This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Working definition of antisemitism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
A fact from Working definition of antisemitism appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 November 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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)
All academic, government and scholarly sources seem to refer to this one as the IHRA working definitionThis is false as even a cursory search will demonstrate. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Res Publica - Jan Deckers, Jonathan Coulter - "What Is Wrong with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Definition of Antisemitism?" [2], 11 May 2022. ( https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-022-09553-4)
( Res Publica: "A peer-review journal of legal, moral and social philosophy focusing on normative analysis of theoretical, practical, and public issues. The journal publishes work of established scholars, as well as those at the beginning of their careers, in both Western and non-Western settings.")
"We conclude that the definition and its list of examples ought to be rejected. The urgency to do so stems from the fact that pro-Israel activists can and have mobilised the IHRA document for political goals unrelated to tackling antisemitism, notably to stigmatise and silence critics of the Israeli government. ..."
"Whilst it is important to note that the IHRA decision-making body, the Plenary, did not include any of these examples in the definition and that its member countries were only able to reach a consensus on adopting the definition by excluding the examples, the published document that contains the definition nevertheless contains these potential ‘illustrations’. In this regard, Stern-Weiner (2021a, p. 4) finds that the ‘senior IHRA officials and pro-Israel groups’ that were involved in the publication of this document ‘have misrepresented the IHRA Plenary’s decision in order to smuggle into the Working Definition examples that can be used to protect Israel from criticism’ and pressurised governments and other organisations to adopt it. Such pressure has been particularly evident in the case of the UK government (2016), which formally adopted the definition in 2016. In October 2020, Gavin Williamson (2020), Secretary of State for Education in England, urged higher education institutions to follow suit in adopting the definition with its examples, writing that the ‘definition helps us better understand and recognise instances of antisemitism’. Most significantly, he threatened to suspend funding streams for universities that did not sign up to the definition (Adams 2020; Harpin 2020). ..."
"Despite the IHRA’s recognition that some examples are not necessarily indicative of antisemitism, those advocating for Israel typically refer to the list of examples as unequivocal instances of antisemitism, using a simplistic matching process: they match the behaviour of the accused to one of the examples, without considering context and whether the motivation is truly antisemitic. This can be seen very clearly on the web pages of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA 2022), which has assumed the mantle of monitoring and enforcing the implementation of the IHRA definition in the UK. It particularly focuses on ensuring compliance by the political parties, the universities, and local authorities. In the case of the political parties, CAA has a section for each political party, and dedicates pages to individual members and sometimes ex-members, where it lists what it calls antisemitic ‘incidents’. ... The unequivocal interpretation of the examples is also evident in a message that Luke Akehurst MP, the Director of an organisation called ‘We Believe in Israel’ and a member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, sent to British local authorities. Cushman (2017) shows that Akehurst circulated an edited version of the IHRA definition without telling his recipients that it had been edited. ... Many observers attribute such sleights of hand to pro-Israel advocates seeking to clamp down on people who criticise the conduct of the Israeli government (see for example: Winstanley 2020; Stern-Weiner and Maddison 2019; Stern-Weiner 2021b). One of the original drafters of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, accused right-wing Jews of weaponising it. According to Stern’s testimony, these advocates have been enormously persistent in their quest to close down free speech on Israel in the USA: ‘The Zionist Organisation of America (ZOA) and other groups will hunt political speech with which they disagree and threaten to bring legal cases’ (Stern 2019). Further on in this article, we show in greater depth how the IHRA definition has been instrumentalised to shield the Israeli government from criticism as well as to falsely frame pro-Palestinian activists as antisemitic. ..."
← ZScarpia 00:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
BobFromBrockley I think you should add the words alleged antisemitism to your statement. This is wikipedia. Thank you. Pngeditor ( talk) 21:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
So
Arbitrarily0 just closed an RfC on the title and changed the name of the article by making it lower case, after one editor suggested that 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]"
. As no other editors actually commented on the capitals, it seems to me important that we check there is consensus on this. I absolutely oppose "anti-Semitism" which is a term that, despite being favoured by Microsoft Word autocorrect, is no longer widely used in reliable sources. (See
Antsemitism#Usage.) I am agnostic on the new lower case version. I had assumed that the upper case form was more commonly used, but looking at the search results linked by
Selfstudier above, I was surprised to see most of the results used the term in a lower case form.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 14:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I've created an article about the Nexus Task Force. How do I cause it to have the "Part of a series on Antisemitism" box? Thanks Misha Wolf ( talk) 01:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a pre-RM discussion, not a move request.
I'm surprised the above RM failed. This definition is widely colloquially known as the "IHRA definition", far more rarely as the "IHRA working definition", and almost never as the "working definition". It's true among universities: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]; government bodies: [8] [9]; activists: [10] [11]; news outlets: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]; and scholars: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. The term "IHRA definition of antisemitism" is much more recognizable ( WP:CRITERIA), and seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME. DFlhb ( talk) 10:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Suggested edit ... Criticism ... Spelling of Anti-Semitism without a hyphen is an attempt by IHRA to erase the definition of Semitism ... "policy or predisposition favorable to Jews"
"The IHRA’s concern is that the hyphenated spelling allows for the possibility of something called “Semitism,” which not only legitimizes a form of pseudo-scientific racial classification that was thoroughly discredited by association with Nazi ideology, but also divides the term, stripping it from its meaning of opposition and hatred toward Jews"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Semitism
‘JUDEOPHOBIA’ VERSUS ‘ANTI-SEMITISM’: THE ZIONIST SCHEME
https://imemc.org/article/the-law-of-return-and-the-zionist-campaign-to-subvert-science/
2601:444:300:B070:C400:B2D4:8181:4DBC ( talk) 16:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @ Kire1975. There is a problem in the para you've added, which makes the meaning unclear. I don't know the facts so can't correct it but hope that you can and will. The problem is in the second (and very long) sentence:
The bill was introduced by Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) and lead by co-sponsors Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), and Representative Sara Jacobs (Democrat-San Diego), who is Jewish, said that she opposed the bill ...
The comma after "(R-Ohio)" indicates that Sara Jacobs supported the bill but the subsequent words indicate that she opposed it.
Please clarify. Thanks! Misha Wolf ( talk) 14:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
This story either from this source or another should be included. Zero talk 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Working definition of antisemitism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
A fact from Working definition of antisemitism appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 November 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
All academic, government and scholarly sources seem to refer to this one as the IHRA working definitionThis is false as even a cursory search will demonstrate. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Res Publica - Jan Deckers, Jonathan Coulter - "What Is Wrong with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Definition of Antisemitism?" [2], 11 May 2022. ( https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-022-09553-4)
( Res Publica: "A peer-review journal of legal, moral and social philosophy focusing on normative analysis of theoretical, practical, and public issues. The journal publishes work of established scholars, as well as those at the beginning of their careers, in both Western and non-Western settings.")
"We conclude that the definition and its list of examples ought to be rejected. The urgency to do so stems from the fact that pro-Israel activists can and have mobilised the IHRA document for political goals unrelated to tackling antisemitism, notably to stigmatise and silence critics of the Israeli government. ..."
"Whilst it is important to note that the IHRA decision-making body, the Plenary, did not include any of these examples in the definition and that its member countries were only able to reach a consensus on adopting the definition by excluding the examples, the published document that contains the definition nevertheless contains these potential ‘illustrations’. In this regard, Stern-Weiner (2021a, p. 4) finds that the ‘senior IHRA officials and pro-Israel groups’ that were involved in the publication of this document ‘have misrepresented the IHRA Plenary’s decision in order to smuggle into the Working Definition examples that can be used to protect Israel from criticism’ and pressurised governments and other organisations to adopt it. Such pressure has been particularly evident in the case of the UK government (2016), which formally adopted the definition in 2016. In October 2020, Gavin Williamson (2020), Secretary of State for Education in England, urged higher education institutions to follow suit in adopting the definition with its examples, writing that the ‘definition helps us better understand and recognise instances of antisemitism’. Most significantly, he threatened to suspend funding streams for universities that did not sign up to the definition (Adams 2020; Harpin 2020). ..."
"Despite the IHRA’s recognition that some examples are not necessarily indicative of antisemitism, those advocating for Israel typically refer to the list of examples as unequivocal instances of antisemitism, using a simplistic matching process: they match the behaviour of the accused to one of the examples, without considering context and whether the motivation is truly antisemitic. This can be seen very clearly on the web pages of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA 2022), which has assumed the mantle of monitoring and enforcing the implementation of the IHRA definition in the UK. It particularly focuses on ensuring compliance by the political parties, the universities, and local authorities. In the case of the political parties, CAA has a section for each political party, and dedicates pages to individual members and sometimes ex-members, where it lists what it calls antisemitic ‘incidents’. ... The unequivocal interpretation of the examples is also evident in a message that Luke Akehurst MP, the Director of an organisation called ‘We Believe in Israel’ and a member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, sent to British local authorities. Cushman (2017) shows that Akehurst circulated an edited version of the IHRA definition without telling his recipients that it had been edited. ... Many observers attribute such sleights of hand to pro-Israel advocates seeking to clamp down on people who criticise the conduct of the Israeli government (see for example: Winstanley 2020; Stern-Weiner and Maddison 2019; Stern-Weiner 2021b). One of the original drafters of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, accused right-wing Jews of weaponising it. According to Stern’s testimony, these advocates have been enormously persistent in their quest to close down free speech on Israel in the USA: ‘The Zionist Organisation of America (ZOA) and other groups will hunt political speech with which they disagree and threaten to bring legal cases’ (Stern 2019). Further on in this article, we show in greater depth how the IHRA definition has been instrumentalised to shield the Israeli government from criticism as well as to falsely frame pro-Palestinian activists as antisemitic. ..."
← ZScarpia 00:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
BobFromBrockley I think you should add the words alleged antisemitism to your statement. This is wikipedia. Thank you. Pngeditor ( talk) 21:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
So
Arbitrarily0 just closed an RfC on the title and changed the name of the article by making it lower case, after one editor suggested that 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]"
. As no other editors actually commented on the capitals, it seems to me important that we check there is consensus on this. I absolutely oppose "anti-Semitism" which is a term that, despite being favoured by Microsoft Word autocorrect, is no longer widely used in reliable sources. (See
Antsemitism#Usage.) I am agnostic on the new lower case version. I had assumed that the upper case form was more commonly used, but looking at the search results linked by
Selfstudier above, I was surprised to see most of the results used the term in a lower case form.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 14:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I've created an article about the Nexus Task Force. How do I cause it to have the "Part of a series on Antisemitism" box? Thanks Misha Wolf ( talk) 01:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a pre-RM discussion, not a move request.
I'm surprised the above RM failed. This definition is widely colloquially known as the "IHRA definition", far more rarely as the "IHRA working definition", and almost never as the "working definition". It's true among universities: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]; government bodies: [8] [9]; activists: [10] [11]; news outlets: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]; and scholars: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. The term "IHRA definition of antisemitism" is much more recognizable ( WP:CRITERIA), and seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME. DFlhb ( talk) 10:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Suggested edit ... Criticism ... Spelling of Anti-Semitism without a hyphen is an attempt by IHRA to erase the definition of Semitism ... "policy or predisposition favorable to Jews"
"The IHRA’s concern is that the hyphenated spelling allows for the possibility of something called “Semitism,” which not only legitimizes a form of pseudo-scientific racial classification that was thoroughly discredited by association with Nazi ideology, but also divides the term, stripping it from its meaning of opposition and hatred toward Jews"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Semitism
‘JUDEOPHOBIA’ VERSUS ‘ANTI-SEMITISM’: THE ZIONIST SCHEME
https://imemc.org/article/the-law-of-return-and-the-zionist-campaign-to-subvert-science/
2601:444:300:B070:C400:B2D4:8181:4DBC ( talk) 16:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @ Kire1975. There is a problem in the para you've added, which makes the meaning unclear. I don't know the facts so can't correct it but hope that you can and will. The problem is in the second (and very long) sentence:
The bill was introduced by Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) and lead by co-sponsors Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), and Representative Sara Jacobs (Democrat-San Diego), who is Jewish, said that she opposed the bill ...
The comma after "(R-Ohio)" indicates that Sara Jacobs supported the bill but the subsequent words indicate that she opposed it.
Please clarify. Thanks! Misha Wolf ( talk) 14:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
This story either from this source or another should be included. Zero talk 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)