Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:02, 28 March 2019 editBellowhead678 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers149,500 edits →Deleting Miko Peled reference: reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:42, 28 March 2019 edit undoJontel (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users20,518 edits →Deleting Miko Peled reference Next edit →
Line 48:		Line 48:
	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)		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)		: 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)
			:: 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)

Revision as of 22:42, 28 March 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antisemitism in the United Kingdom article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted on 23 June 2013 by reviewer Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Judaism

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Discrimination

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Jewish history

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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?Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

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. Philip Cross (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2018 (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?Slatersteven (talk) 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. Philip Cross (talk) 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?Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is is is entry ignoring a key dynamic at the heart of the anti-Semitism debate in the UK?

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)

RfC regarding Jeremy Corbyn and antisemitism

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 Burrobert (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC at Jackie Walker

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jackie_Walker_(activist)#Request_for_comment_can_we_say_Jackie_Walker_is_Jewish Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Miko Peled reference

I am proposing this passage be deleted: Deputy leader Tom Watson, promised there would be an investigation on how the party provided a platform at a conference fringe event to Miko Peled, who stated, as reported by the Daily Mail, that people ought to be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened. 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. At a later meeting at University College London 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 Thomas, Alastair (12 November 2017). "Miko Peled: Zionists do not deserve a platform". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 12 November 2017.</ref>

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? Jontel (talk) 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. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:02, 28 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. Jontel (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Elgot 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFElgot2017 (help)
Weaver & Elgot 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaverElgot2017 (help)

Categories: