Talk:IHRA definition of antisemitism

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

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)

Edit request 31 August 2026 - Example wikitext not rendering properly

Description of suggested change: The IHRA definition of antisemitism § Examples area is not parsing correctly.

The wiki text needs to have the double braces after the below </ref> removed

... HeinOnline.</ref>}}
{{Quote frame|
* “Accusing the Jews as a people...

Also in the definition area IHRA definition of antisemitism § Definition

−

The text than continues by notoing that

+

The text then continues by noting that

Acousticnoun (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Australia update needed

The Oceania/Australia section needs to be updated to take account of (a) the reports anticipated and (b) criticism of the IHRA definition in a judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria acquitting an anti-Israel demonstrator (and see article on it in "Pearls and Irritations"), which the state of Victoria has decided not to appeal against. (Sorry: can't do this right now due to temporary illness.) Errantios (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 4 September 2026

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−

demial of [[self-determination]]

+

denial of [[self-determination]]

Abigail (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done by Cannolis AlphaBetaDeltaLambda αβδλ 21:28, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Miami beach

This material is undue, and it should no more have been reinserted than I should have done a second revert. I would ask any another editor to restore status quo unless I am off base here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'll reiterate my objection to similar things on similar articles: It feels like these articles are getting glutted with random things that happened to be on someone's social media feed, without any real consideration for whether it passes the WP:10YEARTEST or if it's really that significant to the topic as a whole. Individual towns passing symbolic resolutions are not each weighty enough to have a paragraph; and I also have concerns that this sort of ad-hoc addition encourages people to glut the article even more as every single resolution in support or opposition gets crammed in to make an argument in the article text. Perhaps we could combine this into one paragraph summarizing things from the perspective of a high-quality secondary source analyzing adoption and opposition as a whole, but one paragraph per resolution for every town that has weighed in isn't reasonable. --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe include a brief statement listing towns that have some involvement with it, but maybe not even that. The El Cajon part probably shouldn't be here either. Blippy1998 (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It seems odd to list cites; it also seems a bit US-centric. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It's the "United States" section. Blippy1998 (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but do we have a list of other examples of local councils adopting it (in other nations)? Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Have local governments in other countries adopted it? If not, we would not. If so, idk. I am not terribly keen on the idea of listing cities, as it would risk giving them undue weight unless worded carefully, but it has nothing to do with anything else. Blippy1998 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

In the UK, over three-quarters of local councils and combined authorities across England (including the London Assembly and Greater Manchester Combined Authority) have adopted the definition. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

That actually sounds pretty significant. It's probably worth mentioning that in the article if it's not in there already. Blippy1998 (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

But not as a list of each one. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Right, of course, listing 120 (I found the claim in the article) would be ridiculously verbose and serve little purpose. If you have a source for the 3/4 claim, you should consider adding it. Blippy1998 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

My point is (and it's the last time I will explain myself) that we should not treat the USA's adoptions as any more noteworthy. The list of American local councils should be removed; this is not Americapedia. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your conclusion (see my comments above) but the article as written does not treat American cities' adoptions as more noteworthy: if 120 cities adopt it, it would not be reasonable to list them all, but if 4 do, it would. Blippy1998 (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It is not only 4, 98 American city and county governments have formally adopted or endorsed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism., so this is even more undue. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Let's add a source for the 98 number and get it out of there, then. Blippy1998 (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Although if only those 2 states have adopted it, I might favor leaving in major cities of similar population to states. Blippy1998 (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I provided one that links to from their own website. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I was a bit confused, as it was just dropped in here unindented and unsigned, so I figured you were going to reformat it or add it to the page. For everyone's reference, the link is below. @ScottyNolan I imagine you agree that it would be unreasonable to list all American cities of similar or greater size to North Miami Beach that have adopted this. I think writing "37 states and [95/98] local governments as of 2024" - the report says 95 but the website says 98 - is better. It would add more context to say something like "As of 2024, 37 out of 50 states, plus DC - and [95/98] local governments, representing X% of the population, including LA and, as of 2026, Chicago - have adopted the definition, according to [source]." One could also add some combination of the below semi-major local polities, plus a note that says "local governments can overlap" or something to account for counties and cities and whatnot, meaning the X number might be an overcount in practice, either due to literally double-counting a county and a city or due to giving a false impression of a high level of representation, iykwim, by including, say, all of the city of LA's residents in X when the county of LA, which also represents them, has not adopted it.

Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties in Florida; Cincinnati; St. Louis County; Dallas, El Paso, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Miami, Snohomish County, Wichita

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oewGyFHsfkd3qcilJ9nZKHL4GoDtnEHo/edit?pli=1&gid=1270833039#gid=1270833039

Blippy1998 (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

A courtesy ping would have been nice as I was the editor who added the original content, and I did try to accommodate when the content was repeatedly removed. ScottyNolan (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

As I said after I self-reverted: 1RR applies to PIA pages and neither of should have made our subsequent edits which violated that policy. The difference here is that I self-reverted when I realized that. You did not. All that has happened subsequently is that another editor reset us to the status quo so that we can discuss. There's no rush to consensus here so you have a chance to make your point. On the topic of courtesy pings - I don't personally like being over-pinged and sometimes err in the direction of assuming people I'm editing with are looking at talk. My apologies if you expected different. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2026 (UTC)