Template:Did you know nominations/Working Definition of Antisemitism


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Working Definition of Antisemitism

 * ... that the inter-governmental Working Definition of Antisemitism has generated controversy over its inclusion of examples of criticism of Israel? Source:
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Biblical criticism

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 11:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC).


 * Hi thanks for your review. I have now added the inline citations for the direct quotations. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - the hook is not neutral. The IHRA's definition is generally accepted by most in the field. What has generated controversy is UK's Labour fiddling with the examples provided by the IHRA for antisemitism. The controversy is Labour - as might be seen in Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party‎. Some of Labour's supporters have been critics of some points in IHRA - but that has been following the controversy. The citation used to support the hook is used out of context - it refers to a controversy involving the UCU, long accused of antisemitism, which attempted to change the definition of antisemitism (in relation the IHRA definition). The controversies here, if at all, are around groups accused of antisemitism who attempt to change the definitions used.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The citation refers to the 2011 UCU controversy in the UK and the 2011 AAUP-AJC controversy in the US. You have kindly mentioned the 2018 Labour Party controversy in the UK. I could also add the 2016-18 controversy in congress regarding the proposed Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. That’s already four separate controversies in two countries. The article contains further examples, and more could be added as necessary. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are two further sources: Professor David Feldman, Sub-Report for the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism, 1 January 2015, page 4: "However, the definition itself rapidly became a topic of controversy rather than consensus. The points at issue included what the status of a 'working definition' actually was, whether the working definition was an effective and coherent definition at all, and, finally, controversy dogged the application of the working definition to debate on the State of Israel and its policies. The criticisms have been damaging and the EUMC working definition largely has fallen out of favour."; and The Times of Israel, "Koren’s statement came as confirmation to reports, including by the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush, that Russia was the only country blocking the adoption of the definition, which is controversial because it lists some forms of hate speech on Israel as an example of anti-Semitism."
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Looking at the article again, I notice that it has a "Criticism" section but not a section for its supporters. For such a controversial topic, we should avoid even the appearance of partiality. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to determine if the hook and/or the article are impartial, so I'm requesting a second opinion on NPOV. Catrìona (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI at Talk:Antisemitism, the user above (Icewhiz) made the same argument re his view that there is no controversy, which was his rationale here for asserting that the hook is not neutral. That RFC is benefitting from wide participaion, so once it has finished it should be possible to assess consensus not just on the RFC question but also on how many other editors share Icewhiz's view that there is no controversy. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That RfC is a borderline NOTAFORUM violation that didn't suggest an particular content to the article in question.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The RFC is now closed. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Date and length OK. As for the hook, I note the views above however I personally do not see any imbalance in it, if the nominator wishes to amend it to mention the Labour Party's non-adoption of it, that is their right to do so but I have no issue with the hook as it is. QPQ is done, no close paraphrasing. Good to go.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The hook is decidedly not neutral, and is not supported by the citation. We can not say in our voice: "its inclusion of examples of criticism of Israel?" - as this is very much in dispute. Some people who object to the definition, including those who engage in speech considered antisemtic by the definition have said that it "confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine anti-Semitism" (note the quotation in the cited source). Others consider comparisons to the Nazis as antisemitic. The cited source itself (which was cherrypicked sentence by sentence by the nominator here - the quotation next to the hook reads nothing like the actual text in pages 20-21 (also miscited) - as individual sentences were picked out with no context) says right after the UCU quote (and this in its own voice - not quoting) - "The UCU motion itself was widely criticized, and some accused the union of attempting to extricate itself from accusations of anti-Semitism by changing the definition of the term". At the very least, "inclusion of examples of criticism of Israel needs to be attributed to those who object to the definition - and a neutral presentation would state that said Nazi comparisons are considered to be antisemitic by others.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * the only reference to Nazi comparisons in the Working Definition is the bullet point: "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
 * It is therefore captured already in the hook. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Putting this icon so that this can remain at the pending hooks page rather than approved hooks page, while the hook wording is sorted out. Do you have an idea on how to respond to Icewhiz's concerns? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No, we are done here, per User:The C of E also. I have looked over the material and the discussion here five times now, and Icewhiz's point is simply not valid. Is there controversy over the definition? Sure, there is some, and it's verified by a reliable source. Is the controversy over "criticism of Israel"? Yes it is. Is it valid criticism, or is it invalid because it comes from a group or out of a university system that is accused of antisemitism, one way or another, in possibly varying degrees of validity? Not our concern. Even if it were fringe, it's well-verified. No, it is time to send this on its way: it's been here long enough. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC) sorry to be a pain, but User:The Rambling Man has spotted bare URLs and issues with the references not being accurate. See. I have therefore pulled this from the queue for the time being, so the issues can be resolved. The hook can then be re-promoted. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for pointing this out. It has now been fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed up the last few harv ref mismatches so it's good to go again. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)