| Revision as of 05:06, 28 March 2018 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,971 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom/Archive 2) (bot← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:23, 31 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,971 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom/Archive 2) (bot |
| (73 intermediate revisions by 25 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 |
| 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? == |
|
== RFC about political parties == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{archive top|(]) I'm closing this discussion as '''no administrative decision'''. Half of commentators opposed "procedurally" on the grounds that the RfC question was unclear in what problem it wanted to solve; and the other half said the coverage of Labour Party in this article was acceptable. ]] 18:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)}} |
|
| ⚫ |
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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> |
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== New bus line == |
|
*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) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
== Perceptions section == |
|
|
⚫ |
:Yes there does seme to be an undue issue with this. ] (]) 15:17, 12 September 2024 (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) |
|
|
::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 == |
|
I feel the "perceptions of political parties" section risks becoming a dumping-ground for every random op-ed or editorial that mentions the topic. Since this article is relatively broad (covering antisemitism in the country as a whole), articles about ''specific MPs'' are definitely too specific; and there should be a fairly high weight requirement for pieces from anyone who isn't talking about antisemitism across the UK as a whole. In fact, since the article is about the UK as a whole and not about political parties, I think we might do better to zoom the focus of the section out a bit and have it be about perceptions of antisemitism within the UK (not merely within political parties), since we have separate articles for focusing on the parties. --] (]) 06:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
: It is not just a problem of political parties but also of painting ethnic and religious groups with a very broad brush that we must be concerned with, IMO. We can't focus too much on any one event or person and push guilt by association to a broader group. ] (]) 01:33, 17 February 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. ] (]) 03:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
== RV, why == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Dec 2024 == |
|
{{diff2|820030965|This}} needs to stay, Aquillion seems to be mistaken that as it is not about Labour then it is synth to have it here? This is not antisemitism in the Labour Party article, this is about the UK. And Daisley was discussed and consensus is for it to remain. ] (]) 11:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Did you read the edit you object to? In the second edit you reverted, I left Daisley in, I merely reduced his prominence somewhat. The second two things you keep restoring, meanwhile, are just about individuals - I don't feel they provide any particular insight into antisemitism in the UK as a whole, and there is a serious ] risk (given the location and framing you're inserting them into in the article) that someone could conclude that they're an argument that Labour itself is anti-Semitic, which those sources do not say. At the very least, they would have to be removed from the "political parties" section and moved to a new section about individuals accused of anti-Semitism. Given that a huge number of people get accused of anti-antisemitism, why do you want to include those in particular, in that specific context? Do you think it's worthwhile to turn this article into a laundry-list of everyone in the UK who was ever accused of anti-Semitism? Additionally, you keep referencing a consensus to include Daisley (not merely a consensus that he is ''potentially'' a ] which we must determine ] weight for, but a consensus to include); I can't see it. Can you point me to it? The ] discussions specifically included people noting that that he didn't necessarily pass ]. In fact, looking back at the discussion , you seem to have been the only person arguing for inclusion, so unless you can find other people saying he passes ], I think I'll take him out a bit - though I'll leave him in for now to give you a chance to respond. But at a glance, it looks like consensus was to exclude him, and you misinterpreted the ] discussions (which said we ''could'' use him, but that he might not pass ]) as overriding this. That is not the case; you need to get consensus on this talk page that he's worth including before you can put him back in. --] (]) 17:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Daisley, or a similar voice (of which there are quite a few), is DUE. Leaving mention of antisemitism within the LibDems is also probably required for balance.] (]) 20:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::: If you feel it's ] on account of there being many similar voices, why not collect all of them and summarize them? Part of my objection is that this feels like his specific construction is being given undue weight (being presented at the head of the paragraph as it is); if we collected multiple views, and summarized the general outlook in a single sentence, we could avoid giving undue weight to any one of them. And the mentions of individuals accused of antisemitism say nothing about the ''perception of political parties'', which is the topic of the section - you're asserting that these individuals' actiosn do (or should) impact the perception of those parties, but as far as I can tell the sources don't say that, so we should move them to a separate section for individuals accused of antisemitism. --] (]) 21:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Summarizing a number of voices in a contentious subject area would lead us to OR/SYNTH arguements - which is a bigger wikipickle to tackle.] (]) 21:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I disagree; a summary is the best way to avoid giving ] weight to any one voice. Selecting one voice and amplifying it already introduces ] issues that cause the same ] / ] problems at the same time, since we are implicitly asserting that his views are significant and representative. At the very least, could you produce the "many similar voices" you're talking about? This would help allay my ] concerns; and we could assess those to at least pick the most representative one, if nothing else. --] (]) 21:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
==2000 years== |
|
|
So to those who argue we should expand this article with more historical information, why then is the only new material more about the last 2 years? This article is not about Corbyn or the Labour party. So how about rather then add new material about contemporary antisemitism we put that effort into giving a bit more meat to the last 200 years?] (]) 13:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.thejc.com/news/largest-menorah-lighting-ever-in-bricket-wood-after-chanukiah-smashed-by-vandals-ro7yfi24 |
|
: The revelation about the mural was followed by a letter from the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council stating: "Again and again, Jeremy Corbyn has sided with anti-Semites rather than Jews" and asserted that he is a "figurehead for an anti-Semitic political culture". An unusual protest of about 1,500 people, mostly Jews (plus a much smaller counter-demonstration) occurred yesterday, about Corbyn and the Labour Party's treatment of this issue. I am not suggesting the mural should be discussed in any depth here, but the incidents of the last few days (not yet covered in the AS/Labour Party article) are particularly notable, and despite recentism applying, should be included here. ] (]) 14:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 09:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::As you said this is recentism, and is it really indicative of contemporary antisemitism? Indeed is this really the most important issue affecting Britain's Jews this year (an event that actually happened 6 years ago)? Is this really the most important piece of news about contemporary antisemitism? And again why do we need so much about one man and one party? This is supposed to be an overview article of 2000 years of antisemitism, so how about expanding the historical material?] (]) 14:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
: My post was about the letter and protest in recent days. I twice mention the mural in passing so you concentrate on that as deviation. ] (]) 14:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::And? Yet again, this is not about contemporary antisemitism in Britain, not about the Labour party. We already have well over 3/4 of this article about contemporary antisemitism, and about half that devoted to the Labour party. Thus is massively unbalanced given 2000 years of history. And no I am not concentrating on the mural as a deviation, we are talking about adding just that, mention of the mural controversy. That is what this latest spat is about, Corbyns comments about the mural. But lets ignore that then. |
|
|
::Explain why we need ore stuff about a subject we already devote about a third of this article to? What does this tell us about antisemitism in Britain we do not already cover?] (]) 14:45, 27 March 2018 (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)
