Talk:IHRA definition of antisemitism


Requested move 23 March 2025

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Working definition of antisemitism → IHRA definition of antisemitism – WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME. This move has been discussed in 2022, but matters have changed. إيان (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—Relisting. WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Jewish history and WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration have been notified of this discussion. Lewisguile (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Common name and more precise.
Rafts of Calm (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, since "working definition of antisemitism" is too ambiguous (because whose working definition is it?). If I open an encyclopedia, and I want to know what a "working definition of antisemitism" is, I expect one of:
(a) A general treatment of the characteristics of working definitions of antisemitism, or
(b) A redirect to the entry for the specific working definition of antisemitism this title is referring to.
I think in this case, considerations of precision and neutrality outweigh common name arguments, since this article title implies there is only one working definition of antisemitism (which is obviously false). In most reliable sources, especially contemporary sources, its mention always goes together with the body that is using it as its working definition (because, again, it would be weird to read about a working definition without knowing the organization, or umbrella of organizations, that are using it as their working definition). TucanHolmes (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As this was closed after seven days with only two responses, I raised this with the original closer who said it was fine to reopen and relist instead here. Lewisguile (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was a week oppose in 2022 because I thought that the history of the definition in the years before it was adopted by the IHRA would become obscured by putting that in the title. I also thought that others’ argument that having an acronym in the title is confusing to be quite compelling. I would be more relaxed about a change now though, because I think its common name has slowly shifted; it is definitely more frequently called “the IHRA definition” than it used to be. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't make a formal !vote, simply because I requested the relisting and I don't want to cause any trouble or bias the discussions. More voices would generally be better here, though, and will avoid arguments further down the line.
If there isn't any actual opposition in a week or so, I will relist one more time, and then would be happy to re-close per the previous editor (or someone else can). Lewisguile (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. To my understanding, the proposed title is more recognisable. Zerotalk 15:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The sources that I’m familiar with generally refer to the “working definition”. A source review might be helpful. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Weak oppose). A move has previously been proposed and rejected. The most compelling argument I saw above was the scope of the article is both the EUMC and IHRC definitions, not just IHRC. A smaller objection was using a little known acronym in a title. But I think that can be adequately addressed by putting the full name near the top of the lead. -- Bob drobbs (talk)
I think this has definitely changed with the passage of time. The EUMC is now defunct, and its successor organization, the FRA, has cleared its working definition from its official documents. This is now just the "IHRA working definition of antisemitism". I could only find two recent sources which refer to the "EUMC working definition of antisemitism", and only in a historical context as precursor to the IHRA definition. To reemphasize my point from above, I think it's weird and a potential neutrality violation to have an article about a specific working definition of antisemitism be labeled "Working definition of antisemitism" instead of "IHRA definition of antisemitism". TucanHolmes (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cursory research based on your comment and found your argument convincing. My opposition which was weak to start with has been removed. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"non-legally binding"

I note recent edits by @Lenny Marks and @Lewisguile who disagree about whether, in the article intro, we should call the definition "non-legally binding". I tentatively support either removing those words or providing a solid and recent source specifically stating that it remains universally true across jurisdictions that the definition is not enshrined in law.

I don't think the rationale given for keeping the characterisation - that "other jurisdictions can decide what they want, but it's not binding per IHRA" - makes sense as a reason to say it is "non-legally binding" in the intro. Yes, the IHRA says this, but all they mean is that their publication of the definition does not, in and of itself, have force of law. But since it was published, states have "adopted" it (whatever that means!) and it's not at all obvious whether any of those "adoptions" have in some sense made the definition into binding law in those states. If they have, then it's simply not universally true any more to say that the definition is not "legally binding". Without a citation clearly establishing that the definition hasn't been made binding law in any country, I don't think the statement that it's non-binding should remain in the article (at least not in Wikipedia's voice - we can of course say that the IHRA characterise it as "non-binding").

The only reason I hesitate to just rip it out is that it's really not clear to me at all whether the definition really is "binding" in any sense in any states that have "adopted" it. So maybe it really is a universally true claim even if it's not adequately cited right now?

For instance, when we "adopted" the definition in the UK it appears to me that this consisted purely of the Government putting out a press release stating that we adopt the definition, with no actual legal effect. In some other countries the adoption was done via the legislature (e.g. Guatamala) but even there it's not clear to me whether it had legal effect or was symbolic. @Lenny Marks, your edit summary seems to suggest that you understand it to be binding in some jurisdictions; which ones? Can you provide sources that establish this? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been endorsed in universal law? Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're possibly reading too much into those words in the opening. At that point in the lede, we're merely talking about the definition which the IHRA itself adopted as its own "non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism". We are just describing it in the way they say the definition is for them at that point. (Bearing in mind they didn't author the definition in the first place.) This has no bearing on whether other jurisdictions consider it legally binding or not, because it isn't a statement about whether it's legally binding anywhere else.
It's also been stable text with consensus for a long time, so I'm hesitant to remove it over what seem to be misunderstandings. If it's unclear, we can certainly discuss clarifying this, but I think the wording is relevant, as that's how they describe it and it's the wording they specifically voted on ("Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism"). Lewisguile (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few times you've talked about "other jurisdictions" as if the IHRA itself is or has a jurisdiction in which the definition could be or not be "legally binding". But surely it does not? The IHRA has no laws or courts or ability to impose its will on anyone.
It seems to me that when they say it's not binding, they don't mean it's not legally binding "for them" as you suggest (what could that possibly even mean?); rather they are trying to make clear, for the sake of anyone unfamiliar with the IHRA and the powers its member countries grant it, that their publication of a definition does not cause it to become law in any of its member countries. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(In any case I think the fact that we cannot agree on what the phrase we're copying means, or was intended to mean in the original source, is in itself a good reason not to include it in Wikipedia's own voice, though of course it would be proper to retain a quotation of it at least somewhere in the article.) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ExplodingCabbage, have you read the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance article by any chance? That would clarify most of your concerns, I think, and avoid the need for assumptions.
The IHRA is an intergovernmental organisation, made up of representatives from multiple countries. So when they voted on it, they were agreeing that the definition wasn't legally binding for member states at that point in time.
If a member state (or any other body) subsequently declared the definition as legally binding, that has no bearing on whether it was adopted by the alliance as non-legally binding. The moment of adoption is important for the "origin story" of the definition because, as I mentioned earlier, it wasn't authored by the IHRA — the moment when it became notable as the "IHRA definition" wasn't its drafting/first publication, as with most documents, but the moment it was officially adopted by the IHRA plenary.
But to return to @Slatersteven's question upthread, are there even any countries which have made it legally binding? If not, then it's a moot point either way. If so, then that can be clearly expressed in the part where we talk about official adoption by those countries. Lewisguile (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most obvious alternative to the current wording would be to present the full history and context, like so:
In 2016, the members of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an intergovernmental organisation, adopted the working definition of antisemitism as a non-legally binding statement to help them identify antisemitism in their home countries. Commonly known as the IHRA working definition of antisemitism (IHRA-WDA) or the IHRA definition of antisemitism, the definition was first published in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a European Union agency. Accompanying the working definition are 11 illustrative examples, seven of which relate to criticism of Israel, that the IHRA describes as guiding its work on antisemitism.
This is obviously more wordy, but should clarify your concerns and remain accurate. What do you think, @ExplodingCabbage and @Slatersteven? I prefer the current text but am always happy to compromise if there's consensus to do so and we don't lose accuracy. Lewisguile (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is a summary, the first line of the lede is (kind of) a summary of a summery, for nuance, you are expected to read the article. Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And we do already mention several bodies that have adopted the definition, so I think the current opening is fine. Lewisguile (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a proposal that actually cuts words, while at least mitigating my concern by putting "non-legally binding" inside a quote from the IHRA:
The IHRA definition of antisemitism is a "non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism" adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016.
I think this at least carries a clearer implication that "non-legally binding" 1. is the framing of the IHRA and 2. relates to the IHRA's adoption of the definition, not whatever other states have done in regards to it. (I know @Lewisguile thinks these points are clear already; I continue to disagree.)
Would you two approve of or at least be ambivalent to such a change? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the article calls them an "intergovernmental organization" (which is also what they call themselves), and that label often implies some sort of actual power over member states granted by treaties... but the article does not describe any such treaty or any such powers, nor any examples of them wielding power in any way. I think I understand from your comments that you believe the IHRA representatives could, if they had wished to, have passed a legally binding definition that the member states would have been compelled to adhere to - but I can find absolutely no hint that the IHRA actually holds such power, or any real power at all, and I continue to strongly doubt that they do.
I agree that the status at the moment of adoption by the IHRA in 2016 is important for the origin story, exactly as you say. The problem is precisely that in the first sentence we frame what we are saying as being about the status now, not at that moment in 2016; we say, in the present tense, that The IHRA definition of antisemitism is the non-legally binding statement defining antisemitism that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (emphasis mine). ExplodingCabbage (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the powers IHRA holds. It's about the expectations of the signatories and their own constituents.
Have you been at those sorts of meetings where a diverse group of stakeholders have to vote on a statement like this, despite wildly different aims and viewpoints? It's hard. In order to get people to agree, you add caveats to clarify or hedge things.
So when it says "this is non-legally binding", it's future-proofing so that member states won't later be pressured by their own constituents (or rival politicians) to treat the definition as if it were, or ought to be, legally binding. If it hadn't included that wording, those states may not have signed up to the statement at all. They added it so it was clear that this is an endorsement, not a requirement, and it wouldn't come back to bite them further down the line.
As to the suggestion of quote marks in the lede, it seems odd and doesn't really fit with WP:SCAREQUOTES as it is. It would require some in-line attribution to clarify who's saying that, I think.
I have no problem with us finding some way to say "when IHRA adopted this, they did so as a non-legally binding working definition", but the trick is getting the wording right so it's not clumsy or unwieldy.
I do keep coming back to the same question, though: is there any evidence of it being legally binding anywhere? Because if there isn't, then the statement isn't untrue anyway, even if it's being misunderstood. But obviously, I think we would all prefer to avoid misunderstandings too.
If I get chance, I'll take a look on Google Scholar and see what experts say about the "non-legally binding" thing. That may help us. Lewisguile (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search brought me this:[1]
One of the most frequently mentioned, but rarely explained, claims about the IHRA Definition is that it is "non-legally binding". The Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism describes it that way. The U.S. Department of State does as well, as does the U.S. Department of Education. The European Commission concurs. Virtually every other authority does too.
This is a pretty solid statement that most bodies call it non-legally binding. That article cites all those statements, which is helpful for us. It also focuses on the non-legally binding character of the definition in detail, so is a good place for us to start looking for further clarity.
On p. 1275, it says that IHRA adopted the definition as "non-legally binding" because all of its statements are, and also because it doesn't impose any obligations on member states. It also points out that the IHRA-WDA is not unique in this sense, as statements such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights were also non-legally binding statements.
It goes on to argue that it may have legal weight in certain US states and places like Romania, much of which is voluntary, which suggests we might want to cite that opinion in the article somewhere—though notably, we'd need multiple RSes to say the same thing for it to go at the top of the lede and/or in Wikivoice. But this is a good place to begin any exploration of how legally binding it currently is. Lewisguile (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case it helps others, I note that there is a publicly-available version of the cited paper available at https://brandeiscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/8marcuspdf.pdf. (I assume it's not a pirate copy given the source.) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Coming back to this, one way to add explanation to the lede without going overboard on the prose might be to add an endnote? We could then explain what's meant by "non-legally binding" there. Or we could clarify with something like "non-legally binding for [IHRA] member states"? That would require a slight rejig in the wording. Lewisguile (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an endnote for now, @ExplodingCabbage. Hope that works. Lewisguile (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly an improvement (and the note is written excellently with good choice of supporting/explanatory quotes), but I still don't think the characterisation of the definition as "non-legally binding" should be there in Wikipedia's voice at all given that
1. RSes (like Marcus) dispute the characterisation, and
2. the note is essentially clarifying that when we say the definition is "non-legally binding" we simply do not mean that, but rather mean that one particular adoption of it (that by the IHRA in 2016) was not legally binding.
If after writing something, we have to put in an endnote saying "actually, we did not mean the thing we just wrote", then it means we wrote the wrong thing in the first place - and that's true even if authorities we're citing made the same error in their own writing. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Actually, I slightly retract my praise for the supporting quotes - I had not noticed that Whine 2010 predates the IHRA's publication of the definition, and so is of questionable relevance when evaluating what the IHRA means by "non-binding". The Marcus quote is directly relevant and clear, though.) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a shot at making the meaning of "non-legally binding" clearer in the prose itself, and noting in the lead that the definition is in fact used in law by some states, while trying to avoid bloating the lead. Thoughts? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagree. The explanation didn't contradict non-legally binding, but explained on whom it doesn't bind. You've also added lots of material that isn't otherwise in the body, which a lede shouldn't do.
There is lots of legal discussion in the article body itself, with multiple lawyers and judges who say it isn't legally binding or shouldn't be. One person saying it is doesn't show a consensus among experts, and that same source says that most other sources say it is non-legally binding.
"Inclusion in law" is also vague. Do those laws say it should be considered, or do they say specific things in the definition are banned? The major issue, as per the legal criticism subsection, is that it isn't written as if it should be legally binding. It's full of maybes and so on. Lewisguile (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started making further edits to make this work, but couldn't so have temporarily reverted this. My suggestion would be to do something like this:
In May 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a "non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism", also known as the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
This keeps it short and sweet. Then perhaps we can add a new section to cover the legal stuff? If that ends up being a major section, it can then of course be covered in brief in the lede. Lewisguile (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have gone back over previous posts and have done the following:
  • Added your suggestion of speech marks, but hopefully in a way that is clear this is attributed to IHRA.
  • Clarified the note to add some of the different sources on legality. We should definitely address this in its own subsection, though, as this is a stopgap.
  • Condensed the naming stuff, which was admittedly getting clunky.
I think this may be an acceptable compromise. What do you think? Lewisguile (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your continued attention and work on this; we disagree on many points but I think we will ultimately find something mutually acceptable, even if it's a bit tedious, and the article will be the better for the productive conflict over it.
My comments (sorry for their length and do not feel obliged to reply in similar detail):
  • The explanation didn't contradict non-legally binding, but explained on whom it doesn't bind - I don't agree with this framing. Even states are kind of bound by the definition to the extent that they have made it law and are bound to follow their own laws (though I realise there are almost certainly different philosophies/frameworks for how to think about whether domestic laws can be said to "bind" the states that make them). IMO we're not explaining who is bound; we're explaining which particular act of publishing and adopting the definition was non-binding.
  • You've also added lots of material that isn't otherwise in the body, which a lede shouldn't do & perhaps we can add a new section to cover the legal stuff? - yeah, agreed. As my first step when I have time to return to this I'll work this stuff into the article body, hopefully with some proper detail about the law in Romania that Marcus tangentially mentions).
  • "Inclusion in law" is also vague - kind of intentionally, because details differ between jurisdictions. Do those laws say it should be considered - some of them (though, as Marcus tells it, in US law the term of art "considered" really puts a more concrete requirement on officials than its plain English meaning would suggest. or do they say specific things in the definition are banned? - well, sort of - laws incorporating the definition will generally outlaw expressing antisemitism in a certain manner or context (like Romania's distribution on distributing antisemitic propaganda), or doing some non-speech act with an antisemitic motive (e.g. violent hate crimes), then require that the definition be used to evaluate whether "antisemitic" component of the offence is satisfied. I don't think anyone is claiming that antisemitism itself nor any of the examples of expressions of it are outlawed outright in any jurisdiction.
  • The major issue, as per the legal criticism subsection, is that it isn't written as if it should be legally binding. It's full of maybes and so on. - that's an issue, but I don't think it matters to the content we've disagreed about. Whether it's advisable for the definition to be legally binding is a different question to whether (or rather in what particular ways and contexts) it is legally binding. That we currently discuss the former in the article but mostly neglect the latter is a gap in the article that I will try to remedy. (In particular it is odd that we include Gould's characterisation of the definition as a "quasi-law" but don't mention any of the literal binding statute laws that explicitly require it to be applied; IMO this implies by omission that such laws don't exist, which - unless Marcus is really distorting things - is false.)
  • Added your suggestion of speech marks, but hopefully in a way that is clear this is attributed to IHRA. - I think this is probably an improvement although I do also think your WP:SCAREQUOTES concern earlier was valid.
  • Debate continues as to the extent of its current legality in those jurisdictions where it has been adopted - I think "legality" is the wrong word here; it makes it sound like the debate is about whether the definition is "legal" or "illegal" (i.e. contrary to domestic law), rather than whether it's legally binding or not. I also question whether there really is a debate per se; does anyone dispute, for instance, the legally binding nature of the definition with respect to the Romanian antisemitic propaganda law or Iowan antidiscrimination law? I have not seen any actual dispute so far in any sources about any such substantive questions of law. To the extent that there is a debate, I think it's a semantic one, about whether the definition is properly characterised as legally binding (much as our debate on this Talk page has heavily been about semantics).
I won't touch it for the moment - step 1 for me is finding time to modify the article body, after which we can come back to discussing the lead - but I suggest the endnote would be better if that second sentence were simply dropped entirely.
  • Condensed the naming stuff, which was admittedly getting clunky. - thanks; glad we can find at least one thing to agree on. :D
  • It's orthogonal to the "legally binding" argument, but I continue to think we should delete the sentence about the EUMC from paragraph 1 of the lead, given that we repeat exactly the same fact in paragraph 2 of the lead. (This was one of my edits to slim down the lead that got undone in your rollback; I'm not sure if you noticed it specifically.)
  • You also undid my unrelated removal of the (variously either redundant or outdated) paragraph in the main article about France and Ireland; I am guessing this was a mistake and you didn't intend this, and will redo that particular edit now.
Cheers! -- ExplodingCabbage (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick reply to say I'll respond properly tomorrow. France and Ireland was indeed a mistake, and I agree that it feels like we're inching closer! In the meantime, I can't find a lot on the Romania thing. IHRA published this and then removed it from its website: https://web.archive.org/web/20180819030433/https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/news-archive/romania-adopts-special-legislation-combatting-antisemitism
Also, it would be helpful to find more people than Marcus for the "pro" side of the legal argument. Marcus' article essentially says, by my reading, "it may not be formally legally binding in most places, but its usage amounts to legally binding-ish, in certain cases (except for Romania)", and I actually don't think that contradicts others who've described it as quasi-legal.
Also also, some of the legal stuff in "Criticism of the examples" would be better placed in the new section, as it's not all strictly about the examples. So consider moving that up into the relevant part? (Or I can when I get chance.)
I've gotta dash, but didn't want you to think I was ignoring you! Lewisguile (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus' article essentially says, by my reading, "it may not be formally legally binding in most places, but its usage amounts to legally binding-ish, in certain cases (except for Romania) - I think this slightly understates what Marcus says. As I read it he says it's outright unambiguously binding in Iowa antidiscrimination law (as in, explicitly required by statute to be applied), in addition to Trump's EO being "binding-ish" on federal agencies.
I will try to find the actual statutes from Romania and Iowa, sanity-check that they appear to say what Marcus says they say, and cite them in addition to Marcus's article. Additional secondary sources would be nice too if I can find them. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The key corollary, I think, is that Marcus argues they amount to being legally binding. So ideally, we need multiple RSes that agree with him, otherwise we're limited to saying "Marcus says..." If that makes sense? Even if you're reading it more firmly than I am, it's still just one view.
I actually came back in case I needed to write a longer reply, but actually think we covered most of it yesterday. My one addition being something which is included in law isn't necessary legally binding. For instance, if a law goes beyond the powers of the person enacting it, or if it is uninterpretable or unenforceable, then it may be non-legally binding even if it's "law" (if that makes sense?). Laws also include material that is, essentially, an appendix or supplementary material. So "consider this in your deliberations" may or may not be legally binding, which is why we really need more than just Marcus' view on this.
Other than that, I'm not entirely sure where to go next on the lede but I am going to take a stab at removing repetition re: EUMC. I think we should still mention EUMC at the top because they wrote the original version of the definition, but we don't need to go overboard with detail. Lewisguile (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation

I've been notified that an opinion article I wrote, which is cited on the page, is being misrepresented. I'm cautious about editing content relating to myself, but I would ask that someone look at this sentence: "The report was welcomed by some Jewish organizations but criticized by others. It was criticized in several quarters for a chilling of free speech particularly as to Israeli government policies, and a “Trumpian” threat to the independence of universities and arts organisations." and check the references actually support the statement. Mine certainly does not, it says the report is "critical" as in important. If that is considered a notable opinion, it should be cited in support of the report and the definition. - Oboler (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andre. I did understand your word 'critical' in the way that you say. I just found it difficult to cite the most significant commentaries while distributing them among the notes. I have moved the citation of your work to an earlier place, where there is no suggestion that you oppose the report. Errantios (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2025

In para three, add the following after "controversy over": "--and dissatisfaction with--" such that the article conforms more to the source listed, and is more accurate -- the other definitions were developed to improve upon the IHRA definition, as it was thought to be unsatisfactory, not just controversial (though that too).

Second suggestion would be to change "becoming the first Muslim" to "became the first majority-Muslim-identifying" in the second para under "Adoption" heading, which is some way down; namely in the sentence "In October 2020, Albania becoming the first Muslim country to formally adopt the IHRA-WDA." Albania is a secular state, but it does have a small majority of its citizens identifying as muslim. Djpmccann (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Changed "Muslim country" to "Muslim-majority country". Please gain consensus for the lead change. Shapeyness (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "13 examples" that were separated from, but form still a key part of the controversy here, should be listed explicitly under a subheading ("Examples accompanying IHRA text") under the quoted text (in section: "Text")

It makes only partial sense to the average reader to include the full text of the definition in the wikipedia article, but leave out the substantive reason the controversy arose, namely the examples. It also tends to over-imply a problem of vagueness of the definition itself is, as so much of the 'work' in understanding the admittedly imprecise definitional text is (and must have been intended to have been) done by the examples. Djpmccann (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of the IHRA definition have themselves said that the examples are an integral part of the definition rather than just an addendum to it. And those examples (or at least certain ones) are the primary source of controversy about the definition. As such, it's simply bizarre for the article about the IHRA definition to never say what the examples are. The argument that the examples can be found by clicking on one of the citation links doesn't hold water, because the purpose of citations is verification. If an encyclopedia article fails to deliver readers the most basic information about its subject, what purpose does the article serve? — Red XIV (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came to the talk page here to request the same. Given the extensive discussion on the page itself of how the examples have been a source of controversy, and that the examples are an integral part of the definition (the reason it's called a working definition, rather than just a definition) it makes no sense that they aren't listed. Is the above an official edit request @Djpmccann? If not I'll make one. 152.115.77.18 (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Added the list. Errantios (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that @Lova_Falk has removed the examples citing that to copy the definition in its entirety constitutes a "copyright violation". Evidently notice was made to the talk page about this change
I propose that the examples should be re-added. As others above have noted, they are essential to the definition ans without them the page is confusing.
Including the examples seems to be normal practice on other websites that show the definition.
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/canada-holocaust/antisemitism/handbook-definition-antisemitism.html
https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/
At the very least some of the most controversial examples should be replicated in the wiki page. ~2026-10565-3 (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Working_definition_of_antisemitism