| Revision as of 11:58, 17 December 2017 editSlatersteven (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers73,771 edits →Muslim perpetrators← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:23, 31 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,114 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom/Archive 2) (bot |
| (124 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=B|ts=20130623140013|reviewer=Jamesx12345}} |
|
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|ts=20130623140013|reviewer=Jamesx12345}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=start}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|class=start}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Jewish History|class=start}} |
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=start}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low|Interfaith=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject History|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 21: |
Line 27: |
|
{{calm}} |
|
{{calm}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Why is is is entry ignoring a key dynamic at the heart of the anti-Semitism debate in the UK? == |
|
== Request for comment == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the following content suitable for inclusion in this article, it leads on from "]’s ] into antisemitism in the Labour Party to be somewhat lacking in a clear definition of antisemitism.<ref>https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/136.pdf</ref>" ] (]) 13:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Suggested addition is |
|
|
|
|
|
*British author ] called the Chakrabarti Inquiry "a brief and shoddy shuffling of superficies" that "spoke to very few of the people charging the party with anti-Semitism and understood even fewer of their arguments."<ref>Jacobson, Howard. ''New York Times''. 6 October 2017. 6 October 2017.</ref> |
|
|
{{reflist|talk}} |
|
|
'''Oppose''' We concentrate too much on the labor party when the parliamentary inquiry found they are no more antisemitic then anyone else. Also why is his view worthy of inclusion? We have parliments ts comments, why do we need some authors?] (]) 13:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Support''' Per ] - We should give labor the same about amount of proportional coverage, in regards to antisemitism, as they receive in RS. Antisemitism in Labor receive wide coverage in RS in the UK, Jewish press (in and outside of the UK), and Israel. Conversely, antisemitism in other parties hardly receives coverage at all. As a simply yardstick when 83% of British Jews think there is a problem (as opposed to 19% for the Tories, and various levels (much lower than Labor) for minor problems) - it is a clear sign this is a party specific issue - which explains the media focus on Labor.] (]) 13:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Oppose''' Jacobson is just one of scores (at least) of people who responded publicly to the Chakrabarti report. And he does not have any particular expertise in this field. Why should he be singled out for inclusion, rather than, for instance, Professor ], the director of the ], who said "This is an important document at a time, when more than ever, we need to stand firm against all forms of racism and intolerance. The report marks a positive step towards ensuring that the Labour Party is a welcoming place for all minority groups. It recommends steps to ensure that members act in a spirit of tolerance and respect, while maintaining principles of free speech and open debate. The recommendations are constructive and provide a sound basis on which the Party can move forward"? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Oppose''' This is an article on antisemitism not on the select committee inquiry or on the Chakrabarti report. Adding so many third party comments will make that whole section far too big. There is already a page on the Chakrabarti report. So, if anything, put the Jacobson comment there. ] (]) 08:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::I see no reason why we cannot have a see also link to then page.] (]) 10:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' The Chakrabarti Inquiry part needs expanding, as well as the critique to it. ] (]) 15:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
**] There is a separate page on the ] ] (]) 16:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::*Yes I know, which is why it warrants a mention here ] (]) 22:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
'''Oppose''' The ] has it's own article as a 'political' issue, not substantial to this article in any tangible way. If you wish to add content, there is more than enough in the UK's political right and far-right parties where, sadly, evidence is more common. ] (]) 23:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's a "2016 investigation into allegations of antisemitism and forms of racism in the United Kingdom's Labour Party". How is that "not substantial to this article in any tangible way"? ---] ] 23:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::It smells of political dirty tricks for the Tories to point the finger at Labour first when not putting the mirror to themselves, and it is already mentioned here; that should be more than enough for an inquiry that found no major problems in the Labour party. I can only imagine what such an inquiry would have found in other parties... ] (]) 00:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The ] gets mentioned as well. There's no reason to gloss over Labour's problems in this context (which have, e.g., also been reported internationally. e.g. , , , , , , etc. ---] ] 23:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, the Tories would have to get a 'mention'; in fact they and Ukip would have gotten a lot more if the inquiry was not such a political weapon directed at the Tories main opposition. The focus of the inquiry was driven by headlines at places like The Daily Mail, but by all accounts was a political shame of an inquiry. ] (]) 23:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I do support including more instances of anti-semitism among right-wing parties of the UK in this article, but this doesn't mean inquires into Labour's issues need to be kept out of it. The article isn't titled "who is the greatest antisemite in the United Kingdom" or "which party is the most antisemitic". It's titled "Antisemitism in the United Kingdom". ] should be considered, but it's better to expand what has been reported on the weighty side rather than excluding what has been written about the possibly unweighty side. ---] ] 00:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::So lets expand it in a NPOV way, so we have commentary from both sides, as well as expansion about the other parties. We already mention the about party far more then any other party.] (]) 09:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}It means it gives undue weight to including more than a mention of the inquiry. This is where we step too close to giving the Tories and Ukip a free pass while screaming at Labour for what appears more minor offenses, unless you are just reading The Daily Mail. I'm no fan of Labour (not for more than a decade), but this does seem very unbalanced. ] (]) 01:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:I looked over the article and I think the current content on this is sufficient, the quote proposed for inclusion does not really add much imo. ] <sup>(])</sup> 02:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::I concur. ] (]) 02:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is not a forum to discus British politics, or editors perceived bias, please stop.] (]) 09:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:-Then it is no place to give undue weight to the ], as it was very much a political stunt of 'whataboutery'. You have just made the case for things to be left as they are... ] (]) 11:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::This talk page is about this article, not other users or their politics. Please stop comment on content not users.] (]) 11:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Exactly why the ] should only be mentioned in passing as it currently stands. You made the point for it very well, "This is not a forum to discus British politics," and that is what would happen with an expanded section on the inquiry. It is fine as it stands. ] (]) 11:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' The !vote from Gilmore has to be discounted, he has obviously followed me here just to oppose my edits. Anyone who thinks the Chakrabarti Inquiry is a {{diff2|810298528|Tory party inquiry}} into antisemitism in Labour are obviously clueless about the subject. ] (]) 17:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Your comment is to be discounted as delusional given that it was ] that queued me into to this terrible idea of putting Labour on the spot while letting the far more anti-Semitic parties to the right of Labour off without equal questioning. It is to politicise this article to expand on the ] and undue weight to allow that expansion without consideration of the deplorable record of the Tories and Ukippers. This should not be politicised. ] (]) 18:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' as per Icewhiz and others. This is an important document and important in the sphere of antisemitism in the UK and should of course be in this article. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 18:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::The issue under discussion is not whether we include any mention of the Chakrabarti report. This is already in the article, and no-one has suggested removing it. We are discussing whether to include Howard Jacobson's opinion of the report. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 01:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::Which Document?] (]) 18:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - Possibly include in ] but definitely not here. The problem I see with this is that we're basically injecting the opinion of one semi-notable author into an article covering a pretty major subject. Including opinion from semi-notable people on a subject can very rapidly clutter a page. ] (]) 19:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong oppose''' The article is already plagued by recentism and weight issues, this is ostensibly about the history of anti-semitism in UK, yet we have no mention of 'pogroms' or 'blackshirts', but the addition of a ''(frequently provocative)'' writer of - mainly comic - fiction is to be included? It might belong on the 'report' page. ] (]) 12:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RFC about political parties == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=40043D4}} |
|
|
Should this page give so much coverage to one UK political party and it's fringe elements?] (]) 10:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As it needs a rewording. |
|
|
|
|
|
Should we give so much coverage to the Labour party and specifically the opinions of (what most of not all the RS call) its fringe elements? |
|
|
|
|
|
*I'm say '''yes''' but you might want to make it clear exactly what edit you are looking to remove, this is a rather vague rfc ] (]) 10:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes, we should focus on Labor'''. And no - the RfC is not worded neutrally. Antisemitism in Labor has been a subject of major Media scrutiny in the past few years - in the UK, in the Jewish press, and in Israel. Israel free zones. Various extreme statements by some labor members. 83% of UK Jews think antisemitism in Labor is an issue (and much less for other parties).<ref>{{cite news|last1=Bodkin|first1=Henry|title=Labour 'too tolerant' of anti-Semitism - new poll|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/19/labour-tolerant-anti-semitism-new-poll/|accessdate=26 November 2017|publisher=The Telegraph|date=20 August 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Cowburn|first1=Ashley|title=Over 80 per cent of British Jews believe Labour is too tolerant of anti-Semitism within its ranks, poll finds|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-jeremy-corbyn-inquiry-shami-chakrabarti-yougov-poll-a7902251.html|accessdate=26 November 2017|publisher=The Independent|date=19 August 2017}}</ref> We should follow the weight given in the sources - and in this case the sources cover Labor antisemitism extensively - and this is far from "fringe elements" of the party - with Corbyn (and his allies) in control of the party.] (]) 10:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
{{ref-talk}} |
|
|
*Weight is determined by availability and reliability of sources. If one UK political party has more coverage in reliable sources, then it will naturally have more coverage in an article on the subject. ] (]) 10:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' The perceived problem of an over-emphasis on the Labour Party will decline as the rest of the article grows. ] (]) 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' The Labour UK party receive much coverage in ] so per ] we should too give the same space here too.--] (]) 13:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Procedural oppose'''; this RfC is vague to the point of being malformed. I see no egregious ] coverage in the article. ] (], ]) 17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per power~enwiki - this RFC needs to be more clear about what it's trying to accomplish. What political party? What fringe elements? Remember that an RFC's purpose is to attract outside opinions from commenters who may not know the precise history of an article's disputes. Based on the comments above, I assume this RFC is actually about the section entitled "Perceptions of political parties" and its focus on the Labour party...? I feel, reading over it, that that section should probably be trimmed or removed entirely, since it focuses almost entirely on a single very recent controversy (which seems to come down to accusations against Corbyn.) Devoting an entire section to that strikes me as ] given the relatively light weight of what's actually there (basically, citing a few people's vague opinions and a poll.) --] (]) 16:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''* It's difficult to tell what you're even asking with this request for comment. Should this article have more coverage of the Labour Party? Should it have less? Either of those is pretty vague, and I have no idea why you're asking people on outside noticeboards to come and comment on it. EDIT: in addition to being vague, the question you're asking is also non-neutral, since it's pretty obvious the answer you want is "No, this article should have much less coverage of the Labour Party". ] (]) 03:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is that how I worded it?] (]) 13:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*A recent high profile spike in coverage should not be treated as equal to long time pervasive actions that form the core identity of other groups. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><small>— ] (]) has made ] outside this topic. </small><small>This vote is from a proxy server based in the US </small> ] (]) 22:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::<small>Actually the IP has made 1000s of edits outside the topic area since first editing in February 2004! ] (]) 13:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
* '''Proceedural oppose''' Incorrectly phrased RfC. What I can make of it is non-neutrally phrased, however this is preceded by the fact that it's incredibly vague. Why am I being asked to comment? What would a support/oppose vote entail? What outcome would my support in either direction have if any? ] (]) 04:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Another Labour Party member == |
|
|
|
|
|
over vile antisemitic posts, should we add it? ] (]) 18:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Is this an RS?] (]) 19:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:I can just see the text "Someone said something antisemitic and they were suspended".] (]) 19:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think ] is reliable Ya. ] (]) 19:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Absolutely not. A blog is not a ] unless it meets one of the ] exemptions, which this clearly does not. Additionally, unless a source talks about the ''labour party specifically'', using it in that section is synth. (ie. "here is a general article discussing perception of the labour party" is acceptable; "here is a random accusation against a member of the labour party" is not, because you're making the uncited implication that this affects the reputation of the labour party as a whole.) EDIT: I went over the section and removed another blog cite. Generally speaking, blogs (even ones published in otherwise-reputable publications) are not usable as sources, since they lack the fact-checking and editorial control that gives the rest of the paper its reputation. --] (]) 02:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:This reliable for sure --] (]) 08:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:: We also have these (Nasreen Khan - a Bradford shortlister) - , , . I think we should make a push for sourcing showing the connection between pandering to Muslim constituencies and antisemitism by candidates - I've seen attributed opinions for this that could be used - e.g. ] here - {{tq|Too many Labour politicians cravenly adopted the anti-Semitic tropes and anti-Israel demonization they think will get them British Muslim votes, rather than standing up to the prejudice that exists in the community.}} or perhaps this . An in-depth study of the correlation (that seems quite obvious between representing Muslim constituencies and anti-Jewish speech/post) would be better.] (]) 08:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:News blogs are RS so I have restored that content, it is attributed and there is nothing wrong with it ] (]) 10:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:People may need to read ] ] (]) 10:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::No they are not, blogs are blogs. Blogs are sometimes accepted as RS if the blogger is a noted expert in the field, who the hell is Mr Daisley?] (]) 10:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::These '''may''' be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. Note may, not are. You need to establish that Mr Daisley meets the above criteria.] (]) 10:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes they are, from the policy "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer" which is what i did, there is feck all wrong with the edit ] (]) 10:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And Daisley is a journalist ] (]) 10:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Lets see what RSN say.] (]) 10:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Unsurprisingly RSN agrees it is RS. ] (]) 15:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::I feel that his statements generally fall under ]; but even if they didn't, Daisley isn't a high-profile enough commentator to justify citing him here. (As I recall, he was actually fired from his job following allegations that he was using it as an "activist" rather than a journalist.) Citing him here, when many higher-profile and more reliable sources are available, is if nothing else giving his views ] weight. If he must be mentioned, I would suggest collecting multiple opinion pieces and summarizing them all, along the lines of "Labour has been criticized for this by multiple commentators, including , , and ." This avoids the problem of undue weight by placing the emphasis on who is commentating, rather than risking using the article to give excessive weight to marginal viewpoints. --] (]) 15:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Not exceptional at all, given the Home Affairs Select Committee report says, "The failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with anti-Semitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic," ] (]) 15:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This mission to make multiple WP pages a noticeboard for debating alleged current Labour Party issues (or rather one in particular) is becoming a little tiresome. This page, most of all, does not need to document every single instance of an obscure Labour member being an idiot on social media in 2017; nor does it need to tell us what the Mail said (inaccurately) about a non-Labour member's comments at a conference fringe event. Nor does it need to quote and cite random newspaper columnists like Stephen Daisley. Can people take all this crap to their blogs? Thanks. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 00:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Anti-Zionism is NOT Anti-Semitic in and of it's self == |
|
|
|
|
|
We must be careful not to link or confuse anti-Zionism or the actions of Israel in the occupied territories with anti-semitism; the two issues should never be mixed in an encyclopedia. ] (]) 15:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:If RS make the link so must we, but it should always be made clear these are accusations not facts..] (]) 15:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Anti-Zionism IS anti-semitism per several (e.g. and ) and certain forms of anti-zionism (e.g. "Israel free zones" in Bradford) are definitely anti-semitic per most sources.] (]) 15:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You can be pro-Jewish and anti-occupation or anti-expansion of settlements in Israel; they are not contradictory as many anti-Zionist Israelis will tell you. You mix the two issues and muddy the waters to push a POV. ] (]) 16:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: It is one thing to oppose Israeli policies. It is another to deny the right of self-determination specifically of the Jewish people. The latter type of anti-Zionism is recognized as antisemitism by most RSes. Regardless, there are plenty of RSes stating unequivocally that part of the conduct of several Labour politicians is antisemitic.] (]) 16:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{U|Icewhiz}}, your "per several" are not useful. The first is the opinion of a politician, uttered at a very opportune moment. The other is...also an opinion, printed in a Detroit newspaper. You'll have to do much better than this. ] (]) 16:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Some better sourcing for several: |
|
|
:::::: Taguieff, Pierre-André. Rising from the Muck: The new anti-Semitism in Europe. Ivan R. Dee, 2004. |
|
|
:::::: Wistrich, Robert. "Anti-zionism and anti-semitism." Jewish Political Studies Review (2004): 27-31. |
|
|
:::::: Herf, Jeffrey, ed. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in historical perspective: Convergence and divergence. Routledge, 2013. |
|
|
:::::: Litvak, Meir. "The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism." The Journal of Israeli History 25.1 (2006): 267-284. |
|
|
:::::: Kaplan, Edward H., and Charles A. Small. "Anti-Israel sentiment predicts anti-Semitism in Europe." Journal of Conflict Resolution 50.4 (2006): 548-561. |
|
|
:::::: Wistrich, Robert S. Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger. New York: American Jewish Committee, 2002.] (]) 17:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Now that looks interesting. Leave the last one out. I'm not familiar with Taguieff or the publisher. ] (]) 17:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
None of which is relevant, we say what RS say, and we attribute opinions. Can we please drop all the soapboxing. |
|
|
] (]) 16:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:The sources are out there, but this is as close as I can get to the text of the page. ] (]) 16:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::If you have sources post them here. The n we can discus how to add this to the page. But at this time nothing is being discussed in this thread about how to improve the article as far as I can see..] (]) 16:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I gave you one earlier, 'Avi Shlaim had an interesting article ' and there are many more along this line of Jews that are opposed to the current policies of the State of Israel. ] (]) 16:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Then suggest an edit.] (]) 16:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Avi Shlaim, who is an anti-zionist AFAIK, wrote an opinion piece - not an article.] (]) 16:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You mean like a blog entry? Sorry but it was in an RS and his views would be notable.] (]) 16:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::An opinion piece by a notable person ''can'' be included, and can count for something beyond opinion as well--but why all this focus on newspaper articles? Why don't y'all read books and academic articles? We're not the news, and RECENTISM (with all the aspects of undueness) is a real danger. ] (]) 17:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*So, this article is huge, and almost the entire history of antisemitim, let's say the first 1000 years, gets four or five short paragraphs. ] is found only in the "See also" section. I find no mention of --which deserves incorporation and its own article, perhaps. isn't cited, nor is . Rather than picking on which contemporary opinion piece to cite, can we lay the groundwork for a strong, encyclopedic article? ] (]) 17:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::Looking at the history that is because this is what this article was about, 21st century antisemitism (and very narrowly focused even in that). What it needs is a re-name.] (]) 17:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If you do that, you are simply reinforcing recentism--and the history of antisemitism shows that we do so at our own peril. ] (]) 17:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I have no issue with that, this is what the page is about so why hide it? If it is not then those who do not want it to about 21stC antisemitism can do more to make it less about 21stC antisemitism. I am happy to just rename it.] (]) 17:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well I'm not. ] is a bigger and more important topic than ]. See ]: anti-recentism is one of our goals. ] (]) 18:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So just rename it Antisemitism in the Labour Party, as that appears the goal of some of the editors. They make this too political and too much about Labour, it's like an attack piece in The Daily Mail, more than an encyclopedia. ] (]) 15:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
===Muslim voters=== |
|
|
The new section 'Muslim voters' seems to raise a few issues, but immediately the issue is that ] does not describe the 2 present and 2 former Bradford MPs as 'anti-semetic', simply as critical of Israel: "Naz Shah, George Galloway, her predecessor as MP, and David Ward, a former Lib-Dem MP who was suspended from his party for calling for the end of Israel, all represented Bradford. The U.K. census of 2011 revealed that Bradford's population was 24.7% Muslim, and no doubt it’s higher by now. There are wards of Bradford, Blackburn and Burnley (the suspended councilors' constituencies) where British Muslims reach 70% of the local population. David Ward's successor as MP, Imran Hussain, has also gone out of his way to criticize Israel". ] (]) 22:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
: Deech most certainly describes this speech as antisemitic, read it again. 30 times in her piece she mentions antisemitism by Labour pols, and in the context of Bradford MPs she continues to describe these stmts as antisemitic down in the paragraph and in the next paragraph where they are still the subject.] (]) 05:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:: To avoid argument over phrasing (despite your claim being an unreasonable parsing of the text) - I modified the article to quote Deech directly.] (]) 08:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Your change is OK from the verifiability angle ''(Deesh's main drift is anti-S, but the specific remarks about Bradford (ex)MPs was not)''. I only came here for the RfC, so will leave it to others to question/endorse whether this is undue given the subject is meant to be about the whole history of UK anti-S. ] (]) 18:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I agree based on the sourcing that the entire section appears to be ], Deech may say it is anti-semitic to criticize Israel but this is not a majority view of scholars. The section is also ] for inserting claims connecting anti-semitism to anti-Zionism. It needs much better sourcing then it currently has. ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::As well as any countering arguments.] (]) 10:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Two major scholars, Deech and reknowned antisemitism scholar ], and an in depth study and poll - sourcing does not get better than that. This is not anti Israel speech exclusively - when you bring up Hitler and the holocaust - this is antisemitic, not "just" anti Israel, and the vast majority of RSes agree on this (as well as the Labour party who ejected pols for such stmts, and some of the pols themselves who apologized). Attempting to get votes from Muslims has been recognized as a major cause of this hate speech by politicians.] (]) 19:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::What has this to do with putting both sides of this debate?] (]) 19:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Certainly, we should reflect justification for antisemitic speech if they are available from notable persons or RSes. It was my understanding that most in British politics, Labour included, denounce stmts such as "when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews", however I might be wrong. How would you propose adding the other side of this debate?] (]) 19:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::And is that the only statement being called antisemitic? This is about antisemitism in the UK (or even antisemitism in the Labour party), not anti antisemitism in Ken Livingstone.] (]) 20:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: It is far from the only one. I believe we are over 10 high profile national level Labour figures (i.e. ignoring local level stuff). Antisemitic stmts by Labour (and ex Labour) figures has become a major issue in Jewish affairs also beyond the UK.] (]) 20:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::I think it has to be rewritten, Mahdi Hasan is not writing about anti-Israel sentiment in elections. There can be a section about Muslim Antisemitism, but I think it should be pulled out of the "British politics umbrella" and represent the sources accurately. ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::: Deech (who cites Hasan) and Gerstenfeld directly address UK politicians, mainly Labour, reaching out to Muslim antisemitism to get Muslim votes - this is wider than just the antisemitic prejudice in the Muslim community itself, and directly affects UK electoral strategies in areas with a high enough proportion of Muslims.] (]) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::The muslim population of UK is about 4%. A large percentage are in areas which are, were and probably ever will be labour. Even if 100% of Muslims loathed Jews and Israel and voted as a single bloc as a result, the impact on UK politics would be negligible. ] (]) 14:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::Deech citing Hasan is not really helping your argument, since Deech is undue for this article, she is a scholar on Reproductive Technology, with regards to antisemitism she is a biased activist source as a member of UK Lawyers for Israel. And three editors seem to think that it is ]. ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::The Hasan article is excellent and should be included in the article with the information it serves, however some of the other citations in that section might be a violation of ] at first glance. ] (]) 02:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The labour party == |
|
|
|
|
|
As we now have an article on them maybe we should start to trim the material we have here.] (]) 12:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think it needs trimming anyway (see above), but of course that page may not last. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::Please trim away given the ] of Labour issues and not enough reflection on the problems of the other UK parties. ] (]) 16:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no balance in this article to counter the false assumption made in it that arguments against actions by the government or military of Israel, or against Zionism, are automatically anti-Semitic. In this way the article is one sided and pushes a false narrative that can in itself be seen as anti-Semitic since it employs the very same tactic used by extremist anti-Semites who would blame all Jews for the actions of Israel or extreme Zionists. That assumption should not appear as a flat assumption in this article - it should be stated that in the debate about anti-Semitism in the UK, one side is trying to push that assumption and is being criticised for doing so as both an attempt to shut down criticism of Israel and extreme Zionism and as a dangerous use of the same conflation employed by extreme anti-Semites. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:54, May 11, 2018 (UTC)</small> |
|
== Muslim section, undue weight == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== New bus line == |
|
Given that the UK Muslim population is only about 4% of the overall population, it seems strangely over pronounced to have an entire section under Politics devoted to them. ] (]) 00:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although the ] reported that the new 310 bus route in London was introduced "to protect (the Jewish community) from antisemitic harassment", this is denied by members of the local community. According to the ], "Yet as Rabbi David Mason tweeted in reply to a man decrying the 310 as an emblem of a divided city: “Safety was never the main reason”. Buried in most reports was the fact that the 310’s route was first proposed 15 years ago, by GLA member Brian Coleman, to “connect families and friends in the Jewish community and enable them to get to community events going on in those areas”." It is misleading to use this as evidence for an increase in antisemitic activity, and I will accordingly remove the reference. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 15:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
*If they deserve their own section, them even so should the BNP and most definitely Ukip given their history. ] (]) 00:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Yes there does seme to be an undue issue with this. ] (]) 15:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Since there is already an article ], certainly a brief addition to this article with a link would be sufficient for this subject. ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::The reference from the Jerusalem Post is accurately referenced. You have brought a source claiming otherwise. I will restore the Jerusalem Post source and add that others have argued that the new bus line is not related to antisemetism. ] (]) 07:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::As this material is already included in ] a short mention of it in the Labour paragraph should be enough, if there are not many objections? ] (]) 00:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:It is also untrue to suggest that Finsbury Park is an unsafe location for Jews. I worked there for many years, and was a regular patron there of one of the largest - and, in my opinion, best - bagel bakeries in London. Hardly a sign of a hotbed of antisemitism! <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 16:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::: This '''should be included'''. Antisemitism by Muslims (in Labour or otherwise) - is a '''major factor''' in the UK. They are 4% of the population, perhaps, yes. But per polling - 55% of them hold at least one anti-semitic view, and "prevalence of anti-Semitic views among Muslims was two to four times higher than the rest of the population" per a poll. They are "punching above their weight" in regards to to proportion of antisemites.] (]) 22:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::It is categorically your prerogative to believe that it is not unsafe for Jews, but the reference states otherwise. If you can find a reference to the contrary, feel free to add it. ] (]) 07:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::And it will be included in a shortened form under the Labour section as it is currently just a exact repetition of what is in ] right down to the sources. Also giving so much space to a view held by less than 4% of the UK population violates ] and focusing merely on Muslims while leaving out the far-right antisemitism is simple ], and finally you have the ] of those sources listed that are more than problematic. Your comment, "prevalence of anti-Semitic views among Muslims was two to four times higher than the rest of the population" is also true of Ukip voters and the numbers go even higher for BNP types; yet you focus only on this small part of the population based on their religion is out of size to their impact on UK politics. ] (]) 22:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::And other denies this is the reason, thus ] may come into this. ] (]) 09:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::: If you have a source for right-wing antisemtism - put it in. Muslims - per the RS I quoted above (not my comment - backed up by ), are a much larger proportion of antisemites than 4%.] (]) 23:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::We follow references. The references cited state that this was the reason. You can feel free to cite other references that say otherwise and give context, but the fact that others argue on the reasoning in the source does not automatically make it ]. I encourage you to self revert. ] (]) 11:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::::Muslims are not a political party and so should not be in this "British politics and antisemitism". Muslims are adherents to a religion, not a voting block. Far more important, they are such a small portion of the population that this section gives FAR too much weight to them; and many of the sources you quote have a built in bias. I would no more rely on JTA for a neutral view than I would the Daily News-Egypt, even Ha'aretz and Al Jazeera are suspect on such issues. These are the issues, and to the points you raise, everything here is merely a repeat of which is linked already. ] (]) 23:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::And just because you can find a source, is not a guarantee of inclusion. THis really tells us nothing other than an Israli sources think its an issue. ] (]) 12:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::::: Well, clearly the cited RSes disagree with your personal view here. Coverage by Jewish outlets, who write to a target audience that is victimized by antisemitism, is usually key for coverage of antisemitism. Suggesting we exclude JTA for antisemitism coverage.... is quite an extraordinary suggestion.] (]) 23:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::This need to be included. We need to follow sources. ] (]) 12:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{od}}All I ask is that you consider the built in bias of these RS and well as giving so the fact that the entry gives undue weight to what some 4% of the population think and divide them out based on religion in the political section of this page. It seems more than an odd mistake, almost intentional biasing of the article in this way. |
|
|
|
:::::I just saw your message on this Talk page and I fully agree with your viewpoint. ] (]) 06:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Question == |
|
"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." ] As this minority view in the UK is already covered on other pages and those pages are linked, it seems more than reasonable to trim it on this page. ] (]) 00:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
: We follow the amount of coverage in the sources. This is far from a minority view. Trimming, perhaps. Removal? No.] (]) 05:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Really? So why nothing on UKIP that in the 2015 general election, secured over 3.8 million votes (12.6% of the total); but focus on 4.41% of the population BY religion as if all Muslims vote as a block? This makes no sense and meets no good measure of ]. So move the reference up to the paragraph on Labour and as it is already covered on another page, trim the rest to keep this in line as not to be seen as ] or ]. Currently, it just doesn't pass the ] test. ] (]) 05:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You are welcome to add on UKIP but please don't remove sourced material.--] (]) 07:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The information of Muslims is a duplicate of what is in ] which this page links, so nothing will be removed; only trim the duplication. ] (]) 07:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: This section is not about Labour, but about Muslim voters. Furthermore, if there is a spinout article, then this article should contain a '''summary of the spinout'''.] (]) 08:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I think that an expert in reproductive technology is undue for both articles, and I don't think JTA is the best source for this - JTA is a fairly mediocre source all around, I would use it for basic facts, but not rely too much on their analysis because they do tend to editorialize. ] <sup>(])</sup> 08:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: While I disagree on your characterization of JTA, in this case we are merely using their reporting on a report by JPR - - which was reported on by others as well.] (]) 08:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article seems to be too long, consisting of a substantial amount of run-on and repetitive sentences. Some of the article’s sections may be grouped together rather than separated from one another. Sources backing up the content also need some degree of clean-up and rearrangement. It would be great if anyone can take the lead in achieving some or all of the possible goals for the betterment of the article. ] (]) 03:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Dec 2024 == |
|
Why not rewrite it to make it not about the Labour party, but the wider Muslim community? After all ] It is POV pausing to trey and claim that antisemitism and Muslims is only a labour party issue.] (]) 10:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.thejc.com/news/largest-menorah-lighting-ever-in-bricket-wood-after-chanukiah-smashed-by-vandals-ro7yfi24 |
|
== Muslim perpetrators == |
|
|
|
] (]) 09:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{ping|Slatersteven}} per this study , discussed in a secondary fashion in a number of sources, including this - . 45% of anti-semitic hate crimes in the UK are carried by Muslim perpetrators. So - while I agree that "tHIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT MUSLI,MS" (per your diff ) - when Muslims constitute a large proportion (in a highly disproportionate way) of the phenomena in the UK - this should be reflected in our article.] (]) 10:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:"The major source of contemporary antisemitism is to be found in parts of the British Muslim community. The roots of this kind of antisemitism are complex – from a mixture of historical attitudes, domestic and political tensions between communities to the globalisation of the Middle East conflict. One assumption is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has fuelled a sense of anger and injustice among the British Muslim community and therefore created a climate that is more hospitable to radical Islamist ideology, such as contemporary antisemitism" |
|
|
:We do. What we do not do is Labour a point.] (]) 10:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::Perhaps a RfC is the only way to settle this given the level of emotions being shown? ] (]) 10:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:: {{ping|Slatersteven}} Then we should tack this onto this paragraph. Clearly a study measuring the proportion of anti-semitic incidents carried out by Muslims in the UK is more relevant than apologia regarding their motives that is currently present. Qualifying this beyond "The major source of contemporary antisemitism".] (]) 10:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Then we also need similar studies about the far right as well, rather then singling our Muslims.] (]) 10:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Then find them - that's not ground for removal of a source stating 45% of the perps are Muslim. This study actually states {{tq|The results (Figure 11) indicate that right-wing extremists, who are often associated with antisemitism, in fact constitute a clear minority of perpetrators. Respondents in all four countries most often perceived the perpetrator(s) to be “someone with a Muslim extremist view”. It is also worth noting that in France, Sweden and the UK (but not in Germany) the perpetrator was perceived to be left-wing more often than right-wing}}. (there's a nice chart there too -- this is from victim reports of violent incidents (page 18) who recount the characteristics on their attackers (i.e. whatever they called out, insignia, dress, etc.)) It seems that antisemitic attacks by neo-nazies (and the like) were a "big thing" in the past - not the present.] (]) 11:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes it is, if you think it is important you need to write it in a nPOV way, I do not. Also (yet again) we are arguing about material that covers the last few years, even though what is need is more material covering then last 1000. This is also why it is Undue, it is recentism. As to your source "backgrounds from presumably Muslim countries", Sorry that is not (to my mind) an indicator of facts.] (]) 11:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: This is quantified by victims reports who report on the identity of who assaulted them (page 18). Classifying between white and non-white or by slogans/religious-utterances shouted by the assailants is fairly reliable. We have a section on contemporary antisemitism - it would seem quite DUE to state 45% of these are Muslim.] (]) 11:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I quoted page 18. And no . Classifying between white and non-white or by slogans/religious-utterances shouted by the assailants is not fairly reliable, it is bigotry that assumes because someone is Brown and uses the word Kike (for example) they must be Muslim.] (]) 11:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Accusing victims of violent hate crimes of bigotry when they provide an assessment of the identity of their attacker (who often makes his motivation for the attack clear)? That's quite some victim blaming. Regardless of whether this is bigotry, it is in a RS.] (]) 11:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I am not, I am accusing the report of it.] (]) 11:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
There is no balance in this article to counter the false assumption made in it that arguments against actions by the government or military of Israel, or against Zionism, are automatically anti-Semitic. In this way the article is one sided and pushes a false narrative that can in itself be seen as anti-Semitic since it employs the very same tactic used by extremist anti-Semites who would blame all Jews for the actions of Israel or extreme Zionists. That assumption should not appear as a flat assumption in this article - it should be stated that in the debate about anti-Semitism in the UK, one side is trying to push that assumption and is being criticised for doing so as both an attempt to shut down criticism of Israel and extreme Zionism and as a dangerous use of the same conflation employed by extreme anti-Semites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.87.35 (talk • contribs) 07:54, May 11, 2018 (UTC)
The article seems to be too long, consisting of a substantial amount of run-on and repetitive sentences. Some of the article’s sections may be grouped together rather than separated from one another. Sources backing up the content also need some degree of clean-up and rearrangement. It would be great if anyone can take the lead in achieving some or all of the possible goals for the betterment of the article. Steven1991 (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Disclogo1.svg){kind=link}
