| Revision as of 17:49, 6 October 2018 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,571,607 editsm Substing templates: {{Unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.← Previous edit |
Revision as of 05:15, 7 October 2018 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) (botNext edit → |
| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
|
: 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) |
|
: 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RV, why == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{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== |
|
==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) |
|
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) |
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. --Aquillion (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
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?Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 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)
