OSCE Cordoba ....". I will note that the copyvio/extensive quotations issue overlaps with the overuse of certain opinion pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Title of article

I think that the article should be renamed "IHRA definition of antisemitism", as this is how the text (ie., definition) is more commonly referred to. An alternative tile could be "Definition of antisemitism", to make it more general. Enthusiast01 (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't object but the value of the current title is it covers both the EUMC and IHRA definitions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Impact section

I have removed these sentences from the section on impact because none of the three cited sources mention the Working Definition:

In October 2019, a church in London apologised after inadvertently providing a venue for an event on Palestine and a church in Chester cancelled a booking for a conference on Palestine after being contacted by Jewish groups. In October 2019, University College London required speakers at a book launch to agree to additional guidelines relating to discussing antisemitism, even though that was not the subject of the book.

In addition, the description in the first examples are misleading (the cited sources show the events had antisemitic dimensions, e.g. the involvement of Holocaust deniers) and the third example cites a completely unreliable source, The Canary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Views of critics

There has been some back and forth in the last 24 hours around whether we should include the views of critics of the WD. Mrclapper1 inserted details of these views, arguing context is required to make the article NPOV, and ImTheIP reverted arging it poisons the well and MrClapper has since restored his edit. I am inclined to agree with ImTheIP as readers can follow links to these people's views, with the exception of Rebecca Ruth Gould who does not have a WP article and therefore might need more context. I think there is also a case for giving some information on Lerman the first time he is mentioned as he features very heavily in the current version of the article and it might make sense to give some idea of why - but I'd find it hard to find a concise NPOV way of doing so. Other editors' thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

While users can follow links, there is no way of ensuring that those particular views - which may possibly influence the critics - will always be on Wikipedia. Furthermore, most of the personal views are not even from Wikipedia but other sources. Finally, there may be just one or two 'buried views' which may not be obvious to readers.

I am not an administrator or anything, but maybe one of the 'higher-ups' can make this wikipedia policy, maybe in all contentious articles - both for people who criticize AND for people who condone something?Mrclapper1 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Mrclapper1, by revering my revert I think you are running afoul of the 1RR rule. You should self-revert. It might not have been your intention but your additions amounted to Poisoning the well. That is in general frowned upon on Wikipedia. Especially when you only "torpedo" one side of the debate. For example, Kenneth L. Marcus is described as a "civil rights lawyer Kenneth L. Marcus." But his support for the Working Definition could be torpedoed too: 'civil rights lawyer Kenneth L. Marcus who has filed six civil rights complaints that was thrown out of court and thinks pro-Palestinian groups are "racist hate groups" that "are using intimidation to get funded"[15]'

But this technique is not fair and shouldn't be used. E.g that Gould in another context has written that Israel supporters are "people who merely passed onto others the violence that was cruelly inflicted on them first" in CounterPunch has nothing to do with her critique of the Working Definition. Remember, the section is about the criticism of the Working Definition but it is not about the critics of the Working Definition. ImTheIP (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, as I wrote above, this does certainly create a neutrality to the article, and should be used even for individuals who condone something. I have tried to see where in the article Kenneth Marcus praises/condones the definition, but as far as I can see, he is only quoted as explaining it. However I did manage to find in the article one individual mentioned - Robert Jenrick - who seems to approve of it, which I must have missed earlier, and I have added in that he is affiliated with the CFI (Conservative Friends of Israel).

Again, maybe this should become Wikipedia policy? Mrclapper1 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies point in exactly the opposite direction of your edits. That's why I reverted them. I see now that you made a simlar edit on [16] which I just reverted. I also see that you are a new user with only 60 edits meaning that you are actually not allowed to edit this article. See the warning at the top of this talk page. ImTheIP (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm so here you are saying there is a policy in the opposite direction of my edits. But there is another policy - that of WP:NPOV which IS the direction of my edits. (As I stated, I believe this should be done both for individuals who critcize AND support something). Which policy should come first? (The question, to clarify it, is: Are my edits really Poisoning the well more than ensuring nuetrality, or vice versa? I would argue that since I am advocating doing this for criticizers AND supporters, it is ensuring fairness).

I think we need consensus on this. Remember, Wikipedia:Five pillars#WP:5P5 - no policies are carved in stone (although, to support my position, the neutrality policy supersedes all others). Mrclapper1 (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I just read this article after a long time away. The “characterization” of each of the critics is absurd. Each paragraph now runs “Critic X, who has previously said something critical of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians, has this to say about IHRA “....””. It is WP:SYNTH, and it is an obvious attempt to question the character of these critics with unbalanced commentary. Very disappointing. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Nazi comparisons

I am a little confused by the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism#Comparing_With_Nazi_Germany First, Paul Iganski (not Igansky) is a criminologist not a sociologist. He is an expert on hate crime so his views are clearly noteworthy. It is unclear from the quotation of him whether he is specifically discussing the WD's example relating to Nazi comparisons, in which case we should specify that, or the comparison in general, in which case inclusion here seems like a case of synthesis. Given that he apparently qualifies his comment by saying "the context in which they are made is critical", I don't see how this is a criticism of the WD, which itself includes a caveat about context. Can anyone explain? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ImTheIP for correcting the errors. Does anyone agree that this whole section can be removed? I don't understand what it adds. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree too. ImTheIP (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both. Done. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparent markup error in last para of section "United Kingdom"

The last para of this section includes (emphasis added):

[...] insist that they adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism|definition at the earliest opportunity [...]

I don't know what was intended. If it is an error, please could someone correct it. Thanks, Misha Wolf (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I've just noticed that a para which is extremely similar to the para I mentioned above appears in the article a bit lower down, at the end of section "Other political parties". Does it make sense to provide the same information twice in the same article? In any event, the apparent markup error I mentioned above appears also in this second version of the para. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to fix the quote. It apparently comes from an op-ed in Daily Express. Regarding placement of footnotes and blockquotes, please see the discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style#Colons_and_footnotes. ImTheIP (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I don't think I wrote anything about footnotes and blockquotes. :) Misha Wolf (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Praise?

Re today's edit, while I agree that the paragraph commencing:

In December 2017, the Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote that "there is a worrying resistance from universities to adopting it [...]

does not belong in a section called "Criticism", neither does it belong in a section called "Praise", as it contains no assessment (whether positive or negative) of the Working Definition of Antisemitism. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing the latest additions to the "Praise" section, I consider that the paragraph quoting from Mohammed Amin also does not fit under the heading "Praise", as it is a response to criticism of the Working Definition, rather than praise for it. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the two above-mentioned paragraphs to a newly-created section called "Response to criticism". Misha Wolf (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted the "praise" section. Per ARBPIA rules, Mrclapper1 is not allowed to edit this page and his proposed edits have been reverted before; its quite uncustomary to include similar "praise" sections to articles. ImTheIP (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Just logging this removal here in case other editors think the material is worth including. Emily Schader[17]'s views are definitely not noteworthy in my view. However, the views of Michael Levitt and Anthony Housefather, two Canadian MPs, might be noteworthy. Their op ed got secondary coverage.[18] Mohammed Amin is notable and I guess there might be a case that his views as noteworthy here; he's the chair of the Conservative Muslim Forum and there is some secondary coverage of him in relation to working definitions of antisemitism and Islamophobia.[19][20] BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it is "quotestacking" - X number of people saying essentially the same thing (WP:QUOTEFARM). Admittedly, there is a lot of quotestacking in the criticism section too but it doesn't improve the article to "balance it" with "praise quotes." The criticism section needs to be rewritten so that there is more emphasis on the criticizers argumentation rather than who they are. ImTheIP (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree it was quotestacking and also that there is a lot of quotestacking the (extremely long!) criticism section. Looking at the criticism section, most of the material is from two controversies: that over its use in US and UK university campuses since 2015, and that over its use by the UK Labour Party around 2018, and I wonder if it would be better to integrate some of this text into a narrative about those controveries? Just a thought. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, organizing the criticism by "argument type" rather than "source" is better. Different types of criticism would be "conflates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism", "chills free speech", "vague", "legally unenforceable", and so on. Then if a number of people have made essentially the same argument, we' d only need to describe their argument once. Also in my opinion, it would be great if we replace newspapers as sources with books and journal articles. Such sources have more staying power. ImTheIP (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be helpful, IMO. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Palestinian academics' letter

Re this edit by Anne_McDermott: I don't think this letter should sit in the external links/further reading, as it needs contextuallisation. If it is due (e.g. if it attracts secondary coverage) it should be worked into the text. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I like external links sections with lots of links, but it looks odd when that letter is one link out of three. It could be woven into the criticism section instead. ImTheIP (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

militairy dictatorship

hello is the state israel a (military) dictatorship? where people can be in jail for 6 months without ANY juridical charge or process? is it anti-semetic to see dictatorship in israel like in other societies? that jews only collect money is a fake since MANY jews became socialist in 1917, but ... is the state of israel a military dictatorship and is it anti-semitic to STATE or MENTION this military regime ??? 85.149.83.125 (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Overloading with criticism

What is the plan for this page? Is it going to become one giant criticism section. I want to remind editors that it was adopted by many organizations for good reason and according with their review processes.Jonney2000 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jonney2000: I agree. We need to maintain balance. The recent IP additions seem to push it too far. What do you recommend? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There's way too much criticism here - it should be pared down to size - significantly.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@109.149.45.162: not sure whether pings work for anon users, but if you see this message please could you join this discussion? The criticism section should not outweigh the rest of the article; see WP:DUEWEIGHT. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, great work on this page. I think it's useful for those reading if it's relayed what the sources specifically say so I've added information from how the initial publication came into being from Antony Lerman. 109.149.45.162 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @109.149.45.162: you have been overusing and missquoting an opinion piece by Antony Lerman relating to the labour party.

I thought maybe this page would not end up falling under the Arab–Israeli conflict. I was clearly wrong given how the article has evolved. It is sad because some of of your edits were productive. See warning at top of page.Jonney2000 (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jonney2000, if I missquote then I apologise but Antony Lerman's article[21] reads: "At the instigation of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the EUMC director organized a meeting of Jewish representatives to discuss a new definition of antisemitism already drafted by the AJC's leading expert on the subject, Kenneth Stern. The essential element in Stern's draft definition was singling out certain forms of criticism of Israel and Zionism as antisemitic."

At the moment the articles reads: "In 2004, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and other Jewish representatives met with the EU-body European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) to discuss a new definition of antisemitism. The outcome was negotiated between Andrew Baker, Stern's colleague at the AJC, and Beate Winkler, director of the EUMC."

Would it not make more sense to combine both text into the paragraph? 109.149.45.162 (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you want to include in article. Please post here before changing article.

If you believe that Stern wrote this definition all by himself you are incorrect. I hope you are not trying to push the POV that Stern has now changed his mind. He states that he never intended for the definition to be used as legislation.Jonney2000 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I don't think I could've been clearer. No of course I don't think that! When have I said that? Stern did draft the definitio so the page should reflect that from the sources. My suggestion is something along the lines of the following: 109.149.45.162 (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"The American Jewish Committee (AJC) instigated the EUMC director to organize a meeting of Jewish representatives to discuss a new definition of antisemitism which was already drafted by Kenneth Stern. The essential element in Stern's draft definition was singling out certain forms of criticism of Israel and Zionism as antisemitic..." (from the Lerman source).

Followed by: "...The outcome was negotiated between Andrew Baker, Stern's colleague at the AJC, and Beate Winkler, director of the EUMC." (from the Stern source).

This is what both sources say and neither contradict each other.

Also, why you you change this[22]? The reference is already included inthe bibliography so there's no need to include it twice hence the shorthand which when you click takes you to the reference on the bibiography. The references are a mess but I can't do anything as I'm not "allowed" to edit the page.

Ok just to been clear Stern made two different drafts. I made some changes to the article that go into more detail. See what you think.

As far as the cite it is better if it is fully inline so readers can hover over it.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This information was just removed[23], I assumed it was added in good faith. The page can't be neutral if mere mention of Jewish organizations that people don't like is removed.

If that indeed was better for citations why do we have the ability to do that? 109.149.45.162 (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I've combined the two sources as I don't see any reason to doubt Lerman's text as it's not contrary to any other source. The bibliography citations look better here for consistency especially for academics. RevertBob (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

An excellent video on Facebook about the criticisms here[24]. 109.149.45.162 (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be consensus on this, and instead there seems to be back and forth reverting. I think the question is: how many examples of criticism are sufficiently notable to be included? Is the amount of text devoted to criticism WP:DUE? For example, how many letters to the editor signed by Jewish groups or academics should be included? (This one is included twice at the moment. Is it notable enough to be included at all?) Is Jewish Voice for Labour sufficiently notable for its criticism to be included?[25] Can we reach consensus here rather than edit war? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

In general - we should avoid including letters to the editor or open editors (even if signed by X people) - unless the letters themselves haves been widely covered in a secondary fashion. We definitely should no be including the PRIMARY letter itself - which has been going on here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

If the letter is sourced reliable then how is it primary to include it, especially if notable figures are it’s signatory? RevertBob (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The letter itself is a primary stmt exprrssing the opinions of, for the most part, non-expert signatories. If this letter is ignored by RSes discussing the topic - then inclusion os clearly UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

A letter is obviously a primary source so using it can fall into the category of original research - see WP:OR. Wikipedia also uses secondary sources to identify if something is notable or not - see WP:N - as a letter not mentioned in secondary sources is unlikely to be important enough for us to mention in an encyclopedia. The other policy we need to attend to is on due weight - see WP:DUE, which says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." My feeling is that this article gives undue weight to criticisms, and possibly to some positions that are potentially fringe positions - see WP:FRINGE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree - to do justice to this sensitive subject the article needs attention to WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:N, all of which will rebalance towards WP:NPOV which is missing from the start (absent from the Background). I think the Background needs some work to talk about the roots of the WD in monitoring, and I'd also like to see the distinction between monitoring and litigation covered since (alongside antisemitism itself) it sheds light on the dichtomous reactions. I will aim to draft something. TrabiMechanic (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

For the moment the personal views of the criticizers have been inserted, to keep the context clear and adds far more neutrality - the reader can now see when the criticism may possibly have been influenced by a personal view. (Of course, this is not to say that the criticizers view has or has not affected their judgement, I should hope the readers themselves can decide whether or not to believe if a criticism has been influenced by personal opinions.)

I am not an administrator or anything, but maybe one of the 'higher-ups' can make this wikipedia policy, maybe in all contentious articles - both for people who criticize AND for people who condone something? Mrclapper1 (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Text in the box (definition)

The source that for the claim that the definition is the text in the box is from the European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine see [[26]] I doubt it represented the official IHRA position. Rather the ECCP seems to have called the IHRA's Berlin office on 12 September 2017 talked to a secretary and got that answer after who know how much prodding.

Antony Lerman then takes this one step further by saying that this proves that the definition and example are separate. Which the IHRA's Berlin office never said.Jonney2000 (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that is problematic - and also speaks to the bigger problem on this page, of claims of fact being sourced from opinion pieces such as Lerman's. It's important that we clearly attribute in the text, not just via notes, when we use opinion pieces. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The definition is the whole document, not just the words in the box. It explicitly include the examples. That has been stated many times in IHRA meetings I have attended. Oboler (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Sedley: statement published by Labour Campaign for Free Speech on 6 June 2021.

Opinions and statements of fact cited to Stephen Sedley appear at various points in the article.

On 6 June 2021, a statement by him, which comments on how the IHRA definition was derived and is not currently cited in the article, was published on the Labour Campaign for Free Speech website. It asserts that the IHRA’s Bucharest plenary of 2016 only adopted a working definition consisting of the first two sentences and that the list of examples were later appended, without ever gaining formal approval, at the behest of two external lobbying organisations.

Labour Campaign for Free Speech - Stephen Sedley - Statement on IHRA, 06 June 2021: It is now five years since the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (the IHRA) published what it called “a non-legally binding working definition of anti-semitism”. It is a clumsy piece of drafting distinguished by two particular features: it fails the first test of any definition by being open-ended and indefinite; and it is accompanied by examples some of which are visibly designed to protect Israel from legitimate criticism. ... It may therefore be relevant to say a word about the IHRA and the genesis of its “working definition”. Although the IHRA is a publicly-funded intergovernmental body, based in Berlin, it publishes no minutes and does not reveal who attends its meetings. Among its first member-states were the US, the UK and Israel. Recent research, however, has established that the “definition” adopted by the IHRA’s Bucharest plenary in 2016 consisted only of the two initial sentences, taken from an abandoned document produced by a European predecessor body. ... So far as can be ascertained, the grafting on of the list of examples was the work of representatives of two uncompromisingly pro-Israel organisations, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the American Jewish Committee. There appears to be no evidence that the list was ever adopted by a plenary meeting of the IHRA. None of this has prevented it from being weaponised.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I really don't think we need any more opinion pieces in this article, especially as this is from a fringe blog and we already have a very long paragraph on Sedley's opinons, including a verbatim quote of a large part of a three paragraph letter to the editor he wrote to a newspaper, which is already hard to justify as due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I added details about the statement here for a number of reasons including, as the statement makes, as far as I can tell, original and, in my opinion, significant claims about how the IHRA definition was derived, for the information of editors. Let's see whether other sources make of the claims. In an area as contentious as this, editors inevitably tend to assign evaluations of how much weight should be given to particular material and sources according to how well they match with their own views. Part of editing neutrally, if editors lack knowledge of viewpoints or narratives other than the ones they ascribe to, or are unwilling themselves to add detail about them in articles, is to allow others a reasonable opportunity to do so. It's easy to become cynical when other editors are seen to employ double standards such as attempting to minimise or eliminate material describing disliked views, then, in the same article or elsewhere, ramming in material taken from more obscure or extreme commentators.     ←   ZScarpia   13:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Our article is already very clear on the pre-IHRA background of the WD,including the role of the AJC in the drafting. Our article already links to our article on the IHRA, which already says that it is based in Berlin and which lists its first members, citing reliable sources. Our article already mentions the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's role in the IHRA's adoption. The only new thing in the passage you quote is the claim that there is no evidence the plenary adopted the list of examples when they adopted the definition. However, given how many sources have repored the plenary adopting the definition (whose then 12-year-old EUMC version had included the examples) at the end of a four-day workshop,[27][28][29][30] and that the IHRA published the the examples in its announcements,[31][32][33] we'd need a pretty robust source saying the plenary was hoodwinked into agreeing something different from what was report, and the Labour Campaing for Free Speech blog is not that robust source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing though isn't it, do any of your sources say that anything other than the two-sentence definition was officially adopted? None of the sources you've supplied which I've looked at so far do. The Labour Campaign for Free Speech happened to be the organisation who were asked to publish the statement. Similarly to a letter written to a newspaper, they are not the source, Sedley himself is. As I said, though, I posted a link to the statement here largely for the information of other editors. Personally, I intend to wait to see how things develop as far as other sources and the claims made in the statement are concerned.     ←   ZScarpia   19:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that can be kept out of the article. As to 'pretty robust source ' fine. Sedley has impeccable credentials, and authoritative. Use attribution by all means. Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Re the Labour Campaign for Free Speech blog: :We need to avoid OR by doing our own investigation of what was agreed at the plenary. We should rely on RSs. As RSs mention the examples while mentioning the adoption, we need a lot more than a single blogpost to doubt it. Re the Guardian letter, which we have 150 words about: It's a question of noteworthiness. Many people write letters to newspapers on subjects where they have some expertise. Many people have expressed opinions on the WD in letters. The same letters page[34] includes a letter from Harvey Goldstein, notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page, and Noam Schimmell, an Oxford legal scholar, and several other people whose relevance could be argued - why do we cite Sedley's letter at length and not theirs? We need to only include these opinons when there is grounds for considering it due, such as secondary coverage. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The document in question is a short statement bySir Stephen Sedley, an eminent European jurist, entitled 'Statement on IHRA,' sent to the Labour Campaign for Free Speech group on 5 June for publication, and appeared thus on their website.

'Recent research, however, has established that the “definition” adopted by the IHRA’s Bucharest plenary in 2016 consisted only of the two initial sentences, taken from an abandoned document produced by a European predecessor body. The first is:“Anti-semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.” The second sentence elaborates the possible reach of “rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism” but adds nothing by way of further definition.'

How then has the supposed IHRA definition come to include such examples as

“the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity” and “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour” ?

So far as can be ascertained, the grafting on of the list of examples was the work of representatives of two uncompromisingly pro-Israel organisations, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the American Jewish Committee. There appears to be no evidence that the list was ever adopted by a plenary meeting of the IHRA. None of this has prevented it from being weaponised.

No one can seriously question Sedley's quality as a first-class witness here. The fact that it appeared as an open letter on a website doesn't make it the 'opinion' of someone on a blog, of the kind we automatically exclude. Were the letter not authentic, it would appear in his name on that website with all the risk of legal proceedings for forgery, or the publication of private correspondence. His statement is reliable for what he states above, and which can be used with attribution. If you doubt this, Bob, then perhaps you should raise the matter at the RSN board?Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, as you say, the blog be reliable as a source for what Sedley said (though it's questionable whether it would be a reliable source for facts). But in what way is this noteworthy? Has it been reported in secondary sources? Is there a reason that Sedley (who already has several lines in the article) is more noteworthy in this article than lawyers and scholars such as Lesley Klaff, Andrew Baker, Eve Garrard, Bernard Harrison, David Hirsh, Alan Johnson, Dave Rich, Cary Nelson, Jeffrey Herf...? The article is already bloated with opinions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You may have a point about opinion bloat in evaluations of the document, but I think marking Sedney out is inappropriate. particularly since he is offering, not an opinion, but an observation on an anomaly. In terms of his curriculum vitae he does certainly trump most of the otherwise notable opinionists here (Lesley Klaff, Andrew Baker, Eve Garrard, (Bernard Harrison-not in the article at present), David Hirsh (sociologist), Alan Johnson (politician), Dave Rich (Phd on anti-Semitism), Cary Nelson (emeritus English prof), Jeffrey Herf(historian)) in terms of legal expertise and breadth of experience with EEC institutions.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani. So I tihnk there's two issues here. One is noteworthyiness/due weight re opinions, and the other is the facts around the IHRA's adoption of the definition in Bucharest. On the first issue: You are 100% right that Sedley is more notable than most (maybe all) of the names I mentioned. (I should say my list wasn't a reasoned proposal, just the first names of qualified scholars that I saw from scanning some pro-IHRA opinion pieces), but I think there is a strong case that many of them are at least as noteworthy in the context of this article, as per WP policy on balance and due weight. Klaff is a legal scholar who specialises in legal mechanisms against antisemitism (i.e. unlike Sedley, this is her area of primary expertise).[35][36] The AJC's Andrew Baker is not the one with a WP article, and he is not notable in himself, but is noteworthy here the OSCE's Personal Representative on Combating Anti-Semitism, key player in the IHRA adoption and widely recognised expert on European antisemitism;[37][38] we already cite one of his opinion pieces, but he has written others. Eve Garrard is a philosopher who has written extensively on defining antisemitism;[39][40] she is less noteworthy IMHO than Brian Klug, but in the same ballpark. Bernard Harrison is another frequently cited philosopher writing on antisemitism.[41] Hirsh is a leading scholar of antisemitism. The Alan Johnson I meant is Alan Johnson (political theorist). Rich is a scholar (a PhD supervised by David Feldman, who has a few sentences in our article) and one of Britain's leading experts on measuring and monitoring antisemitism through his work at the Community Security Trust. Nelson we cite once already in the article, but is extremely prominent in debates around the definition and academic freedom.[42][43][44][45] I'm not necessarily arguing that we should cover all of these opinions. I'm trying to show that we are in danger of cherrypicking the opinions to which we give prominence by having so much content from a small, cohesive group of critics (Lerman, Klug, Sedley, Richard Kuper) at the expense of this wider range of opinion.

On the issue of the observation about an apparent anomoly: I get your point, but if this is a claim about facts rather than opinion we need it to come from a reliable source, and I just don't think an opinion piece on a fringe blog is that. If there is actual research backing up this point, as suggested in his blogpost, won't this come out in a reliable source at some point? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Some very quick notes:

In the section detailing academic criticism, what Rebecca Ruth Gould wrote in 2018 is described. A later article by her was published in The Political Quarterly in 2020. Although this is cited twice in the article, no mention of it is made in the material describing Gould's opinions. That suggests that the article has not been updated.

Although the section detailing opinions from the legal world mentions Stephen Sedley's article in the London Review of Books and a letter he wrote to The Guardian, no mention is made of the chapter on the IHRA definition he contributed along with Geoffrey Robertson to Karl Sabbagh's "The Antisemitism Wars, How the British Media Failed Their Public", published in 2018, which follows on from what was written in the LRB article.

A source not mentioned or cited which extensively discussed the EUMC and IHRA working definitions is Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Justin Schlossberg, Antony Lerman and David Miller's "Bad New for Labour: Antisemitism, the Party & Public Belief." One chapter which has relevance to the current discussion is the "Weapons in the Labour Antisemitism Wars?" one. A delegate to the IHRA who wished to remain anonymous is quoted on page 127: "The discussions, as I remember them, were quite intense and lengthy, both in the couloirs and in the plenary hall, until a decisive step was taken by the presidency, on the demand by some member states. Namely, the original draft text was cut into two, and only the first two-sentence part was to be the working definition to be adopted while the other part, the examples, remained what they were: examples to serve as illustrations, the guide the IHRA in its work. From then on, the plenary was able to move quickly on, and the non-legally binding working definition was unanimously adopted. The relevant press release of 26 May 2016 ... states it very clearly ... This is why I really do not quite understand the reason of the ongoing and apparently heated debate in the UK on adopting the defintion (actually, rather, the illustrative examples) in full, without caveats nor amendments." On the following page, page 128, a section on the "Deliberate Obfuscation of What Is and What Is Not the IHRA Defintion" begins.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to updating Sedley via the 2020 chapter if it would genuinely add something other than simply weight. Ditto Gould. The Lerman passage looks relevant. However, I would urge that any additions of material from these people already quoted extensively be balanced by trimming at least some of the existing content related to them, as per my comment above about due weight, which is that the commentary in the article is already heavily weighted towards critics in a misleading way, given that the actual weight in reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Jamie Stern-Weiner - The Politics of a Definition, How the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is Being Misreported (2021, Free Speech on Israel)

(Also see the "Stephen Sedley: statement published by Labour Campaign for Free Speech on 6 June 2021" section above.)

Jamie Stern-Weiner - The Politics of a Definition, How the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is Being Misreported (2021, Free Speech on Israel).

    ←   ZScarpia   22:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC) {... article about the report on J S-W's Wordpress page.}

Any reason to think this is noteworthy? Any secondary coverage in RSs? Article is already bloated with opinions of a small clique of like-minded critics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Al Jazeera - James Kleinfeld - IHRA ‘misrepresents’ own definition of anti-Semitism, says report, 23 April 2021: New report obtained exclusively by Al Jazeera details how the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance misinformed the public over its anti-Semitism definition.     ←   ZScarpia   09:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Bob. You keep suggesting every time some source with an analytic overview is proposed, that it may not be noteworthy and (b) on autopilot, bundle it up with the brandname 'opinion', and dismiss it as the product of a 'small clique of like-minded critics' (and what of the huge clique of like-minded Israeli-right-or-wrong boosters?). A doctoral student in oriental studies at Oxford, with a book under his editorship featuring major scholars to his credit on the topic, is by definition RS. Your objection is phrased in WP:IDONTLIKETHAT language. Distaste for the position outlined is not a valid objection, as I am sure you well know. In my view the sealer for its RS status comes from the preface where it receives the imprimatur of Avi Shlaim who evidently closely reviewed it in making his judgement that it was 'meticulously researched'. It is not an 'opinion'. To the contrary it is a carefully organized historical and sociological reconstruction of a concept, precisely of the quality one expects from a doctoral candidate. This is the stuff that our policy defines as a priority for sourcing. Unless you can pull the plug on that, it looks very much like it must be included. Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Secondary coverage in Al-Jazeera definitely strengthens the argument that this is noteworthy, but I really don't think that the fact the author is an oriental studies [!] student at Oxford makes it noteworthy. It is published on the blog of a fringe group, Free Speech on Israel, and has had no other secondary coverage other than Al-Jazeera. If it was serious research, I think it would've found a serious publisher. Shlaim's endorsement doesn't add much: Shlaim is an expert in international relations and Israeli history, not in antisemitism. Re "small clique of critics": the IHRA definition is used (and criticised) in several countries in a wide variety of contexts, as the factual parts of our article show, but we give several paragraphs to the more or less identical views of a small group of British commentators, which constitutes undue weight and threatens to skew the article against NPOV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I removed another source that Nishidani had added from Mondoweiss. Although a bit of my objection is stated in the summary, including the way it was unattributed in prose, and presented as authoritative in wiki-voice... The other part of my objection, and the main crux of it, also applies here: that source was ultimately based on research with little to no currency (and perhaps of dubious reliability), stemming from "Free Speech on Israel". Free Speech on Israel is a little-known advocacy group explicitly founded in large part to specifically oppose the Working Definition on Anti-Semitism. It's likely not a usable source in most contexts anyway, and Bobfrombrockley has a point- virtually none of what this group does is the subject of much coverage in mainstream sources. It's non-notable. But this specific reference suffers from another handicap, which is that Jamie Stern-Weiner is a graduate student. While graduate student writings (and/or research) isn't disallowed, it's generally discouraged on Wikipedia, unless it's the subject of extensive secondary coverage. If Free Speech on Israel is the sole source for these references, and this one in particular is based on unpublished (or even uncited) graduate research, it is probably not useable as a source. You guys can take this to RSN if you want, but I think we all know this one isn't a winner. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that you consider yourself far more informed about the topic and what quality of scholarship its coverage requires than Avi Shlaim, an emeritus Orientalist at Oxford. What he judges to be 'meticulously researched' is, in your view, 'perhaps of dubious reliability.' Bigtimers can fuck up of course, and thank goodness we have wiki editors who can catch them out.

If you are serious about why you took out Jonathan Cook's piece for Mondoweiss, I'd like you to clarify why you left, untouched, in the lead, several pieces of egregious journalistic trash. Why did Cook uniquely catch your eye, and not the quality of the compansion sources in that lead, namely,

• Speyer, Lea (1 June 2016). "Human Rights Activists Celebrate Multi-Country Adoption of New Definition of Antisemitism". Algemeiner.com. Retrieved 18 November 2018.
• "31 Countries Adopt New Definition of Anti-Semitism that Includes Anti-Zionism - The Tower". The Tower. 3 June 2016. Retrieved 18 November 2018.

Cook has a masters in Oriental Studies from SOAS, two decades of experience as a resident of Israel, and several books to his credit on the topic. What of the others?

Lea Speyer is Midwest Campus Director of the Maccabee Task Force financed by Netanyahu's financier and friend Sheldon Adelson. She is a former journalist, with a BA from Yeshiva University who wrote for Fox News and the Daily Mail before specializating as a correspondent for The Algemeiner in breaking news ’uncovering antisemitic and anti-Israel activity plaguing universities around the world', a phenomenon most of my acquaintances who actually teach at universities have never heard of. The Algemeiner at RS has been consistently defined as uncitable for facts.

The Tower Magazine? 'Israel’s most effective nongovernmental public relations agency' (i.e. paid up advocacy) pushed by The Israel Project, an Israel advocacy organization started up to 'change US and European perceptions of Israel', with authoritative people like David Gerstman ('a freelance journalist living in Baltimore'-what a fascinating background) and Julie Lenarz on board as well('Director of the London-based Human Security Centre and speaks widely across the media on terror and radicalisation'). I.e. Cook is concerned with human rights, those who take precedence see the assertion of Palestinian human rights as a cover for militant anti-Semitism and terrorism.

If you go into the details of those two articles alone, you will note immediately that they come from the same source -since they repeat the same names of 'human rights authorities' (even Ben Cohen, a New York journalist who writes for Adelson's Israel Hayom turns up to be an authority on human rights and anti-Semitism) and function as merely purveyors of the message Mark Weitzman wanted broadcast.

Those are just two lead examples of the incoherence here. Anything that smacks of quality sourcing is challenged, while deadbeat meme-reproduction sits in the article without a murmur of protest, e.g. to cite one of scores of sources wiki practice chucks out at sight:-

• Gerstenfeld, Manfred; Weitzman, Mark. "To fight anti-Semitism, you have to define it". Israel National News. Archived from the original on 8 August 2018. Retrieved 8 August 2018.

Israel National News has consistently been thrown out, being a settler advocacy organ, as a source for anything other than the writers' own views. Sure it is about Manfred Gerstenfeld's views, - he saw anti-Semitism under every rug and every nook and cranny he had time to glance at, always an embarrassment to scholarship, but that's no excuse-

So if you really believe Cook doesn't cut the mustard, I expect you have good reasons for endorsing the removal of junk no dogged editor would sniff at, by the same token?Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that you consider yourself far more informed about the topic and what quality of scholarship its coverage requires...

Nishidani, this is completely out of order. I said no such thing, nor were there any such pretenses to that end. You constantly assuming things about other editors, and ascribing various motives (ulterior and otherwise) to them is ridiculous. I like you, but a lot of your comment is not only passive-aggressive, but a borderline personal attack, and this has to stop. We're talking about two sources (and one edit), full stop, not a whole litany of other things.

I'd like you to clarify why you left, untouched, in the lead, several pieces of egregious journalistic trash.

Why on earth am I suddenly responsible for policing the content of the lead!? What you're saying doesn't even make any sense, except in the context of you perhaps obviously trying to gaslight me.

Why did Cook uniquely catch your eye, and not the quality of the compansion sources in that lead...

Um, because I have this page watchlisted, and your recent edit popped up on my watchlist? I have no idea why you're brining up the content of the rest of the article. Actually, I do, and it's the reason I can't assume good faith on your part here. As I've said a couple of times before, elsewhere... Aside from copyediting, my primary interests on Wikipedia are keeping out fringe material, unreliable material, promotional material, preventing whitewashing, and presenting potentially fraught topics neutrally, and in keeping with an encyclopedic tone. It's the reason why most of my watchlist consists of articles where WP:FRINGE tends to creep in ("holistic" and alternative medicine, pseudoscience, etc), AP2 subjects where whitewashing and POV editing is common, the alt-right, religious articles, etc. And yes, ARBPIA topics where neutrality tends to be more of an abstract and esoteric concept. As to the few valid questions of substance that you ask (Cook, et al), I'd be happy to answer them. As soon as you apologize for obviously ascribing an ulterior motive to my editing, gaslighting me, and for not assuming good faith when I've not demonstrated one iota of a reason for you not to do so. I realize this is a difficult topic area, littered with socks and POV editing, and good faith is a little harder to come by. It's the reason that aside from copy-editing, I rarely want to touch this sort of content directly, even with a ten foot pole. I also, believe it or not, respect you as an editor with a substantial amount of expertise in various subjects. But there is sometimes, as in this post, a marked lack of civility, and there is obviously an element of WP:RGW to your editing in this topic area. Which to be frank, is not something I'm interested in personally, nor much want to engage with. I genuinely try to approach these sorts of topics neutrally . Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Late here. I'll reply tomorrow. My remarks were due to surprise. I didn't expect from you a characterization of a paper (clearly part of his forthcoming doctoral thesis) read and evaluated by Avi Shlaim as 'meticulous researched' as 'perhaps of dubious reliability.' That is an extraordinary thing to assert against a ranking world authority on the topic. That struck me as tantamount to insinuating that Shlaim in a half a century has never learnt how to evaluate the quality of his peers' and students' research. I had no grounds for expecting that kind of implication from you. Most reverts I can grasp as (a) the reverter knows the topic and corrects disinformation (b) the reverter is just sneaking around hoping to eviscerate material that jars with their POV. There is a third category (c), in which I cannot fathom why a line call doesn't lead first to discussion, or a query, but an executive elision, and the editor is clearly in good faith. As you were.

I apologize if you took my bewilderment as 'passive aggressive', offensive or whatever. Don't take it personally. When I revert someone I customarily go on to fix other things that, reading the article in full, strike me as requiring serious attention. Arthur Ruppin suffered a serious excision by an, in my view, POV pusher recently. I didn't just revert. The excision aimed to empty the page of content that, I've long known, is thoroughly documented and yet not paraphrased, so the reverter knew nothing of the topic. That disconcerts me because every other edit takes at least an half an hour for me, or, as above, more than a few hours of background analysis. I have 2 book length studies and 9 academic articles on Ruppin - and never enough time to do justice to them and the article. So the revert was an occasion to make wider fixes. I can't assume other serious should do the same: we all have enough voluntary burdens as it is. But this article, - I've thought this for a long time - is a standing disgrace for the quantity of poor sourcing, quotation from primary sources -ah, how easy my wikilife would be were I to allow myself to cite those instead of waiting for a quality secondary source containing references to them; and, at a glance, patent distortions. Late here, but to anticipate tomorrow. What the contested piece documents is not fringe, as Bob suggests. Over 200 tenured scholars of Jewish studies have registered their view that the document (certainly as misleadingly represented here) is a serious threat to constitutional liberties in the way it is being relentlessly pushed into law or administrative rules. All our young scholar does is document the way this mess was created.Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Trying to disentangle the arguments here. First, I don't understand Nishidani's position that "oriental studies" students and scholars are appropriate for inclusion in an article about antisemitism. Second, I agree with Symmachus Auxiliarus that Mondoweiss is a very poor source. Third, I agree with Nishidani that Manfred Gerstenfeld is not a great source and if used should be used with attribution and only if clearly noteworthy. I'd not object to removal of that reference and removal or flagging of every claim sourced only to his interview. Fourth, I agree with Nishidani that The Tower is a partisan source and I would not object to removing that reference and flagging any claim solely reliant on it. Fifth, I have no strong views on Lea Speyer in The Algemeiner (she was a journalist there and elsewhere before taking up the advocacy job Nishidani mentions); it wouldn't make much difference if we removed it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand Nishidani's position that "oriental studies" students and scholars are appropriate for inclusion in an article about antisemitism.

Bob. Oriental Studies, as the term has long been used in England, embraces languages and cultures from the Middle to the Far East. The article is about anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, since the IHRA text and examples join them.

Both Stern-Weiner and Cook in short have backgrounds (Israeli national or resident) and academic qualifications for the topic which here includes the theme of how a definition of anti-Semitism was developed, and powerfully promoted by Israel/pro-Israeli groups that, by wide consensus, confuses criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. I don't think we should be rediscussing what is obvious.

An author chooses his venue, it is not the venue that decides whether the author's work is reliable or not. With several books on the topic to their credit, the credentials are strong.

If one burks at Mondoweiss, then automatically sources like The Algemeiner become dubious. I could write a short article on Speyer's piece: it is not journalism, but a rewriting up of a SWC handout, as was the Tower's article and both appeared within days of each other. It defines several people as 'human rights activists' when they have no record (unlike the ADF for example) of the broad defense of human rights: they write on antisemitism and Israel. Marcus, unfortunately in my view, but rules are rules, is RS - the rest have no serious credentials. The problem with Marcus is that he is widely known to have a personal lobbying interest in the IHWR definition, by his own admission, and therefore lacks scholarly detachment.

But those are just a few casual complaints. Our criteria seem to overlap. I think we need a thorough review of the patchy sourcing here. It is understanding on Wikipedia that articles are tinkered with on the back of breaking news reports of each blip in developments, but that, a decade or so into the matter, secondary sources (including those you cite below( should begin to be utilized to replace newspaper reportage.Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I get the point that "Oriental studies" includes Israel studies, but I think it's tendentious to say that a qualification in that, or being Israeli or having lived there, is a qualification for being authoritative on antisemitism. In contrast to Lerman, Klug and Feldman (for example), Cook and Stern-Weiner have no particular qualification to talk about antisemitism authoritatively. I also think that a publisher, while not the sole criterion, is highly relevant in determining reliability, especially for an exceptional claim. A report written by a graduate student for a body that has some kind of academic credibility should not be put on the same level as a report written by the same student for the blog of a fringe activist group set up with criticism of the topic of this article as one of its prime objectives. None of his publications on antisemitism appear to be scholarly publications. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with other editors this source cannot be used. There is no editorial or peer review so its clearly WP:UNDUE here --Shrike (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Voting again, just the usual one-liner of endorsement. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

[EC] Perhaps we could first of all focus on the sentence in the introduction which, cited to two sources, states:

"In 2016, the working definition and its list of examples was adopted by a plenary meeting of the 31 countries in the IHRA."[46][47]

- The cited Algemeiner article certainly doesn't support the statement that the plenary meeting adopted the accompanying examples. Neither, explicitly, does the second source cited.
- Further, the body of the article, as far as I can see, contains nothing supporting the statement about adoption of the accompanying examples.
- As far as what was adopted at the plenary meeting goes, the IHRA's press release only uses that description and the word 'definition' in relation to the two sentences in quotation marks highlighted in the box. Of the accompanying examples, the press release says only that they may serve as illustrations to guide the IHRA in its work.
- The IHRA publication section of the Wikipedia article refers separately to a two-sentence definition and accompanying examples, stating that 'the definition' was adopted at the plenary meeting. In addition, Antony Lerman is quoted to the effect that 'the definition and the examples were separate things.'
- There is additional commentary on how the working definition was derived and how it is being misrepresented in Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Justin Schlossberg, Antony Lerman and David Miller's "Bad New for Labour: Antisemitism, the Party & Public Belief" and, in a section co-written by Geoffrey Robertson and Stephen Sedley, in Karl Sabbagh's "The Antisemitism Wars, How the British Media Failed Their Public."
- Stephen Sedley wrote a statement about how the working definition was derived which was published on the website of the Labour Campaign for Free Speech. Jamie Stern-Weiner's report expands, in detail, on what was written earlier.
- Jamie Stern-Weiner has edited two published books (one of which can be downloaded free at Verso, the publisher's, website). Jonathan Cook has authored three published books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and had articles published by various newspapers and websites. As with the statement by Stephen Sedley published by the Labour Campaign for Free Speech, a decision on whether to include detail from Jamie Stern-Weiner's report or Jonathan Cook's Mondoweiss article would, as the publishing websites clearly would not qualify as reliable sources, rest on whether the authors are of sufficient note to have what they've written included. (... it really goes without saying that opinions on that would tend to depend on whether what is written co-incides with a person's own views.)
- Jamie Stern-Weiner's report has been mentioned in this Al Jazeera article. One purpose to which the Al Jazeera article can be put is to refute the sentence in the introduction to the Wikipedia article stating that the accompanying examples were officially adopted. The Al Jazeera article states: "In the end, the governing plenary decided to adopt only the two-sentence passage as its definition, excluding the controversial examples. The examples were not endorsed as part of the working definition but as “illustrations” to “guide IHRA in its work”." Even if the two cited sources had actually supported the sentence in the introduction, the neutrality rules mean that, since they would have been contradicted by the Al Jazeera article, what they say happened could only be presented as 'a version' of what happened, not as actually what did happen.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The IHRA itself states "The Working Definition, including its examples, was reviewed and decided upon unanimously during the IHRA's Bucharest plenary in May 2016."[48](emphasis added) Contrary to Cook's claim that the IHRA "misled" the 31 countries who endorsed it, statements by the delegates indicate they considered the examples part of the definition. The AJR, who formed part of the UK's delegation, have said: "Having two members of our senior team so involved with IHRA helping to ensure the passing of the working definition of antisemitism the AJR strongly feels that the definition should always be adopted in its entirety. Any editing or omitting of clauses or examples renders the code no longer the IHRA’s definition"[49] and the whole UK delegation (which includes leading antisemitism scholars) has confirmed this.[50] Reliable sources reporting on it at the time include the examples in the definition.[51] The US delegate, who co-authored the IHRA version and played a key role in the discussions and plenary explicitly includes the example in the definition voted on.[52] A handbook on the use of the definition written by leading antisemitism scholars and reviewed by the IHRA and at least one of its delegates explicitly includes the examples in the definition.[53] BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Heh, ordinarily the entire point of any definition is to avoid the need for examples. Gould (Gould2018a cited in the article and writer of the first serious academic study) puts it well:

"In most mainstream usages, particularly by its advocates, making the definition into a synecdoche for the entire text has enabled its proponents to conceal the fact that the UK government adopted only the definition, without taking a formal position on the examples. Although it has not been widely publicized, the same caveat applies to many so-called "adoptions," which involved only the definition, and not the examples. Neither the IHRA nor the Israel advocacy community have been scrupulous in clarifying these distinctions."

Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

ZScarpia has a point. The press release linked by him separates the definition from the examples, says "On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:" and gives the definition in a bounded box and then goes on to say "To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:". I can't see how the press release can be interpreted in any other way, I will see if I can find a further discussion of it in rs. In the link above from Bobfrombrockley the first line of it links to https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/node/196 which essentially reproduces the press release.Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have added the Aljazeera ref in order to clarify that "adoption" need not mean "endorsement". This is exactly the kind of blurring discussed by Gould that seeks to treat the definition together with the examples as a thing, when in fact it was two separate things.Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The IHRA's webpage about the working definition appears to follow the wording and layout of the press release. A two-sentence working definition is quoted after a note that the IHRA Plenary in Bucharest decided to adopt it in May 2016. A list of examples follows afterwards, with text stating, "to guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations."     ←   ZScarpia   10:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@BobFromBrockley:

- You misrepresent what Jonathan Cook wrote. He did not "claim that the IHRA 'misled' the 31 countries who endorsed [the working definition]." His article begins: "At the height of the attacks on Corbyn, IHRA officials joined UK Jewish groups in falsely claiming its antisemitism definition included examples that protected Israel, when delegates had specifically excluded the examples." It goes on to say: "New research charts a five-year campaign by highly partisan, pro-Israel lobby groups to mislead the international community about the nature of what has been widely described as the 'gold standard' definition of antisemitism." So, the statement relates not to what the IHRA as an organisation did, but to the acts of a group of IHRA officials. Jamie Stern-Weiner's report goes into detail on who that group consisted of.

- There's no point entering into a discussion on what is 'true'. Wikipedia policy is that, where reliable sources disagree about what the facts are, articles must neutrally represent each of the significant viewpoints. Firstly, note that many of the sources you link to, though they may be the websites of notable organisations, are dubious in terms of the Wikipedia definition of reliability. Two of the pages you linked to were on the IHRA website: the first is in the form of a letter, so not from the IHRA itself; the second appears to be signed by the Community Security Trust and therefore is not from the IHRA either. Secondly, you have to deal with the fact that at least one example of a source which would normally be accepted as reliable in Wikipedia terms contradicts claims that the examples which accompany the working definition were adopted at the IHRA Plenary meeting. And what that source claims appears to be backed up by what the IHRA stated in its press release and on its website.

- I pointed out that the sources cited to justify the statement in the introduction that, "in 2016, the working definition and its list of examples was adopted by a plenary meeting of the 31 countries in the IHRA," don't actually support what that statement says about the accompanying examples. Perhaps you would like to supply some reliable sources which do support what is stated. However, even if you do, the fact that at least one reliable source contradicts what the statement says must, on neutrality grounds, be dealt with.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

ZScarpia, I'm not sure Cook distinguishes between the IHRA and its staff in the way you do. Cook says "And further, despite claims to the contrary from the IHRA", "the IHRA has refused to respond to repeated questions", "the IHRA bureaucracy has gradually colluded with Israel’s lobbyists", "the IHRA website wrongly claims", "the IHRA’s chair stated [that it included both parts]", "A handbook...published by the IHRA...repeated this false assertion". But I'm not sure this matters, as there's unlikely to be a Wikipedia consensus that Cook, on his blog or the Mondoweiss blog, is a reliable source.

I agree we should not be looking for what is true. But the sources you say are dubious in terms of reliability should be seen as primary sources, in which the authors or publishers are saying things about themselves (see WP:ABOUTSELF). The reliable source, Al-Jazeera, is making an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that contradicts the primary sources, and so would require multiple reliable sources for us to pass on in our own neutral voice without careful attribution, especially in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Aljazeera claim is not is not in my view exceptional and the quote from them matches up with IHRA's own statement. I would be looking elsewhere for contradictions myself.Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the contentious detail about all this out of the lead to the relevant section, leaving the lead simple and neutral. Maybe once we find a stable version we can re-visit lead, but for now we should work on reaching consensus in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are three editors supporting what is in the body and you apparently not. So which part of the body are you disputing? Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the body. I'm noting that most editors have been pointing out that the sourcing is confusing and problematic around the numbers of adoptions/endorsements, what the right terminology is, how the sources contradict each other, whether the definition includes the examples, whether the examples are adopted, etc. We can deal with that in a nuanced way in the body, and we seem to be working towards that collectively, but it is inappropriate to create a tangled, contentious lead. (See MOS:LEADREL, MOS:LEADLENGTH etc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

If what is in the body is not disputed, how are we going to summarize that in the lead? Do you have some suggestion? Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the recently added "Accompanying the working definition, but of disputed status," is an excellent summary for the lead of the relevant section. There's also the question of the number of countries, which I think we can leave for now but improve with better sources on numbers, as per discussion on this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Afaics, the position that the examples are part of the definition and were endorsed at Bucharest looks very much like a minority position. We have Gould, Lerner, AJ and others saying one thing and a primary source IHRA web page (which contradicts itself on another web page it links to) together with a dubious JP article (by the same reporter who asserts there are 36 adoptions) saying the definition includes the examples. I have also highlighted the adoptions discrepancy in the article to encourage people to look into that and find some more sources.Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Scholarly analysis

Following on the previous section, here are three potential robust analytical overviews of the definition:

• Peter Ullrich Expert Opinion On The “Working Definition Of Antisemitism” Of The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (2019)
• Benjamin Steinitz et al Handbook for the practical use of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism (2021)
• Matthias Becker et al Decoding Antisemitism: An AI-driven Study on Hate Speech and Imagery Online (2021, see section 2. Definition of Antisemitism and Operationalisation)
• G Jikeli et al Annotating antisemitic online content. towards an applicable definition of antisemitism (2019)

BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think Ulrich is useful. What we require is not, as the other three tend to be, illustrations of how to use it, but studies that examine the definition, the history of the way it developed and was adopted. The other three studies are more appropriate to the anti-Semitism article. The topic suffers, like studies on Hamlet, from massive overpublication, and one has to have some principle that allows one to focus on the strict issue at hand.Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

How many countries?

Re the lead estimate (35 countries based on the Jerusalem Post 2016. We should use newspapers only where necessity requires them), Gould now writes

As of May 2020, the working definition has been adopted by twenty-five countries, including the UK, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, and Italy. Notably, several IHRA member countries have not adopted the definition. It has not been adopted by any Arab or Middle Eastern country other than Israel, by any country in Latin America other than Uruguay, or by any country in Asia or Africa. The definition therefore predominates mostly in Europe, Eastern Europe, and North America (although it has not been adopted by the United States).' {{sfn|Gould|2020|p=826}}}} as well as the European Parliament{{efn|'The European Parliament has called on EU member states to adopt the definition (European Parliament 2017) and has presented translations in 24 languages. The “Working Definition” has been formally adopted (in some cases already in the EUMC version) by ten states: Bulgaria, Germany, United Kingdom, Israel, Lithuania, Northern Macedonia, Austria, Romania, Slovakia, and the United States.'{{sfn|Ullrich|2019|p=8}}}} and other national and international bodies.

She and Ullrich disagree over the US. In any case, once this is sorted out, the point remains that this is a global encyclopedia and while many sources list who in the West has joined the party, the fact is that most of the world has ignored it, as this source states. That has to be tweaked in.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There is https://www.ajc.org/adoption-of-the-working-definition which claims to give a current list as of August 2021. I am not convinced by the US entry (refers to this apparently.) Anyway, including the US for the moment gives 32 (if you count them up). I would like to get some additional confirmations of that.Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Afaik, the US version (aka the AAA) has been rejected by Congress on free speech grounds but that did not prevent the US State department from "adopting" it (ie Pompeo). Need to sort out some rs on this as well.Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Which means slipshod reportage. If Congress rejected it then Gould is correct. If the US State Department adopted it, then that must be what Ullrich is referring to. This should be cleared up as we go through the sources, which are abundant and of high quality. Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

1) Can you clarify "We should use newspapers only where necessity requires them"? 2) Surely when we talk about a country or state adopting something, we mean the government of the country? Here is the US government being very explicit it endorses the definition: As a member of IHRA, the United States now uses this working definition and has encouraged other governments and international organizations to use it as well.[54] 3) The claim about countries in Latin America and Asia not endorsing it is contradicted by the AJC list which includes Argentina, Guatemala and South Korea. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani means we should prefer scholarly sources where possible, journal articles, books especially where the issue is potentially complex. It is not clear to me what "adopting" means, in general and in the sense of whether the examples and/or the definition are being adopted. in the US case, the equivalent "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act", see this, stalled in the legislative process (twice I believe, on concerns over free speech, a concern in the UK as well). The US State department is using the definition (same way as it used to use the older def) and Trump signed an executive order requiring the Education Department to take it into account. So on the face of it, it is not "law" in the US other than in some limited sense. What seems to be happening is that an effort is being made to cajole different entities into "adoption" whatever that might mean. It is difficult to know absent any court cases. I think we need to look into this in more detail (find more rs). I don't think we can rely on what the AJC have to say in this instance, it needs independent verification.Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Self put it better than my longwindedness, Bob. I'll try to get back to this. There seemsd to be a mass of lengthy studies by now on this, from various perspectives, and, where possible this should translate into using those rather than contemporary newspaper accounts of, in particular, the significant moments in the development of the definition. That seems to be what ideal wiki practice considers the encyclopedic aim. Newspapers are in the thick of politics: the longer detached analyses allow more incisive hindsight, and these exist both in support of, or critical of the definition. Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

As an aside the article says that the United Kingdom, which includes Scotland, adopted it but also says that Scotland did, that makes no sense.Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Recently, there is press that Switzerland adopted the definition. Here, the Swiss Federal Council press release, states "Federal Council adopts report on working definition of antisemitism" ie it has adopted a report about the definition, not the definition itself nor does it even mention the examples, it just gives the 2 sentence definition in a box. It links to the report which among other things says "There is some disagreement as to whether the IHRA has adopted the entire definition, or just the core definition." OK, this is OR so unusable in the article but we can refer to it here in talk. Note the use of "entire definition" and "core definition", even the Swiss are confused and don't know what was adopted and they are a member of the IHRA! It serves to emphasize that we need to be careful in our article.Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A missing word?

This text seems to be missing a word between "countries" and "the attached examples":

By 2018, however, only 6 governments of the 31 countries with membership in the IHRA had given formal endorsement to, or adopted, the definition, and uncertainty remains whether those countries the attached examples or not.

Misha Wolf (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Source "As for what adoption meant: Only 6 of 31 governments whose countries are members of IHRA have formally endorsed/adopted the definition, and it’s not clear whether they adopted the examples or not." This business about adoption/endorsement is annoying, hah.Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Inserted "adopted".Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

External links

I don't want to revert, as there's enough back and forth here, but I strongly believe that the third and fourth, and probably second, of the "external links" are not appropriate as per our policy at WP:ELYES. They simply don't fall into any of the categories of links which can be normally include. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I added two to replace redlinks in the article, that's normal I believe. Unless you prefer to include the url directly into the article? That's also done sometimes. I don't mind either way.Selfstudier (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The links are already in the article in the refs; no need to single out the organisations, which are tangential to this article. I don't see the problem with redlinks. If the groups are notable (which you'd hope they are if mentioning them is noteworthy), they'll have articles sooner or later. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC) (Just checked WP:REDLINK: In general, a red link should remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Only remove red links if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC))

You already reverted the redlinks back in so that discussion is academic. I deleted one of the ext links as being "tangential" but the Free Speech on Israel (which I have no idea if an article will ever be created) is about little else than the content of this article so I think that one is not at all tangential and should stay.Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Re the redlinks, I was just explaining why I reverted. Personally, I don't think Free Speech on Israel is worth including in the EL, as per ELYES: It is not the official website of the definition, it is not a website hosting the definition, and it does not contain neutral material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject that can't be integrated into the Wikipedia article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"during the tenure of the EUMC"

In the lede, I see the words "during the tenure of the EUMC". I've never seen the word "tenure" used in this manner, presumably meaning something like "lifetime". Is this usage correct? Misha Wolf (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Better? Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. I've made a small tweak to your text. OK? Misha Wolf (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, we do that a lot around here:) Selfstudier (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

:) Misha Wolf (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

More commas, please

Could we replace "Accompanying the working definition but of disputed status are eleven illustrative examples" with "Accompanying the working definition, but of disputed status, are eleven illustrative examples"? Misha Wolf (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Freelance-frank (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

:) Misha Wolf (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The second sentence of the first para of Adoption appears to be garbled

"By 2018, according to Lerman, the working definition had been formally adopted by six of the 31 governments whose countries are members of IHRA had formally endorsed or adopted the definition, and uncertainty remains whether those countries adopted the attached examples." Misha Wolf (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, we now seem to have the same information twice:

The working definition has been adopted for internal use by a number of government and political institutions. By 2018, according to Lerman, the working definition had been formally adopted by six of the 31 governments whose countries are members of IHRA and uncertainty remains whether those countries adopted the attached examples. The countries adopting the IHRA definition also appoint a national coordinator for the fight against antisemitism.

Only 6 of 31 governments whose countries are members of IHRA have formally endorsed/adopted the definition, and it’s not clear whether they adopted the examples or not.

Misha Wolf (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Uh huh, because before there was stuff in the lead summarizing what was in the body and it was just shuffled into the body. Let me know if you find any more.Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

More opinion

Thanks for very good recent edits Selfstudier. However, I don't think a Labour Briefing blogpost is noteworthy and this addition doesn't add substance. There are more noteworthy critical pieces if we need to include yet more opinion (e.g. [55][56]) but if we do then due weight suggests we should also include scholarly defences (e.g. [57][58]).BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, when the matter is very current (it is ongoing as we speak and Rosenhead's expert opinion is dated a month ago) then there is not going to be much available by way of scholarly rs, is there? There are no claims in the universities section about the 2010 equality act so I don't see what the fathom article adds (attacking a strawman?), if you want to include the bits of Wonkhe that relate to universities, I don't object to that or anything else related to the current situation as regards universities (one thing I have noticed is that of those universities adopting, some are making use of the free speech caveats (eg Cambridge, Durham), have you seen any rs on that?)Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I trimmed Rosenhead a bit, keep it strictly to the universities adoption (or lack thereof).Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The Tory government imposition of the definition on universities goes back to October (following a request the previous year[59], so there was a lot of commentary about it in the Autumn. Even if there wasn't, there's no reason to include a non-noteworthy blog because something is too recent to have noteworthy discussion; we are not a newspaper, and the article is already long. There do seem to be a large number of RSs about the back and forth in particular universities (especially Oxford & Cambridge[60][61][62]) but I feel the article's length is already heading towards excessive. We might at some point consider creating a UK-specific article and including more detail about universities and Labour there and making this article shorter.

The government demand in the Autumn and all that is in there but I see no reason not to keep it reasonably up to date even with opinion pieces as long as they are on the point (adoption by universities).

By the way, in having a look I came across this very balanced account of the issues, which might be useful: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/why-are-people-fighting-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-655642 BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

According to that, the situation in the US mirrors that in the UK in many ways. Since the UK and the US have been the biggest promoters of the thing, I guess that's not surprising. It's a decent enough article although I wouldn't call it "very balanced" myself, tbh.Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Future tense used for an event scheduled for Feb 2021

The second para of section "Universities" contains a sentence starting "In February 2021, University College London’s governing body, having previously adopted the IHRA definition, is to reconsider [...]". Misha Wolf (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand this one? The source says "University College London’s governing body will reconsider its definition..." ..Is to reconsider.. means the same thing but by all means reword it if you wish.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, Feb 2021 is in the past, so it doesn't make much sense for the page to say that this event will happen during that month. It either did happen or didn't, and if it did then either something noteworthy was decided or it wasn't. :) Misha Wolf (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't say it will happen in February, that just the date that they said it ie that they will reconsider (at some later point in time). I added a bit in to spell it out, idk if it helps.Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Mentions of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA)

The JDA is described and hyperlinked in section 6 "Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism" but is now mentioned (with no description or hyperlinking) at the end of section 3.1.1.3 "Universities", which comes earlier in the page. So some adjustment of the text would be good. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 DoneSelfstudier (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to have the hyperlink in both places: a reader looking for alternative definitions may not realize they could find the hyperlink in an earlier section. Restored in section 6. DavidHeap (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Missing comma and missing "for"?

The following sentence forms part of the last para of the lede: "The definition has been contested for weaknesses that lend themselves to abuse[8][9][b] for obstructing campaigning for the rights of Palestinians and being too vague." I suspect that "abuse" is supposed to be followed by a comma. And a "for" before "being too vague" would probably be helpful, so: "The definition has been contested for weaknesses that lend themselves to abuse,[8][9][b] for obstructing campaigning for the rights of Palestinians and for being too vague." Misha Wolf (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Any feedback on this? Thanks. Misha Wolf (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of any feedback, I've gone ahead and made these changes. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Weaponization

The following is the last sentence of the lede: "One of the original drafters Kenneth S. Stern has opposed the weaponization of the definition on college campuses in ways that might suppress and limit free speech.” While I agree that the definition is being weaponised, I suspect that "weaponization" is not a suitable term for WP prose and that we should make clear that it is drawn from a quote. The problem is that the Guardian article uses "weaponizing" in its title and "weaponize" in its body, but not "weaponization". What is the standard practice in such cases? Misha Wolf (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)  Done Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Adoption: Should the "and uncertainty remains" be "though it is unclear"?

The second sentence of "Adoption" is:

By 2018, according to Lerman, the working definition had been formally adopted by six of the 31 governments whose countries are members of IHRA and uncertainty remains whether those countries adopted the attached examples.

Should the "and uncertainty remains" be something like "though it is unclear"? Misha Wolf (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of feedback, I've made this change. Misha Wolf (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Some more commas?

The last sentence of the lede is:

One of the original drafters Kenneth S. Stern has opposed the "weaponizing" of the definition on college campuses in ways that might suppress and limit free speech.

Would either of the following be better:

One of the original drafters, Kenneth S. Stern, has opposed the "weaponizing" of the definition on college campuses in ways that might suppress and limit free speech.

Kenneth S. Stern, one of the original drafters, has opposed the "weaponizing" of the definition on college campuses in ways that might suppress and limit free speech.

? Misha Wolf (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've implemented the first of the two options. Misha Wolf (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)