Talk:Fundamental Rights Agency

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laurenekirk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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 ^t: 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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 ^t: 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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? Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 ^(talk) 23:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

sorry but you are the one who is inverting Wikipedia'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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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).

References

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: 24 July 2015

Firstly, I am an intern with the Fundamental Rights Agency, please see my user page.

I am proposing the below changes to shorten the section on the Working Definition of Antisemitism, as the current length of the section gives WP:UNDUE weight to one area of FRA's work and history. As mentioned above in a lengthy exchange, the page should be an "overview of the entire Fundamental Rights Agency" and currently "devotes too much space to the FRA's [sic] definition of antisemitism". Indeed, the work of FRA covers 9 thematic areas, as seen in the mandate section. In addition, the Working Definition was not even developed by FRA, but by its predecessor organisation, the EUMC.

Secondly, the extent and detail of the section moves away from the 'overview of the FRA' in general, and more towards the discussion of the definition of antisemitism, for which there already a section in the Antisemitism page, where such detail would be more appropriate. For the same reason, the FRA page should not be categorised as “part of a series on antisemitism” since antisemitism is just one of a much broader range of activities carried out by the Agency.

I would propose the following:

In 2005, the EUMC, together with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and Jewish organisations, developed a guide to data collection on anti-Semitic incidents, including “a proposal for a non-legal working definition of antisemitism to be used at national level by primary data-collecting agencies” and considered as a “work in progress.”

The working definition received varied responses, David Hirsh described the definition as "part of the terrain on which political struggles are conducted by, amongst others, academics" while Brian Klug argued that it could be used to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and does not sufficiently distinguish between criticism of Israeli actions and criticism of Zionism as a political ideology, on the one hand, and racially based violence towards, discrimination against, or abuse of, Jews. In 2013, the definition was removed from the FRA website. A spokesperson said that it had never been regarded as official and that the agency did not intend to develop its own definition.

Mw16891 (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The proposed text relies heavily on primary sources (the first paragraph) and I'm not sure a "working paper" should be used either. However, I see a VERY legitimate cause for complaint by representatives of FRA, because the prior version of the article relied heavily on weak, primary or politicized sources for criticisms of the organization. Either this agency has a very negative reputation (a possibility; I'm not familiar with the subject) or even those sources that are usable were cherry-picked to include only criticisms. I have added the page to my watchlist and while I didn't incorporate your proposed text, I have begun to work the article in a more encyclopedic direction. My first impression is that we should welcome more participation from you to keep it moving in that direction. Unfortunately this kind of thing is very common on articles regarding politics. CorporateM (Talk) 03:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for your changes and for putting the article on your watchlist. I agree it does rely heavily on primary source material, I'd be happy to find some different sources to give a wider perspective on the issue. Regarding the FRA's reputation, I'd argue (though I'm giving an insider's perepective) that the agency has a very strong reputation for the work it produces, however, given the wide mandate and political nature of the research - for example: antisemitism, migration, violence against women, LGBTQI issues etc. - it also expects to come up against vocal criticism in the public sphere.

For now, I'd like to suggest one further edit that you may not have noticed - the first and last paragraphs include the same information, one of which should be removed:

Paragraph 1: ." In November 2013 the definition was removed from the organisation's website in 'a clear-out of non-official documents'. A spokesperson stated that the document had never been viewed as a valid definition and that "We are not aware of any official definition"

Last Paragraph: "Late in 2013, the definition was removed from the website of the Fundamental Rights Agency. A spokesperson said that it had never been regarded as official and that the agency did not intend to develop its own definition." Mw16891 (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 08:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

References

"Reception" section

It appears to me that the content of the "Reception" section has been selected to only include criticisms of and attacks upon the agency and its work. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I think the intern from the agency is going to offer some additional sources/content for us to consider that would offer a more well-rounded view. The tag is appropriate for now. CorporateM (Talk) 22:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fundamental Rights Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927173736/http://www.swp-berlin.org/en/produkte/swp_aktuell_detail.php?id=7060 to http://www.swp-berlin.org/en/produkte/swp_aktuell_detail.php?id=7060
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127070824/http://fra.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/FRA/reg_168-2007_en.pdf to http://fra.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/FRA/reg_168-2007_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fundamental Rights Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011202833/http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/David%20Hirsh%20YIISA%20Working%20Paper1.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/David%20Hirsh%20YIISA%20Working%20Paper1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fundamental Rights Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402100051/http://www.kleinezeitung.at/s/chronik/3970958/Ethnische-Minderheiten_Diskriminierung-in-der-EU-ist-gravierendes to http://www.kleinezeitung.at/s/chronik/3970958/Ethnische-Minderheiten_Diskriminierung-in-der-EU-ist-gravierendes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301042105/http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/2009/11/10/the-controversial-lithuanian-law-on-protection-of-minors-%E2%80%93-lithuanian-parliament-v-european-parliament/ to http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/2009/11/10/the-controversial-lithuanian-law-on-protection-of-minors-%E2%80%93-lithuanian-parliament-v-european-parliament/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)