| Revision as of 16:12, 12 September 2024 editRolandR (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers32,329 edits →New bus line: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:23, 31 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,736 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom/Archive 2) (bot |
| (12 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=B|ts=20130623140013|reviewer=Jamesx12345}} |
|
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|ts=20130623140013|reviewer=Jamesx12345}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|class=|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|class=|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low|Interfaith=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low|Interfaith=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=low}} |
| Line 31: |
Line 31: |
|
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> |
|
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> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of text and sources == |
|
== New bus line == |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
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) |
|
A new editor has removed text ("However, a number of academic studies have heavily disputed this assertion") and relevant sources (Kuper, R., 2020. A Reply to ‘Labour and Antisemitism: A Crisis Misunderstood’. The Political Quarterly, 91(4), pp.832-838; Gidley, B., McGeever, B. and Feldman, D., 2020. Labour and Antisemitism: a crisis misunderstood. The Political Quarterly, 91(2), pp.413-421) following the sentence "Contemporary antisemitism is also prevalent on the left"), with the justification that the sources are "specific to the Labour Party". Well, of course they are - any response to claims of antisemitism in the Labour Party is bound to relate to the Labour Party. After I reverted this edit, the editor re-reverted, saying in the edit summary "I don't give a pass on left wing antisemitism". The removal of this text and the sources which support it means that the article gives a misleading impression of academic support for the assertion, and combined with the edit summary suggests that the editor is here to ], rather than to contribute constructively. Should the text cited above and supporting sources be included in this article? <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 15:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Then you are synthasising, while Labour is left of center, they are not all of them left. ] is clear, a source must explicitly support your text, not infer it. I can see their objection.] (]) 16:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
|
:Yes there does seme to be an undue issue with this. ] (]) 15:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::In that case, so are the sources supporting the text remaining. Currently, different standards appear to be applied to sources supporting the assertion of "left antisemitism" than to those disputing this. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 16:06, 6 April 2021 (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) |
|
⚫ |
: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) |
| ⚫ |
:::No, feel free to remove them if they only cover the labour party.] (]) 17:20, 6 April 2021 (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 other denies this is the reason, thus ] may come into this. ] (]) 09:17, 19 September 2024 (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) |
|
⚫ |
::::::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) |
|
|
:::::::This need to be included. We need to follow sources. ] (]) 12:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I just saw your message on this Talk page and I fully agree with your viewpoint. ] (]) 06:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Question == |
|
== Antisemitism in literature == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
e.g. Marlowe's Barabas, Shakespeare's Shylock pr Dickens's Fagin. Quite virulent antisemitic Stereotypes. - Is there a dedicated article about this already? Or shouldn't it be drafted? --] (]) 21:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Section: Political Parties == |
|
== Dec 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.thejc.com/news/largest-menorah-lighting-ever-in-bricket-wood-after-chanukiah-smashed-by-vandals-ro7yfi24 |
|
The paragraphs discussing the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats are split up by the paragraph concerning the Labour Party; it would be more straightforward to combine them since the relevant information belongs together. Additionally, (my previous edits were removed, so I'll explain further here) the information about antisemitism in the labour party should be updated, since there is more recent information than the Chakrabarti Inquiry, such as the EHRC report, which also contains relevant findings. This particular section also does unnecessary interpolation, such as the opening sentence: ("allegations of antisemitism have been made since its members elected ] as leader in 2015, partly due to his past associations with anti-Zionists"). This lacks any source, and is just analysis on the part of the editor. ''Jacobin'' is also not a useful source for summary (since it is explicitly opinion commentary), as opposed to the report itself. Update: I'm not looking to get into an edit war, but "better before" is not an explanation. Unless you want to discuss it, which I'm perfectly open to, I've explained my reasoning for the edits and am going to revert it. ] (]) 20:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is you who needs to explain why this is an improvement, case by case. ] (]) 13:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 09:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
== New bus line == |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
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) |
|
| ⚫ |
:Yes there does seme to be an undue issue with this. ] (]) 15:17, 12 September 2024 (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) |
|
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)
