Talk:Working definition of antisemitism

Requested move 16 October 2022

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

The result of the move request was: page not moved, except to correct the capitalization. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Working Definition of Antisemitism → IHRA definition of antisemitism – by far the most common name for this definition. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: As a general rule, obscure acronyms are not ideal in titles. From a prevalence perspective, I see no clear evidence that the latter is actively more prevalent. On inspection, 'working' appears more academic, with 'IHRA' used in the news. Ngrams finds no mentions of the latter in its book records. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: I can see why reporters shorten it but the acronym is useful only for those who already know what it means, there is an aka "International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism" given in the lead, I think that is sufficient. If one looks at the official site it is mainly referred to there as a "working definition". Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose:, as said above obscure acronyms are not ideal in titles. Also I am unsure that "Working Definition of Antisemitism" is not the most common name. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Since there is also the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism in existence this 'working definition' should be ascribed to its source. This is generally found as the IHRA Working Definition, not as 'the working definition'. To refer to it as the working definition in the voice of wikipedia gives it a POV credibility as there is a great deal of controversy about the use of this definition. There are also previous working definitions to be found such as the EUMC (European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, now the Agency For Fundamental Rights, FRA) definition. That wikipedia article was titled EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism, not working definition. That precedence should be used here as well. Pngeditor (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  The EUMC definition is covered here, so there's no contradiction there - assuming the page's view of the EUMC version as an IHRA predecessor is true. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  The EUMC article use the acronym in the title so there is a contradiction here. There is a precedence for using the name of the body that came up with this text. Also see the section Competing definitions of antisemitism in this article. This working definition needs to be ascribed to its source in the title, not just in the article itself.Pngeditor (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is no EUMC article: the page under that title is just a redirect to here [1]. We hardly need to maintain consistency with a redirect do we? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  If anything, that two separate working definitions are discussed on this page strengthens the case for the 'working definition' format in the title. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Disagree, the EUMC definition was in an article using its source in the title. There are now multiple 'definitions', which strengthens the case for using the full title for each. Every other definition or declaration is ascribed, except this one.Pngeditor (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  The EUMC definition seems to have never had a page of its own, and the redirect history is empty. What article are you referring to? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  In this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#Definition there is a whole section on definitions of anti semitism. The EUMC was a working definition, however it was always referred to as the EUMC working definition. All academic, government and scholarly sources seem to refer to this one as the IHRA working definition. Wikipedia should follow that lead. RegardsPngeditor (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  All academic, government and scholarly sources seem to refer to this one as the IHRA working definition This is false as even a cursory search will demonstrate. Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, actually I would go for IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, which is slightly different from the proposal.Pngeditor (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Selfstudier. My statement is actually correct. Perhaps you did not see the qualifiers 'academic, government and scholarly sources'. A cursory search needs to be examined closely to see whether the source meets that criteria, rather than e.g., blogs, and newspaper articles. RegardsPngeditor (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Search As I said, your statement is false (now it is false twice). Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  You just proved me correct. Of the first page only four of the ten sites do not have the term working definition of IHRA or IHRA - working definition in the title, link or text. They are https://www.gov.uk › ... › Equality, rights and citizenship This refers to the UK definition, and so is irrelevant. https://www.state.gov › defining-antisemitism This site states that the US government have adopted a working definition, and it is the IHRA definition. The third is the JWC, which doesn't meet my criteria. The last one is wikipedia, which is obviously excluded. Anyone searching for working definition of anti semitism will get results other than the IHRA. This definition is about the IHRA definition. There are lots of them. Let's specify which one the article is about. . FYI only 1 What is antisemitism? | IHRA 2 The non-legally binding working definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is an essential tool for the Commission's work on tackling 3 If universities 'adopt' the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, can they use it? 4 Thus, we speak today of the IHRA Working Definition. ANTI-SEMITISM 19 Feb 2021 — 5 What is the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism? 6 IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism BTW I'd accept 'Working Definition of Antisemitism - IHRA' How about that?Pngeditor (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  You said All, which is false. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted. Regards. Pngeditor (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  'academic, government and scholarly sources' is not a grouping: there are reliable, secondary academic and scholarly sources, and then their are government sources, which are far-removed from the standards of academic and scholarly sources, opaquely sourced and not peer-reviewed. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  So what are you classifying the IHRA itself as?Pngeditor (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Government websites ... really? Most of us can't trust our governments with the economy, let alone informational objectivity. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly my point.Pngeditor (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - the new title wouldn’t be straightforward (IHRA?). - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: Current title is more encompassing, including both EUMC and IHRA, which are bolded and redirect here. Renaming to limit to IHRA makes the extensive pre-IHRA history problematic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support, or at bare minimum correct the capitalization to "Working definition of antisemitism", though "anti-Semitism" would be better. I know Jews who are offended by "antisemitism" de-capitalizing "Semit[e]".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Petition from 1,200 Jewish university professors

This story either from this source or another should be included. Zero^talk 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I added when it was only 800+ :) Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I dunnit with the new figure, so perhaps there's an overlap? Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, the AAA is in two places, OK for now, I guess. See if it gets passed or not and then see. Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, specifying that the term "definition of antisemitism" means the definition of antisemitism adopted by the IHRA

Closely related to the topic immediately above this one is Bob Casey's proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, discussed in this article in The Forward. Would anyone care to tweak section United States to mention it? Misha Wolf (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

PS: This is also relevant to the last para of the earlier section called United States, which talks about the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

And mention that the AAA (preceding section) once again failed to go through, once again because of free speech concerns. So if the front door won't work, let's try the back, eh? Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request - Adding the text of the full definition

Can we add the full text of the definition with examples. This article, especially the criticism section, is unreadable without the specific wording and I think its a bad sign I had to go hunting online for it to know what the heck people were talking about. Here's the full text (from their website https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism)

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations: Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

11.Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews. Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Thanks! Gaymarsrovers (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is about the definition, which is presented en toto in the lead already. The examples are a separate and disputed matter but not part of the definition. Listing them all out would be UNDUE in my opinion, but I'll let other editors (EC editors) pitch in. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a WP:DICTIONARY. There are a close to three hundred (300) external sources on this page. There is one external link at the bottom that contains nothing but the full text of the definition. This is already a long article. Copying and pasting it here would definitely be WP:UNDUE clutter. Kire1975 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Too much text per Kire1975 and Selfstudier. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Strange claim in the last para of section "Definition" of article "Antisemitism"

The last para of section Definition of article Antisemitism starts with the following text:

The definition wrong and negative perception of people with Jewish descent has been adopted by the European Parliament Working Group on Antisemitism, in 2010, a similar definition that avoided using the word wrong was adopted by the United States Department of State, in 2014, that definition was adopted in the Operational Hate Crime Guidance of the UK College of Policing^{[failed verification]} and was also adopted by the Campaign Against Antisemitism.^{[failed verification]} In 2016, the U.S. State Department definition was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

Note, in particular, the last sentence. Yesterday, I added a topic ("Strange claim in the last para of section "Definition") to that article's Talk page, saying:

This section appears to claim that the IHRA's Working definition of antisemitism originated with the U.S. State Department. That seems to conflict with the information provided in article Working definition of antisemitism.

I have had no response so far. Would anyone here care to comment or, better still, correct that text (assuming it needs correcting)? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No it says the altred wording adopted by the State Department was the version used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It it is true, why doesn't this article mention it? Or have I just not found the mention? Misha Wolf (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"In June 2010 the State Department adopted a definition based on the EUMC definition". Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, that is not an answer to my question. I repeat: The Antisemitism article states that "the U.S. State Department definition was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance". I haven't found that claim in this article. What you've quoted in your reply is something completely different, namely that "the State Department adopted a definition based on the EUMC definition". Doing a search of this article just now, I've found: "The State Department has since adopted the IHRA definition."

So we have two diametrically opposing statements in the two articles:

• the Antisemitism article says that the IHRA adopted the State Department definition
• this article says that the State Department adopted the IHRA definition

Misha Wolf (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

" "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."" (from the source) so it seems that yes the State Department have now adopted the IHRA definition. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.972mag.com/biden-white-house-ihra-antisemitism/ Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So then we should be saying it has adopted it, anywhere (or come to that any definition)?. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think confusion started when Pompeo decided to use it at State and then later iirc it got forced into Education as well. That's not quite the same as the US adopting it. As far as I know , the US policy on antisemitism is as outlined in that link unless I missed some later developments. There is a lot of misinfo around this subject.

See as well Will the US adopt IHRA’s anti-Semitism definition? What’s the controversy? (8 May 2024) Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The AS article used primary sources and was basically synthesis, an editor imposing their own understanding of these primary sources. None of the cited sources used the wording "wrong and negative perception" so it seemed inaccurate too. I've edited that on the AS article and flagged as primary, but obviously someone might want to re-edit if there are secondary sources along those lines. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, do we have even one source using the words "the USA adopted the IHRA definition"? Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

IHRA definition is itself antisemitic?

Came across that argument in a recent paper [2] (t · c) buidhe 01:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Undue imho. There are a huge number of academic articles that mention or discuss the WD, and I see no reason why this one is noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

IJV Canada def

In the alternative definitions section, we currently have a sub-section on IJV Canada's definition, with one primary source plus a citation of Gould, who gives it a two sentence mention. I've looked for alternative secondary coverage and found none. Is it due? I don't think it is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)