Talk:Fundamental Rights Agency

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
replies: text: Sure, be bold (but of course NPOV and please cite if controversial). - J Logan t: 18:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Antisemitism report controversy

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EUracism.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: fixed, that okay?- J Logan t: 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  More attribution is needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: An 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)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Reception" section 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified