Talk:IHRA definition of antisemitism

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Edit proposal

Can the sentence:

Critics say the definiton can enable the weaponization of antisemitism to stiffle free speech regarding Israel.

Be corrected to:

Critics say the definition can enable the weaponization of antisemitism to stifle free speech regarding Israel. Mad.siberian (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Done - thank you. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Opening para

Re this bold edit, by يان, MoS:OPEN says: The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states that the list covers "harmful aspects of human activity on the biophysical environment". It doesn't say that criticisms need to mentioned in the opening para, which would be totally undue. The criticism para of the lead should have an introductory sentence, rather than moving that up to the opening para. I won't revert unilaterally, as I don't want to raise the temperature, but I think this needs consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.

What context could possibly more relevant per RS coverage than the controversy regarding its conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism? إيان (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

That controvery's not the context which "surrounds it". I take that to mean what you need to know to understand what you're reading. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

What exactly does a reader understand about the current relevance of the IHRA definition without that? إيان (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you've got this the wrong way around. The controversy about the definition is what they learn about in this article not what they need to understand in order to read it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

So you're saying that, for you, the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is not central to "the context in which the topic is being considered" or the "set of circumstances or facts that surround" the IHRA definition? إيان (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Correct, and I also think it's not NPOV for the article to make it seem central. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

When you submit a query for IHRA definition of antisemitism, what do you see?

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL إيان (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

When I look on Google on the first page I see 9 sites where UK institutions (government, police, universities, etc) adopt or showcase the definition as part of their EDI policies, plus one lawyer's critique. What point is this supposed to convey? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Google results aren't universal, so I’m not able to see the results you see. I could be mistaken but I’d venture that each of those sources addresses the conflation of antisemitism with criticism of Israel or opposition to Zionism, which has been central to media coverage and debates around the definition as allies and supporters of Israel have pushed for its adoption during the genocide. What about scholarly results? إيان (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

well interestingly if I search Google scholar, I get exactly five critiques and five defences on the first page. If I filter to post-2022 I get different hits but the same ratio.

G(oogle itself, yes it's affected by geography etc. Here in the UK my first hits are our WP article then https://www.met.police.uk/notices/antisemitism/antisemitism-and-how-we-define-it/ and then https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-governments-adoption-of-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism/ then a US source https://www.ajc.org/the-working-definition-of-antisemitism (the 10th hit is the first to talk about anything like conflation https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/ihra-definition-antisemitism-not-fit-purpose )

Google News first 10 includes 1 opinion piece criticising IHRA (not an RS), two news items noting criticisms (of which 1 is an RS), four op eds advocating for IHRA (of which 2 = RSOPINION), and three news items that treat it as uncontroversial (of which 1 = RS). So, pretty inconclusive but definitely not leading me to change my mind. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Stuff like what the Metropolitan Police say about how they define antisemitism is WP:PRIMARY sourcing for our purposes here. What concerns us is not critiques or defences to the effect of 'IHRA def good' or 'IHRA def bad'. Our job is not to evaluate the topic but to describe it. My contention is that virtually any RS actually covering news of the IHRA, whether journalistically or academically, will address the matter of considering certain descriptions of Israel and its conduct or policies as antisemitic. This is the dominant element among the "set of circumstances or facts that surround it" and the essential "context." إيان (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

At this point, I’m just repeating myself. I disagree with your contention. The journalistic coverage I get when I click on Google news mostly does not mention this. I think you’ve got it the exact way round. Let’s see what if anything other editors say. For the moment I just do not consent to your change, so you need other editors to support the change for it to be considered consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You haven’t provided a single WP:SECONDARY source in support of your POV. The links above include statements from institutions or organizations explaining and defending their adoption of the definition. The Doughty Street source appears to be an inferior source but it does address the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It appears that all of the sources you’ve listed in the discussion topic below address the matter. I’ll post on the NPOV noticeboard though. إيان (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Posted here. إيان (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should be starting with Government uses as those are part ofcthe same political knot, especially in the cases of the UK and US relationships with Israel. The first question should be how does the Academy position the context of the IHRA definition. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

how does the Academy position the context of the IHRA definition—incontrovertibly in relation to the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, whether arguing that it is legitimate to do so or not. إيان (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

“how does the Academy position the context of the IHRA definition“ is adequately covered in the lead, with a whole paragraph nicely summarising the controversy. That’s not in dispute. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

What is my POV that I need to provide a secondary source for? I’ve asked for a revert to the stable version. I’m not asking for a POV to be inserted. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

That the discourse around the conflation of criticism of Zionism or Israel with antisemitism is somehow not the primary/dominant among the "set of circumstances or facts that surround [the topic]" or its essential "context," apparently. إيان (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

How can secondary sources prove an absence? This isn’t a content question. It’s a policy question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• While I understand the argument for criticism to be moved to the first paragraph as it's obviously a significant aspect of the definition's notability, I think it reads better in the third paragraph, which is wholly dedicated to covering said criticism. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.

  I have not been convinced of how the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is not the defining context/circumstance/fact surrounding the topic per near unanimous coverage in reliable secondary sources. This is not mere criticism from the side; this is the central matter of discussion regarding this topic. إيان (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm open to rephrasing, but there is no way this is not the main context/circumstance/fact surrounding the topic. إيان (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• I have come here from the NPOV thread. I agree with Bob and Beluga that the information is due for the lead, but not the first paragraph. BobFromBrockley's statement That controvery's not the context which "surrounds it" accurately summarizes why the info is out-of-place. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Since this view is being repeated without evidence, I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: there hasn’t been a secondary RS cited yin this discussion yet that doesn’t address this aspect of the definition. It is central to why it is being adopted and it is central to the debates surrounding it. إيان (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  How on earth could a secondary source say something like this? Nobody is disputing that the definition is controversial. The objection to putting it in the opening paragraph is based on policy (WP:OPEN and WP:NPOV)) and stylistic concerns. If you have a secondary source supporting your change feel to provide that here. In the meantime, thank you for reverting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  BobFromBrockley, as I’ve said before, every source you listed below addresses this aspect of the definition directly. Is it or is it not the most relevant piece of contextual information, per WP:WEIGHT of coverage in RS? And if you somehow contend that it's not, then what is and based on what? (Here is where you would need significant RS coverage to show that it’s in fact something else.) إيان (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  We’re just repeating ourselves here. Most of the sources mention the controversy which has slowly ensued since the definition was written, yes, but they do not do so in a way which suggests this is the context you need in the opening paragraph of a Wikipedia article in order to understand the rest of the lead. We adequately summarise this controversy two paragraphs later. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  So you finally agree that it is the central piece of context, but you disagree with addressing it in the first paragraph because it is not needed in order to understand the rest of the lead. I couldn't find anything about in order to understand the rest of the lead in MoS:OPEN, which, again, just says:

  The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states that the list covers "harmful aspects of human activity on the biophysical environment".

  This in order to understand the rest of the lead criterion does not appear to come from any Wikipedia policy. إيان (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  So you finally agree that it is the central piece of context. No. Absolutely not. How did you manage to misread me that badly? I said controversy ensued from the definition. I’ll let other editors comment on our interpretations of our opening paragraph policy as I don’t think this is productive. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  I asked you directly: Is it or is it not the most relevant piece of contextual information, per WP:WEIGHT of coverage in RS? And if you somehow contend that it's not, then what is and based on what?

  Somewhere in your response, you included "yes"—if this is not your response to the above question, could you please answer the above question directly? إيان (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  YES most of the sources MENTION the controversy which has slowly ensued SINCE the definition was written, BUT NO they do not do so in a way which suggests this is the context you need in the opening paragraph of a Wikipedia article per WP:OPEN. The controversy has sufficient weight for the lead but not for the opening paragraph, because it is NOT part of the CONTEXT in which the topic is being considered or the set of circumstances or facts that SURROUND it. If you want to persuade me and other editors it IS, then the onus is on you to SHOW this. Clear? BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• I definitely consider it part of the context. There are other defnitions of antisemitism that don't have all its trouble. A lot of the article deals with the issue. It is a distinctive feature of the definition that its examples cause so much trouble. Leaving it out at the start is like saying a leopard is a big cat without mentioning it has spots. NadVolum (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the size of the text in article, and what it's supported by, mention of the criticism is due for the lede, and I see no problem with it as it stands at the time of writing, being summarised in the final paragraph of the lede. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Butterscotch Beluga, PositivelyUncertain, Simonm223, as other participants in this discussion, could you please respond to the question?

Is the conflation of criticism of Israel or Zionism with antisemitism the most relevant piece of contextual information, per WP:WEIGHT of coverage in RS? And if you somehow contend that it's not, then what is and based on what? إيان (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

{Actually the question is: Is the opening para fine now or is it missing some relevant piece of contextual information due in that para? That is, if you somehow contend that it's not, then you're not obliged to specifiy what is and based on what. Note the opening paragraph already mentions the fact that seven of the examples relate to criticism of Israel, which obviously is key, and the third (longest) para of the lead summarises criticism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually that's clearly not my question. I can ask my questions and you can ask yours. إيان (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok so here's how I look at it. I'd be fine with putting this in the second paragraph rather than the first. But I think, if we do that, then we should also move 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 to the same paragraph as the discussion of conflation. This is because the preponderance of examples related to criticism of Israel is the principal reason for the critiques that the IHRA conflates these two points. I think both the examples discussion and the conflation discussion belong together. I don't think either needs to be in the first paragraph. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying any content should be moved up to the second paragraph. My contention is simply that per MoS:OPEN's policy that the first paragraph "should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it," some mention of this conflation and resulting disputes is WP:DUE in the first paragraph per predominance in RS. This is the definitive aspect of the topic in RS.

At this point, the examples have become an afterthought. Advocates for the IHRA definition, from Donald Trump to the Anti-Defamation League to the Israeli government have been abundantly clear about their desires to suppress criticism of Israel because they consider such expressions to be antisemitic and they believe adoption of the IHRA definition supports that. إيان (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Considering Mr. Trump's penchant for comments that can perceived as antisemitic I would question that his advocacy is in good-faith. Especially since, per one of my absolute favourite books on far-right discourse, a hallmark of far-right discourse is, in fact, bad faith with bad faith discussion of Jewish people being literally the prime example. As such, while due in the body I'd keep Mr. Trump out of the lead. Honestly I think the world would be a marginally better place if more news media companies took the same view. With that being said, having reviewed the situation, I do think the best solution is to house both discussion of criticism of the IHRA and the 11 examples line in the second paragraph of the lead. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding—Trump's advocacy is clearly in bad faith, but unfortunately earnestness has little bearing on influence and his pronouncements are regrettably still quite influential. إيان (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Steinberg

I removed this citation from the opening para, along with another (rival) partisan academic source as I think there's no need to overload the opening para with contentious opinions. The other source is amply quoted elsewhere in the article but I'm pasting this here for reference in case anyone thinks they have a (preferably attributed) use for it:

• Steinberg, Gerald M. (2022-12-01). "The Central Political Role of German Left Actors in the Campaign to Replace the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism". Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism. 5 (2): 67–82. doi:10.26613/jca.5.2.116. ISSN 2472-9906.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Academic sources

Having glanced at Google Scholar in relation to a debate up the page, these are the top hits that aren't used in the article, might be worth checking:

• Gordon, Neve (2025-09-26). "Antisemitism and Zionism: The Internal Operations of the IHRA Definition". Palestine and the Western Academe. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003610120-4. ISBN 978-1-003-61012-0. [author cited but not this text]
• Hirsh, David (2021-01-26). "It was the new phenomenon of Israel-focused antisemitism that required the new definition of antisemitism. David Hirsh responds to a recent 'call to reject' the IHRA". Fathom. Retrieved 2026-05-08. [author cited but not this text]
• Deckers, Jan; Coulter, Jonathan (2022-12-01). "What Is Wrong with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's Definition of Antisemitism?". Res Publica. 28 (4): 733–752. doi:10.1007/s11158-022-09553-4. ISSN 1572-8692.
• Porat, D., Quer, G., & Naamat, T. (2021). The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism: Criticism, Implementation, and Importance. INSS Special Publication. [author cited but not this text]
• Harrison, Bernard; Klaff, Lesley (2021-02-17). "In Defence of the IHRA Definition". Fathom. Retrieved 2026-05-08. [author cited but not this text]
• Klaff, Lesley; Spitz, Derek (2021-02-28). "Why the 2010 Equality Act does not make the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism redundant". Fathom. Retrieved 2026-05-08. [author cited but not this text]
• Shanes, Joshua (2022). "The Politics of Defining Antisemitism". Shofar. 40 (3). Purdue University Press: pp.188–198. ISSN 0882-8539. JSTOR 27368760. Retrieved 2026-05-08. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• Rich, Dave (2023-08-16). "On Misrepresentations of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism". Mapping the New Left Antisemitism. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003322320-33. ISBN 978-1-003-32232-0.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Fathom does not appear to be an academic publication but an organ of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, so I'm not sure what it's doing in your list. I've implemented the sources above that have DOIs. إيان (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said, I simply pasted the top hits from google scholar. These are texts by some of the most prominent antisemitism scholars in the UK. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Note though that the academic analysis section you added the other examples to includes several op eds and even letters to the Guardian, which I presume you don’t want to remove. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Why do you presume that? I originally added the academic publications to a new section but saw that there was already a relevant section, though I didn't look deeply into its contents. إيان (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Btw removing the quote marks (the phrase omitted the word “Working” which is often used in the proper name) adds these hits to the first couple pages:

• Bogle, Jonah Jehoshua Jürgen (2022-12-19). "Contemporary discourses on general definitions of antisemitism: A review article". Nordisk judaistik/Scandinavian Jewish Studies. 33 (2): 38–48. doi:10.30752/nj.122689. ISSN 2343-4929. Retrieved 2026-05-11.
• Weitzman, Mark (2019-11-05). "The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism". Comprehending and Confronting Antisemitism. De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110618594-035. ISBN 978-3-11-061859-4. Retrieved 2026-05-11. ()
• Marcus, Kenneth L. (2025-09-26). "The Legally Binding Character of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Anti-Semitism". Lewis & Clark Law Review. Retrieved 2026-05-11.
• Murray, James (2025-04-01). "Legal Challenges for English Universities in the Adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism and Associated Examples". Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism. 8 (1): 1–22. doi:10.26613/jca/8.1.180. ISSN 2472-9906. Retrieved 2026-05-11.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

feel free to add with the same standard of attribution—abstracts/conclusions should be enough to give the gist إيان (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Parking couple more, RSs which report academic/expert takes:

• Desiatnik, Shane (2026-05-14). "Antisemitism expert calls IHRA definition 'essential'". The Australian Jewish News – AJN. Retrieved 2026-05-18.
• Kroll, Ben; Nechin, Etan; Benjakob, Omer; Hasson, Nir; Solomon, Esther; Scheindlin, Dahlia (2025-12-09). "Why This Historian Thinks How We Define Antisemitism Right Now Is Destructive". Haaretz. Retrieved 2026-05-18.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Critics have described it as a persuasive definition

In the lead: Critics have described it as a persuasive definition

Pinging Onceinawhile who added it, Adam Harangozó who removed it, and إيان who reinstated it.

As far as I can see, only one critic has described it in this way, Susan Blackwell (Background on her: tl;dr is she linked to an antisemitic 911 truther website from her personal website, which might be relevant.), so it is something we should attribute to her personally and not to generic “critics”. But I really don’t think this is due in the lead, especially given we don’t even mention it in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If it is only one person, should it be in the lede? Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I fully reset to the status-quo as of the originally removed edit. If we're looking at the phrase it should be in its proper context. This is notwithstanding whether I think it's the right construction. Just didn't want to see us discussing something that was half-status quo and half novel summary. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Here are two more people. Kire1975 (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Different concept: “positional definition”. And just a passing mention, so definitely not during the lead. Would be worth looking at the Hitchcock text they cite though, to see if it’s worth mentioning in an analysis section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hitchcock, David (December 2024). "Defining Antisemitism". Topoi. 43 (5): 1635–1646. doi:10.1007/s11245-024-10109-9. ISSN 0167-7411.

A positional definition takes a position on an issue that the use of the term being defined raises. Some writers (e.g., Schiappa 2003) hold that all definitions are political, in the sense of having policy implications; his claim applies to definitions of the term ‘antisemitism’, which in its current usage has a strong negative connotation and can be used to suppress speech, especially that critical of actions of the state of Israel. One and the same definition can at the same time report (correctly or incorrectly) how a term is used, stipulate how the definer proposes to use it in a specified context, and take a position on an issue raised by the term. The main issue with the term ‘antisemitism’ is what criteria are to be used to determine whether a particular act or statement is a manifestation of antisemitism. In other words, according to the reportive definition just endorsed, does it express hostility or prejudice directed against people taken to be ethnically Jewish? A positional definition addressing this question can be revisionary, either narrowing the extension of the term ‘antisemitism’ or broadening it or doing both simultaneously, in different respects. (If the proposed criteria for prejudice or hostility are called ‘true antisemitism’ or ‘real antisemitism’, then the definition will be what Charles Stevenson (1944) called a “persuasive definition”.) An important general point about definitions is that an accurate reportive definition of a term does not necessarily provide a criterion for determining what is correctly labeled by the term being defined. The mathematical logician Alfred Tarski makes this point about his famous definition of truth; he notes that his paradigm case of the definition of the term ‘true sentence’ for an axiomatized theory of class inclusion:

… does not give by itself any general criterion for the truth of a sentence. This is not, by the way, at least from the methodological viewpoint, any defect of the definition under consideration and it does not differ, in this respect, from a significant portion of the definitions which can be encountered in the deductive sciences (Tarski 2006, 197; translation modified to fit the Polish original2 ).

A definition of antisemitism that provides a general criterion for determining whether a statement, action or feeling is antisemitic would address the issue of what counts as antisemitism. So would a definition that includes detailed scenarios illustrating antisemitism and illustrating non-antisemitism, and perhaps borderline scenarios. Since the point of labelling something as ‘antisemitism’ is to condemn it as morally reprehensible, any such provision of a criterion or of scenarios would ultimately require ethical justification (Hitchcock 2021, 71–73).

إيان (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

continuing:

There are at least two elaborate widely endorsed positional definitions of the term ‘antisemitism’, one (AJC 2023, 8–9) adopted in 2016 by a resolution of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA 2024), the other published in 2021 by a group of researchers as “The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism” (Anziska et al.n.d.).

The IHRA definition defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews” (EUMC 2011, IHRA 2024). This perception “may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”. The definition identifies the targets of antisemitic speech and behaviour as Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property and as Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. It goes on to describe examples that “could, taking into account the overall context”, be antisemitism. Apart from inclusion in one example of helping to kill or harm Jews in the name of a radical or extremist view, these examples are confined to kinds of speech. Although widely endorsed, including as of July 2023 by 43 countries (AJC 2023, 6–7), the definition has many flaws. The genus of antisemitism is speech and action, not perception. The phrase “a certain perception” is vague. There is no mention of antisemitic feelings that are weaker than hatred. It would be better to have examples that are definitely antisemitism and to include more examples of non-speech antisemitic actions. The examples focus too much on statements about Israel. The definition lacks examples of things that are not antisemitism. For details of the IHRA resolution and its evaluation, see the Supplemental material S1.

إيان (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The article also comes with a supplement on the IHRA and Jerusalem Declaration definitions. إيان (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I just want to be clear - the Hitchcock source is entirely discrete from the Blackwell source? Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you need clarified or why. Yes, they are distinct publications and neither cites the other. إيان (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

So Hitchcock doesn’t use the term

persuasive definition for the IHRA definition. I have no objection to a brief summary of what he does say about it going in the body, perhaps alongside a brief summary of Blackwell. I maintain my strong objection to this material going on the lead. Given the voluminous academic and political commentary on the definition, it would be perverse to spotlight these particular recent contributions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I said the Blackwell source can be attributed and go in the body a while ago. You said would be worth looking at the Hitchcock text they cite though so I shared the relevant portion of that source. إيان (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I said the Blackwell source can be attributed and go in the body a while ago. Glad we are in agreement. So I can move that sentence down without breaking revert and affirmatory consensus rules? (You've said it should go in the body, but I am still not clear you are happy for it to be removed from the lead.) If I do, obviously feel free to add detail from Hitchcock.

You said would be worth looking at the Hitchcock text they cite though so I shared the relevant portion of that source. Yes, I know, and indeed I am grateful. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

For sure. إيان (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Cool BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Does this comment meet WP:BLP expectations? I was not able to find anything about 911 truther website in the linked article from 23 years ago, which describes allegations from the Board of Deputies of British Jews (which does pro-Israel lobbying and has advocated for the adoption of the IHRA definition). In any case, it's published in an edited academic volume. It can be attributed and go in the body, though Blackwell builds on prior assessments:

Ullrich (2019:8), citing Pawłowski (1980:18), designates the IHRA text as a stipulative or regulating definition, meaning that

with this definition we partly keep to the meaning that this expression already had in the language L and partly depart from this meaning, e.g. in order to more sharply determine the conceptual scope of the expression E. (Pawłowski 1980: 19)

I would go farther, and argue that it conforms to Stevenson’s (1938, 1944) description of a persuasive definition, as developed by Aomi (1985).

According to Aomi, there are four requirements for a persuasive definition to be effective:

1. The word being defined has strong emotive connotations.

2. The descriptive meaning of the word is vague and ambiguous enough to be semantically manipulated.

3. The change of meaning by redefinition is not noticed by naive listeners.

4. The emotive meaning of the word remains unaltered. (Aomi 1985:187, cited in Walton 2001) Persuasive definitions often play a role in public political discourse.

This material seems it should be represented in this article. إيان (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

No objection to it going in the body. Will check what I said about the truther site and strike if I’ve got that wrong. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks folks. For the record: I have no objection to making changes to my revert earlier today if a consensus arises. As I said above I was mostly wanting to make sure what we discussed was full-context on status quo ante. Simonm223 (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

We could move the sentence to the academic analysis section and attribute (“described by—-”). BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Re the BLP issue: “Sue Blackwell, who had links from her personal Birmingham University page to www.whatreallyhappened.com, a website propagating conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks, notably that Israel was their true perpetrator. This is a throwback to classic Jewish control and conspiracy theories.” “In October 2002 the Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote to the university demanding that they sever the university's link to the website of Sue Blackwell, an English lecturer. They said links from her site led to images glorifying suicide bombing and comparing Israel to Nazi Germany.”

obviously not suggesting this article mentions that sort of thing but I think it’s worth taking into consideration when deciding if this is an best source BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The 9/11 conspiracism is alarming. The other stuff... I've seen enough sociologist get tarred with those sorts of brushes for doing things like having functionalist accounts of political violence and denouncing genocide to be overly worried notwithstanding the 9/11 thing. Simonm223 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The source in question is published in an edited volume from a Springer Nature, a reputable publisher. The ad hominem smear stuff from decades ago from advocacy groups with a clear conflict of interest in attempting to tie her to claims she doesn't appear to have specifically made or endorsed does not appear to be relevant to our evaluation of this 2021 publication. Many scholars held as infallible by some have said and done outrageous things. إيان (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It is not ad hominem to point out that someone’s credentials as an expert on antisemitism might be called into question when they have a previous record of promoting antisemitism, even if inadvertently, (perhaps especially if an inadvertently if we want to consider them a serious scholar); the reputation of the author is always one of our considerations determining reliability.

I’m not clear which allegations you think are “smears”.

I don’t understand your point about conflict of interest. Surely you’re not saying we can’t listen to statements of Jewish communal bodies like the Union of Jewish Students or Board of Deputies in relation to antisemitism because they have a “conflict of interest” on that topic? Presumably you don’t want to ignore pro-Palestinian sources either, as they would have the same sort of “conflict of interest” in this inflated sense?

Anyway, I am not objecting to including this content with attribution in the body. I’m very convinced it is totally undue for the lead. And I just want people to be aware that this may not be a gold standard source, but admittedly there is a lot of other non-gold standard sourcing in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Nobody here said Blackwell is an an expert on antisemitism; she is an expert on forensic linguistics and critical discourse analysis—the relevant fields for the claim.

It is the definition of ad hominem to attempt to invalidate the content and claims of a source by attempting to delegitimize the author.

Surely you’re not saying we can’t listen to statements of Jewish communal bodies like the Union of Jewish Students or Board of Deputies in relation to antisemitism because they have a “conflict of interest” on that topic?—No, not because Jewish communal bodies but because they have a previous record of doing advocacy for Israel and promoting the IHRA definition, which is to say seeking to place criticism of Israel within the category of antisemitism. Also, I don't say we can't listen to them—just that their attempt to smear the scholar, as I said before, for statements she has not specifically made or endorsed does not appear to be relevant.

Presumably you don’t want to ignore pro-Palestinian sources either, as they would have the same sort of “conflict of interest” in this inflated sense?—This is the second time on this page alone that you have announced your presumptions about me (first here). Courteously, I recommend that you stop concerning yourself with me and just focus on the content. إيان (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I think for an article about definitions of antisemitism, experts on antisemitism are going to predominate among WP:BESTSOURCES, although I agree an expert on critical discourse analysis might be legitimately due in the body too. I am not trying to invalidate her: I'll repeat that I don't object to her being in the body. But I think this history is worth editors knowing about in making their judgements. Note the BoD and UJS of criticisms of Blackwell date from 2002 and 2004, so prior to the IHRA definition and I think also to the publication of the EUMC definition so they didn't have a previous record of promoting the IHRA definition, but I also don’t think that a previous record of promoting the IHRA definition invalidates a Jewish communal body from having something to say about anti-Jewish racism.

I apologise, however, for presuming you don't want to ignore pro-Palestinian sources; that was wrong of me. For me personally, though, it's important that both Israel advocates and Palestine solidarity advocates' views are reflected in this article where they have due weight per RSs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

What was wrong of you was speculating 'out loud' about an editor, period. It's inappropriate and it's beneath you, BobFromBrockley.

And we might have things we personally consider important, but what is important for our work on Wikipedia is representing the state of reliable sources, whether that conforms to any preconceived notion of a balance between both Israel advocates and Palestine solidarity advocates or not. إيان (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really the biggest fan of the state as Israel, I even once said, on Wikipedia, that I didn't think we should say in wikivoice that Israel has a right to exist (because I don't think states should have rights). Furthermore I'm somebody who is very big on the use of academic sources, especially in contentious topics. And I have to say: if the best source we have for a statement comes from someone with a history of promoting 9/11 trutherism they're probably not a very good source. That's a conspiracy theory. It's always been a conspiracy theory. And it's one that often involves Israel to boot. We should probably be looking for a better source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry if it seemed like I was speculating about you إيان. It was in fact clumsy attempt at the rhetorical device of reductio ad absurdum to try to show the point that dismissing Jewish communal organisations for a “conflict of interest” is not a good idea. However, I do believe that if this article reflects only the opinions of Israel critics or of Israel advocates it will in fact be unbalanced. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This is now way off topic and this is the last I'll say on this here, but regarding your narrative of dismissing Jewish communal organisations for a “conflict of interest” is not a good idea—once more, it's not because the allegations come from Jewish organizations, but because those organizations participate in advocacy for Israel and support the IHRA definition. Unfortunately, particularly in matters concerning Israel and Zionism, advocating for things that are not anti-Jewish racism to be considered anti-Jewish racism undermines one's credibility as a neutral arbiter of what is or is not anti-Jewish racism. إيان (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

You’re right we are off topic so this is also my last comment on this side issue but I feel the need to clarify that I have not accused you at any point of wanting to exclude Jewish sources because they are Jewish. If you look at the “because” and the “for” in my sentences I noted you said it was because you believe they have a conflict of interest not because they are Jewish. And that is what I am opposing. The ADL RfC close does not apply to British Jewish communal bodies. However, I agree that what sources advocate for counts towards and termination of their neutrality, and my original point was no more and no less than that someone with a record of sharing antisemitism cannot be deemed as having credibility as a neutral arbiter of what is or is not anti-Jewish racism, even if their critical discourse analysis scholarship is legitimate. That’s all I’m saying.

Now, we can give it a few days but so far it looks like there isn’t consensus's for including this concept in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The first source is a primary source (direct evidence submitted) and can't be used under WP:BLPPRIMARY. Katzrockso (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Which source is primary? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

oh, you mean the UJS testimony in the House of Commons is a primary source? Yes, that is correct and I’m not suggesting we cite it in the article, obviously. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Criticism vs analysis

I’ve restored the old name of the section for now. I’m not against turning it into an analysis section but simply renaming it is misleading: all of it is critical and much of it isn’t analysis. If it’s an analysis section, it needs to be balanced and also exclude denunciations that aren’t also analysis. One solution would be to turn the academic and legal sections into a balanced analysis section and keep a criticism section that includes the other stuff. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

إيان, any thoughts on this (as you introduced the heading "Analysis")? I'm not against using the new title if we edit the content accordingly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the article should move toward a more thematic taxonomy, with particular analyses integrated into the appropriate sections, including a historical timeline of developments regarding the definition, a section for the analysis of the definition itself (legal, theoretical, etc.), adoption, impact, etc.

Some have claimed I was sent by Hamas to make that change 🙄 but also that I somehow seek to "silence criticism of Israel"... go figure. Anyway, I was just combining the section I added based on sources you found with DOIs, thinking it doesn't make much sense to have Dave Rich's input under "criticism" (not that I think it presents much heavy-hitting analysis, either, but that's just my opinion). إيان (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Ugh that’s horrible. So sorry you have to put up with that. That other Wikipedia obsessive on X (Rindsberg?) called me a Hamas supporter there too. These people are not smart but they’re effective bullies. I hadn’t actually clicked you added Dave Rich, which you’re right shouldn’t go in a “criticism” section (as well as undermines the idea that you’re a pro-Hamas editor…). I strongly agree a more thematic taxonomy would be much preferable, but it would be quite a bit of work to do that re-organisation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe the first step is changing the academic and legal sections to “analysis” and leaving the sections below as “criticism” for the moment and then do it in stages. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a good plan. إيان (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok I’ve done the easy stuff BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry you had to deal with that too. إيان (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Without formal review

I've always wondered what this phrase means. Our source for it is Ken Marcus: the agency's Executive Director issued it without formal review by her political overseers. This gave the document a peculiar vulnerability to the winds of political change. Without the clarification "by her political overseers", which I guess means it didn't have sign-off from the agency leadership or the EU politicians?, readers would probaly assume this refers to some kind of peer review process. I've looked for other solid sources which use this phrase, and the only one I found is an education policy blog. Can I suggest we take those three words out of the lead, and leave them in the EUMC section of the body where we quote the full phrase from Marcus, as it seems undue and unncessary in the lead. I hope this isn't controversial, but thought it best to explain my reasoning rather than do it unilaterally and risk a hasty revert. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh they kept it as a working draft. That's something that, in my professional life, gives me trouble to no end. LOL

For those who don't know much about government bureaucracies who might be reading this: once something is approved as policy it's much harder to make changes to it. If you avoid the approval process by keeping it in draft you can change the document basically on your own recognizance and just call it a revision to the draft. And you can say that absent an approved policy you will use the draft on a go-forward basis. So, if I were trying to ascertain the significance of the formal review here, I'd want to start by looking at whether any RSes described the revision process to the definition. I am assuming such sources are absent? Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I've just spent rather too long on the sources that describe the drafting and what there is is now in the EUMC section, and there'e no detail on the internal process at the EUMC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Different topic, but I think "non-legally binding working" is bizarre where it is in the first sentence. Surely with certain recent adoptions it has become legally binding in some cases, no? It should at least make clear that whatever the relevant draft of it is describes itself that way. إيان (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

That’s a very good point. The note (a) says something a bit more complicated. Maybe delete the three words from the lead and use the notes in the IHRA section? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

typo in the second paragraph

The definition nwas first published

Can't edit myself because of protection. ~2026-29511-09 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing it out! ☾⟣✦Inzessin✦⟢☽^(talk) 19:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

11 Illustrative Examples

Would it be useful for a separate wikipedia page dealing with the 11 examples? Tiban250 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Not really, as 11 bullet points are not a major issue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Definitely not. If there is more to say on them, that should be covered in this article. No source has ever written about the examples without writing about the definition (and indeed many sources treat them as part of the definition). BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it should be here. I disagree with Slatersteven as the bullet points are the issue on which the definition is most attacked by its detractors. Zero^talk 07:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

IHRA “antisemitism“ claims as anti-Palestinian hatred

This perspective argued by Rutgers Law School should be presented in the article. https://csrr.rutgers.edu/newsroom/issue-briefs/

“The analysis presented here makes clear that the IHRA definition reproduces anti-Palestinian racism, exacerbates antisemitism, and serves as a tool of censorship of political speech, academic work, and civic engagement on matters of public importance, including criticism of Israel. A recent letter, organized by the Genocide and Holocaust Studies Crisis Network and signed by more than 1100 scholars – working in all fields, from doctoral students to senior professors, in universities large and small, public and private, around the world – calls for the rejection of the IHRA definition in law or policy.” ~2026-22318-49 (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

What does this say we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)