Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:38, 11 March 2012

Merge

The FRA is direct successor to the EUMC, as the MC was the successor to the previous commissions. This is a simple expansion of mandate with the same structure, director, location etc. Essentially the same org under a different name, even inherited the same website. There isn't much detail beyond the two reports. They are doing the same work, hence it would be helpful for the information to be found in the same place. Would save re-categorising EUMC page as a defunct agency. -JLogan 10:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree - it's the same organisation, simply changed its name. Its website says it: "From 1 March the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) became the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)." Confusing to have two separate entries.No-itsme 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism report controversy

Should be some mention in this article about how the release of the EUMC antisemitism report was controversially held up, apparently over objections to mentioning leftists and Islamists as sources of antisemitism... AnonMoos 17:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, be bold (but of course NPOV and please cite if controversial). - J Logan : 18:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EUracism.jpg

Image:EUracism.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map pointer doesn't display properly for me, although every other one I've seen does. For me it's closer to Munich than Vienna. -Oreo Priest 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

fixed, that okay?- J Logan : 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

Link (to FRA/EU) in footnote #5 is dead. Mondeo (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of dead links to the FRA website, as well as outdated information, particularly in the Publications section. Will fix/update this (NB: I work for the FRA - please see my profile page). Mooseboy (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

More attribution is needed

Especially for the views in the (now) last section. E.g., Jakob Cornides seems to be this guy. Some of the other criticism appears to be WP:OR or come from sourced below the radar of WP:RS/WP:UNDUE (but I could be wrong.) More WP:INTEXT is needed. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

EUMC Working definition should be balanced to give a more accurate reflection of the original.

This section gives WP:UNDUE to that part of the EUMC draft Working Definition: that refers to anti semitism that could be directed to the State of Israel. This section " Aside from the usual definitions of hatred toward Jews and physical manifestations thereof," is much much shorter than the section that relates to the State of Israel. The EUMC document actually contains two sections that allot equal importance to antisemitism against Jews, and antisemitism against the State of Israel. This problem previously occured with the similar section in antisemitism. I propose to adopt the same solution that was adopted in that article. The section on the State of Israel will be cut down to a precis, that more closely matches the prominence given to that of anti semitism against Jews. Other posters have previously pointed out in antisemitism that large chunks of text should not be taken directly from a source, and that should apply here as well. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It would make more sense to lengthen the other section here, since this is the primary article on the document. And please learn how to format your comments. That includes, but is not restricted to, putting your signature immediately after your comments, rather than on the next line. Jayjg 20:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I will add more detail into the other section, but I note that your advice here directly contradicts that you gave in the anti semitism article, where you were against including large quantaties of text directly from the original. For may information, why have you suggested that both sections should not be given as a precis here? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the advice that you give on signing appears to your opinion, and not a rule. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The "advice" I gave about not leaving your signature dangling at the beginning of the next line, unattached to anything, is "my opinion, not a rule"? Please review meta:Don't be a dick. Jayjg 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My view is that this page should have reasonable amount of space devoted to all elements of working definition, while antisemitism page should simply have very limited precis. Note that the WD does not distinguish between "antisemitism against Jews, and antisemitism against the State of Israel", but rather notes that the former is sometimes expressed in terms of Israel.BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Following the suggestions above that more space be given to the section of the EUMC document that discusses examples of antisemitism that are not presently included, I have added in a precis of these examples. The text was taken from antisemitism, so it should be acceptable, but I am happy to discuss if anyone wishes to change it.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this trivia added by DLDD to the article:

On 13 October 2005 European Jews for a Just Peace, a federation of Jewish groups in ten European countries, wrote to the EUMC expressing its concerns over the 'working definition of antisemitism’. They claimed that NGOs and prominent academics who should have been consulted were not consulted, and raised several concerns with the 'working definition.' Beate Winkler's reply for the EUMC stated that the draft guidelines and working definition were ‘work in progress’, and would be reviewed in the light of feedback received, and that EJJP were welcome to comment on them.

This is an overview of the entire Fundamental Rights Agency. In an article that already devotes too much space to the FRA's definition of antisemitism, why would we want to devote even more space to a couple of letters that were allegedly sent regarding it in 2005? Do a bunch of reliable secondary sources make reference to this exchange of two letters? Jayjg 05:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It does seem like WP:UNDUE. It's just a couple of letters, sent years ago. If it's notable, where are all the reliable sources that discuss it? Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For some reason DLDD added it again. DLDD, the section is already, by far, the longest section in the entire article. Why do you insist on lengthening it with this trivia? Where are the reliable secondary sources that indicate this is significant in any way? Jayjg 18:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

this is the only source here that shows in the words of the FRA that this definition is work in progress and that it is open to further discussion and amendment . It is far from trivia, the response from Beatte Winkler is the most important part of this section. It shows the real worth of the working definition, I.e work in progress, incomplete, and open to amendment, and further consultation. To call this trivia is nonsense. The response from Be is vital to understanding the WD. I am prepared to shorten the intro, but it should remain. It is the only comment from the organisation about the definition itself. It should not be downplayed in a POV manner.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

allegedly, what a shocking POV statement to make, let us see you back that one up?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand; which reliable secondary sources discuss this two letter exchange between these two individuals in 2005, and therefore establish its significance and meaning? Are you saying there are none? Jayjg 22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

what do you mean by allegedly?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

I don't understand how your comment responds to mine, or what your question has to do with article content. Jayjg 01:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:USERGENERATED or WP:USERG the letter by Beatte Winkler clearly meets the definition of acceptable self-published material, and its importance is such that is should be included. Why have you not responded to my points that this demonstrates in the words of the most important organisation involved, that this WD is work in progress. This is vital to an understanding of the significance of this working definition. If neccesary then shorten something else, but this should be included. There is no point in including lots of detail about a definition that is declared, (by the only body who can make such a declaration) to be unfinished, incomplete, i.e work in progress.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you still haven't answered the question. This is an overview of the entire Fundamental Rights Agency, and the section on the Working Definition of Antisemitism is already longer than any other section in the article. You are now proposing to add even more material to that section, a brief correspondence between two individuals in 2005. Which reliable secondary sources discuss this two letter exchange between these two individuals, and therefore establish its significance and meaning? Misplaced Pages is not interested in your personal view that it is important, but rather requires that significant and importance be established by reliable secondary sources. Please name those sources. Jayjg 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to make a personal claim that this is an exchange of letters between two individuals, that statement of yours is OR, and not based on the letters themselves.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This section is on the working definition of the EUMC/FRA. The importance of the topic of this working definition is provided by the sources within the section itself. It is purely your OR and your opinion that each reference within that section has to be individually shown to be worthy of inclusion by the provision of secondary sources relating to that reference. Each section only has to show that is RS, and is important enough, by virtue of its contents, and claims to be included. To illustrate why your argument is not correct, we would have to provide secondary sources for the sections containing arguments by Brian Klug, Paul Igansky, and David Hirsh to show that these sections were worthy of being included, as by your argument the fact that they are RS references, which relate to the topic, is not in and of itself, sufficient to allow them to be included.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't invert Misplaced Pages's requirements; Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. Please provide those reliable secondary sources. Jayjg 23:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

sorry but you are the one who is inverting Misplaced Pages's requirements. The topics notability has already been established, by secondary sources. The topic is the working definition, the letter from Beatte Winkler relates to that topic, as do the other references in the article. The need for secondary sources relates to the topic itself, not each reference on the topic. This is just OR on your behalf. I shall pursue this elsewhere, as you are merely repeating yourself.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The topic of these primary source letters has been established using secondary reliable sources? I think not. Jayjg 18:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

the topic is not the letters, it is the working definition. Since you do not seem to understand that, please specify what you mean by the topic. Will you accept RS that show that there is a view that that the EUMC/FRA have stated that the working definition is 'work in progress '? Will you accept that that view is important enough to be included here. I may of course want to add it elsewhere, as well.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a moot topic right now, because the FRA's definition is all about Israel/Zionism etc., and is therefore part of your current topic ban. I'm not going to report you to WP:AE, but please respect the terms of your ban. Jayjg 19:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

strange that you did not mention this before, but thank you for the concern, the ban is on the Palestine Israeli conflict, which is not related to this article. I shall post a suggested wording, and sources here. It can always be posted to the article later once agreed.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The section in question is about the FRA's definition of antisemitism, and states:

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

However, the document stated that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

The material is obviously related to the I-P conflict; indeed, that has been the sole reason you have spent months trying to downplay and debunk the FRA definition. The ban extends to Talk: pages and discussions of related articles. While the topic ban is in place, please don't post here or anywhere else about the FRA definition of antisemitism again, or you will be brought to WP:AE. Jayjg 21:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

as you have often stated, do not discuss my motives. Comment on the article.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

Working definition of anti semitism

The claim in this section that the 'working definition has been adopted or is used by a number of European and other organisations ...including the UK's All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism', is directly contradicted by the All-party inquiry into Antisemitism: government response One year on Progress Report. This report noted that the UK Government’s position was that the definition remained a work in progress that has not been recommended to Member States for adoption. See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-5pY7s_slUIC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=eumc+working+definition+work+in+progress&source=bl&ots=2KK3wo7c2b&sig=oXlImkoC742C178gz7wnFdDA0Ks&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GXBOT6qyF8rv8QPbveXyAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=eumc%20working%20definition%20work%20in%20progress&f=false The reference to this claim on the All Party Parliamentary Group against AS, is broken. Therefore I propose to remove the claim that the working definition has been 'adopted or is used by' the All Party UK PG against AS. I will also add the link above to show the documented status of the working definition as work in progress, and state that the FRA have not recommended it to European Member States for adoption. Note also that the EUMC in evidence to the International Development Committee of the House of Commons of the UK Parliament had previously stated that the definition was work in progress and was not recommended to states for adoption. See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1Ra5O3OrrCsC&pg=PP5&lpg=PP5&dq=eumc+working+definition+work+in+progress&source=bl&ots=MYLbtv7z4T&sig=NPVUQjkSIzGWvLS2WzoQ-vkIZRk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5nBOT4_UI4eg8gOX36ThAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=eumc%20working%20definition%20work%20in%20progress&f=falseDalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

1. http://jfjfp.com/?page_id=24515