Revision as of 22:11, 29 March 2019 editJontel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,518 edits →Deleting Miko Peled reference← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:11, 1 April 2019 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers805,240 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | ||
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=B|ts=20130623140013|reviewer=Jamesx12345}} | {{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=B|ts=20130623140013|reviewer=Jamesx12345}} | ||
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=start}} | {{WikiProject Judaism|class=start|importance=}} | ||
{{WikiProject Discrimination|class=start}} | {{WikiProject Discrimination|class=start|importance=}} | ||
{{WikiProject Jewish History|class=start}} | {{WikiProject Jewish History|class=start|importance=}} | ||
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=start}} | {{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=start|importance=}} | ||
{{WikiProject Religion|class=|importance=|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Israel|class=|importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|class=|importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject History|class=|importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject European history|class=|importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|class=|importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=|importance=}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config |
Revision as of 07:11, 1 April 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. |
|
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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives |
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. |
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)
- 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. RolandR (talk) 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. Jontel (talk) 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.Icewhiz (talk) 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. Jontel (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Being or not being pro-Israeli is irrelevant. Here is the Guardian -
"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.Icewhiz (talk) 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. Jontel (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Being or not being pro-Israeli is irrelevant. Here is the Guardian -
- 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. Jontel (talk) 12:18, 29 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.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Elgot 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFElgot2017 (help)
- Weaver & Elgot 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeaverElgot2017 (help)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/23 June 2013
- Accepted AfC submissions
- Start-Class Judaism articles
- Unknown-importance Judaism articles
- Start-Class Discrimination articles
- Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- Start-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- Start-Class United Kingdom articles
- Unknown-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- Unassessed Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Unassessed Israel-related articles
- Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- Unassessed Ethnic groups articles
- Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- Unassessed history articles
- Unknown-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- Unassessed European history articles
- Unknown-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- Unassessed Middle Ages articles
- Unknown-importance Middle Ages articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- Unassessed Christianity articles
- Unknown-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles