Talk:Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2021
✅

Edit the article to reflect that Macalester College Student Government yesterday adopted the Jerusalem Declaration, one of the (or the) first in the country to do so. Aditionally, earlier in November University of East Anglia and Queen Mary University London Student Unions both adopted the Jerusalem Declaration. Sources: University of East Anglica Queen Mary University London Macalester College Student Government

It also included 15 guidelines divided into three sections, that seek to aid in the identification of antisemitism and give examples of antisemitic speech and conduct with regard to Israel and Palestine that are and are not antisemitic.ImChessFan21 (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

One occurrence of an improperly unqualified use of "antisemitic" in the text
In "examples of antisemitic speech and conduct with regard to Israel and Palestine that are and are not antisemitic", the first occurrence of "antisemitic" introduces a prejudice on what is being claimed in the other occurrence only at the end of the snippet, contradicting its "are not" part.

Proposed change: "examples of *assumed* antisemitic ... that are and are not *actually* antisemitic, respectively". Blizzy.cz (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2024
Under the 'criticism section' please do not bury the lead by using the JDA to defend the IHRC definition (which Hirch's JC piece does but which is not cited properly). Instead, lead with actual critique of the JDA itself, as many Academics, Institute's, Organisations have, and continue to articulate. (Happy to rewrite this section - but need to be given privileges to do so as the page is locked.)

-Senior Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh: https://jewishcurrents.org/the-jerusalem-declarations-fatal-flaw?fbclid=IwAR0sEiIpTyxpMtygnG5h3V3aJgJNqXZuXAQlh37EFyJK45P1gwwKqFhFuqE

-https://bdsmovement.net/A-Palestinian-Civil-Society-Critique-JDA

-https://palestinecampaign.org/psc-response-to-the-jerusalem-declaration-on-antisemitism/

-https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/apr/24/un-ihra-antisemitism-definition-israel-criticism

THEREFORE: This section should be deleted or very least moved down. This would allow more balanced and recent opinions allowing the section to actually lead with criticism of the JDA itself, not used as a proxy for defending the IHRC definition.

In an April 2021 opinion article in The Jewish Chronicle, David Hirsh, a lecturer in sociology at Goldsmiths University of London, criticized the Jerusalem Declaration on the grounds that it "does not help the fight against antisemitism", and has a blind spot for antisemitism that originates on the political left. The JDA, he wrote, is flawed because it "asks institutions to affirm that BDS ... singling out Israel as uniquely colonial or apartheid, and saying that Israel has no right to exist, are not, 'in and of themselves', antisemitic", when, according to Hirsh, those things "are at the heart of contemporary left antisemitism".[17] Archaeoknowlogy (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I moved it down. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2024
In the section entitled '3.2 Criticism' the fourth paragraph ends with: Nelson also said that many amongst the signers of the declaration are "fierce and uncompromising anti-Zionists who cross a line into antisemitism", including Sergio Luzzatto, a historian at the University of Connecticut who believes the medieval blood libel was true.[20][21]

change "who believes the medieval blood libel was true" to "who, according to Nelson, believes the medieval blood libel was true"

Note: the references provided are not written by Luzzatto and are not validated as accurately representing his views alQpr (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Sirdog (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Lede lacks sourcing, not in line with MOS
The entire lede paragraph lacks sourcing: The declaration was positively received by a cohort of Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives who urged the U.S. State Department to use it alongside the IHRA definition. In its response to the Representatives, the State Department reaffirmed its support for the IHRA definition and did not take any steps to adopt the JDA. The declaration has been criticized on multiple grounds: A common refrain is that by seeking to rebut the IHRA definition, the JDA undermines consensus and sets back the fight against antisemitism. The declaration has also been criticized for sidelining the issue of antisemitism by seeking to engulf it in the fight against all other forms of racism and discrimination. Its reputability has been questioned, given that a number of its signers have been accused of antisemitism. MOS has this to say about this: Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. ... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. This looks like a controversial subject to me, and the protection it's under is evidence for this. It would be reasonable to expect more sourcing here. Glassface (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Which of these statements would you deem controversial? As far as I can tell, the claims here are simple statements about the occurrence of something, and/or summarize things already present in the article. I have added citations for the State Department episode, but gathering all the citations for the criticism summary is a lengthy task–which I'd wager is why these statements lacked direct citations to begin with. TucanHolmes  (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of these statements are quite strong. I'd think at least the last two sentences would benefit from references. You obviously have more experience on wiki than I do, and I'm happy to defer to your opinion here if you disagree Glassface (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)