| Revision as of 19:31, 8 April 2019 editRolandR (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers32,329 edits →antisemitism or anti-Semitism? antisemitic or anti-Semitic? antisemite or anti-Semite?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:23, 31 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,754 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom/Archive 2) (bot |
| (46 intermediate revisions by 17 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|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Jewish History|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=|importance=low|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low|Interfaith=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Israel|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject History|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject History|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject European history|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
| 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> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== New bus line == |
|
== RfC regarding Jeremy Corbyn and antisemitism == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
There is currently a discussion regarding whether a letter from a number of Orthodox Rabbis should be included in the “Allegations of antisemitism and responses” section of the Jeremy Corbyn page. Arguments for and against are in the “Letter from Orthodox Rabbis is Valid” section of the talk page. Please view and vote if this interests you. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#RfC_about_a_letter_from_Orthodox_Rabbis ] (]) 11:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RFC at Jackie Walker == |
|
== Question == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jackie_Walker_(activist)#Request_for_comment_can_we_say_Jackie_Walker_is_Jewish ] (]) 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Dec 2024 == |
|
== Deleting Miko Peled reference == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.thejc.com/news/largest-menorah-lighting-ever-in-bricket-wood-after-chanukiah-smashed-by-vandals-ro7yfi24 |
|
I am proposing this passage be deleted: Deputy leader ], promised there would be an investigation on how the party provided a platform at a conference fringe event to ], who stated, as reported by the ''Daily Mail'', that people ought to be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened.{{sfn|Elgot|2017}} Watson in response said, "It is nothing to do with the official Labour party conference. And, if there was Holocaust denial there, these people have no right to be in the Labour party and, if they are, they should be expelled." Peled responded to the accusations by saying that Watson and Ashworth were confusing freedom of speech with antisemitism, tweeting "free speech is now antisemitism too." Peled said he did not deny the Holocaust.{{sfn|Weaver|Elgot|2017}} At a later meeting at ] in November 2017, Pelod complained about a "witch-hunt against antisemites and Holocaust deniers" and said Corbyn had "put away" the "nonsense" about those issues. See {{cite news|last=Thomas|first=Alastair|url=https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/miko-peled-zionists-do-not-deserve-a-platform-1.447859|title=Miko Peled: Zionists do not deserve a platform|work=The Jewish Chronicle|date=12 November 2017|accessdate=12 November 2017}}</ref> |
|
|
|
] (]) 09:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
I do not think it is particularly relevant to the article. Peled is not British. He did not attack British Jews. He mentioned freedom of expression on the Holocaust in passing (four words) at a meeting about Free speech and Israel but says that he does not deny the Holocaust. He was speaking at a fringe meeting of a Labour Party conference i.e. the meeting was not organized by the Labour Party but by individual members, at which he spoke along with a range of other speakers. WP:PROPORTION I also think these four words at a meeting is pretty trivial in an article on 1000 years' history of a serious subject and lowers the bar of significance far too low. May it be deleted? ] (]) 20:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
: The issue is that Labour gave a platform, whether at a fringe event or not, to someone who thinks people should be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened. That is what Watson's response was about. ] (]) 22:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, Labour did not give anyone a platform. Anybody can organise a fringe meeting around the party conference, the party has absolutely no say in the content, platform or even the existence of such a meeting. Irrespective of the content of Peled's words (and I would agree that he has been cited totally out of context), the fact remains that his hosts were an independent group, some but not all of whose members are Labour Party members, which is not in any way answerable to or under the direction of the Labour Party. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 11:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Labour will have accepted a fringe meeting on Israel and free speech. For Labour to be responsible, they would have to: 1) had the list of speakers, 2) known that Peled had views on the permissability of questioning whether the Holocaust happened, which is not otherwise mentioned on his Misplaced Pages entry, 3) known that he was going to raise it in connection with the meeting's subject. There is no evidence for any of this. So, I don't see that the episode indicates that the Labour Party acted in an antisemitic way on this occasion, which is presumably the rationale for including it. Tom Watson's response is not a rationale for inclusion; he thought there was Holocaust denial, when there was not. ] (]) 22:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::: RSes see this as relevant. It happend in the UK, at the conference of one of the two largest parties. Observers and experts were alarmed that Labour hosted such hate speech, and this was covered by relevant sources. IDONTLIKE aside - there is no arguement here for removal.] (]) 11:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This is all arguable. It was a fringe meeting, so unofficial, and organisations cannot be held liable for everything their lobbyists or fringe groups do. A single phrase is hardly significant hate speech, especially in context. The Guardian is careful to ascribe the report to the Daily Mail, which is not an RS. I presume the observers and experts you mention are pro-Israeli and so would be inclined to be hostile to the pro Palestinian Peled and fringe meeting organisers. ] (]) 12:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Being or not being pro-Israeli is irrelevant. Here is the Guardian - {{tq|"Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, has said the party will investigate how it gave a platform at a conference fringe event to a speaker who said people should be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened. The remarks by the Israeli-American author Miko Peled have renewed alarm about antisemitism in the Labour party...}}. It seems Labour itself and RSes are concerned over support in Labour events for Holocaust denial.] (]) 21:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Yes, that's what the article says, not what Tom Watson said, which was different. He seems to think that there was Holocaust denial, "And if there was Holocaust denial there" when there was not. And who is alarmed, apart from the journalists concerned - the article does not say. We rely on RS for their reporting of facts, not for their opinions. ] (]) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Lets not be coy here. Here's continuing coverage by Telegraph in September 2018 - {{tq|"Jeremy Corbyn has been swept up in a fresh anti-Semitism row after he was pictured with an activist who has previously called for Holocaust denial to be treated as free speech.}}. . |
|
|
|
|
|
== antisemitism or anti-Semitism? antisemitic or anti-Semitic? antisemite or anti-Semite? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I can see that multiple variations are used across this article with little consistency. Though I think quoted text should remain as-written, it is a little jarring to see different versions interchanged even within a single paragraph. Can we come to a consensus on one version and stick with it? I've noticed that some articles (such as ]) use the hyphenated version exclusively, while the Misplaced Pages series (and the article on ] itself) exclude the hyphen. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bonus reading: ] (]) 11:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This has been discussed previously at very great length, and the clear consensus was to prefer and use the form "antisemitism", except when citing a direct quote which hyphenates the term. See the section and linked articles. If there are any inconsistencies in this article, they should be resolved accordingly. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 17:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thank you! There are a fair few pages that need a lot of editing then... ] (]) 17:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I can see why the version without the hyphen is felt to be better. However, I can also see that the BBC, British Library and nearly every dictionary uses the hyphen. So, it could be a long battle to insist on one version against all other authorities. ] (]) 17:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It was a long battle, and was resolved in favour of the non-hyphenated form. One reason is that the hyphenated form implies the existence of a phenomenon of "Semitism", and an organised opposition to it. That is why nearly all academics and activists involved in the issue prefer the unhyphenated form.<span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 19:31, 8 April 2019 (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)
