Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Darkness Shines (talk | contribs) at 11:38, 15 January 2018 (→RV, why: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:38, 15 January 2018 by Darkness Shines (talk | contribs) (→RV, why: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

RFC about political parties

(WP:ANRFC) 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. Deryck C. 18:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this page give so much coverage to one UK political party and it's fringe elements?Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

As it needs a rewording.

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?

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 Darkness Shines (talk) 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). 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.Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Bodkin, Henry (20 August 2017). "Labour 'too tolerant' of anti-Semitism - new poll". The Telegraph. Retrieved 26 November 2017.
Cowburn, Ashley (19 August 2017). "Over 80 per cent of British Jews believe Labour is too tolerant of anti-Semitism within its ranks, poll finds". The Independent. Retrieved 26 November 2017.

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. Only in death does duty end (talk) 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. Philip Cross (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes The Labour UK party receive much coverage in WP:RS so per WP:DUE we should too give the same space here too.--Shrike (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Procedural oppose; this RfC is vague to the point of being malformed. I see no egregious WP:UNDUE coverage in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 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 WP:UNDUE given the relatively light weight of what's actually there (basically, citing a few people's vague opinions and a poll.) --Aquillion (talk) 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". Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Is that how I worded it?Slatersteven (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC) — 144.15.255.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This vote is from a proxy server based in the US Darkness Shines (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually the IP has made 1000s of edits outside the topic area since first editing in February 2004! Pincrete (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

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? Edaham (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Muslim perpetrators

@Slatersteven: per this study Enstad, Johannes Due. "Antisemitic Violence in Europe, 2005-2015. Exposure and Perpetrators in France, UK, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Russia." (2017)., discussed in a secondary fashion in a number of sources, including this - . 45% of anti-semitic hate crimes in the UK are carried by Muslim perpetrators. So - while I agree that "tHIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT MUSLI,MS" (per your diff ) - when Muslims constitute a large proportion (in a highly disproportionate way) of the phenomena in the UK - this should be reflected in our article.Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"The major source of contemporary antisemitism is to be found in parts of the British Muslim community. The roots of this kind of antisemitism are complex – from a mixture of historical attitudes, domestic and political tensions between communities to the globalisation of the Middle East conflict. One assumption is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has fuelled a sense of anger and injustice among the British Muslim community and therefore created a climate that is more hospitable to radical Islamist ideology, such as contemporary antisemitism"

We do. What we do not do is Labour a point.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a RfC is the only way to settle this given the level of emotions being shown? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Then we should tack this onto this paragraph. Clearly a study measuring the proportion of anti-semitic incidents carried out by Muslims in the UK is more relevant than apologia regarding their motives that is currently present. Qualifying this beyond "The major source of contemporary antisemitism".Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Then we also need similar studies about the far right as well, rather then singling our Muslims.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Then find them - that's not ground for removal of a source stating 45% of the perps are Muslim. This study actually states The results (Figure 11) indicate that right-wing extremists, who are often associated with antisemitism, in fact constitute a clear minority of perpetrators. Respondents in all four countries most often perceived the perpetrator(s) to be “someone with a Muslim extremist view”. It is also worth noting that in France, Sweden and the UK (but not in Germany) the perpetrator was perceived to be left-wing more often than right-wing. (there's a nice chart there too -- this is from victim reports of violent incidents (page 18) who recount the characteristics on their attackers (i.e. whatever they called out, insignia, dress, etc.)) It seems that antisemitic attacks by neo-nazies (and the like) were a "big thing" in the past - not the present.Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is, if you think it is important you need to write it in a nPOV way, I do not. Also (yet again) we are arguing about material that covers the last few years, even though what is need is more material covering then last 1000. This is also why it is Undue, it is recentism. As to your source "backgrounds from presumably Muslim countries", Sorry that is not (to my mind) an indicator of facts.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This is quantified by victims reports who report on the identity of who assaulted them (page 18). Classifying between white and non-white or by slogans/religious-utterances shouted by the assailants is fairly reliable. We have a section on contemporary antisemitism - it would seem quite DUE to state 45% of these are Muslim.Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I quoted page 18. And no . Classifying between white and non-white or by slogans/religious-utterances shouted by the assailants is not fairly reliable, it is bigotry that assumes because someone is Brown and uses the word Kike (for example) they must be Muslim.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Accusing victims of violent hate crimes of bigotry when they provide an assessment of the identity of their attacker (who often makes his motivation for the attack clear)? That's quite some victim blaming. Regardless of whether this is bigotry, it is in a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not, I am accusing the report of it. Is it RS, given the above claim I would say not. They clearly put words into peoples mouths.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, it's looking like only RfC will settle these issues as I can't even get these other editors to see there is a difference between the religion of Islam and Labour voters. These editors seem unable to distinguish between antisemitism or anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli expansionism. So we are just going around and around while the article looks more and more like an attack piece from the Jerusalem Post's opinion page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The source is RS, I'm not seeing an issue here. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. RS trumps IDONTLIKE/OR which is all we have seen as a counterarguement. I have not seen a serious antisemitism study from the last decade that has not addressed muslim perps. If they are motivated by anti zionism or antisemitism is besides the point - when you physically attack Jewish people for being Jewish, burn a synagouge or deface a Jewish cemetary it is an act of antisemitism.Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem Icewhiz, is that Islam is not a political party in the UK and it had no place in that section. If Muslim views were incorporated into a sub-section on religions, where antisemitism within religious groups is discussed; that would have been different. But you mix religion and politics in a shorthand. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Help me out, there was a report about Pakistan based news outlets in the UK that put out very antisemitic articles in Urdu (I believe) and this is central to the high levels of antisemitic views among it's readership. Now that would be something that could be added to this article as it gives details and background to the views you are suggesting in a more factual and less op-ed way. Please pursue these kinds of avenues to help improve this page. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec) This was not in the politics section. It should be in "Contemporary antisemitism in the United Kingdom".Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It already is in that section , but we don't need more opinion(s) but the reason(s) why such opinions exist to be explained here. Muslims are not the only reason antisemitism is on the rise in the UK. It is far more complicated than that. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

We are just going to go around in circles again, lets RFC it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Couple of comments: the Oslo report here is drawing on UK reports by the CST, and it would be better to use the CST originals than this secondary analysis, which seems pretty skewed. The 45% figure mentioned above does not seem to come from the data. Enstad is talking about CST annual reports which note the identity of the perpetrator, and he rightly notes that this identity is recorded for only 30-50% of the incidents. He then says that 55% of these are recorded as White British. That's inaccurate, as the CST does not record "White British". 45% is the figure left over from that, i.e. non-white perpetrators, not Muslim perpetrators. Here is the most recent CST report:

CST received a description of the ethnic appearance of the offender or offenders in 208 of the 767 antisemitic incidents reported during the first six months of 2017. Of these, 106, or 51 per cent, were described as white – north European; five, or two per cent, were described as white – south European; 36 (17 per cent) were described as black; 50 (24 per cent) were described as south Asian; one (one per cent) as east or south-east Asian; and 10 (five per cent) as Arab or north African. These proportions are broadly typical for a period when there is no trigger event from the Middle East.

So, less than a third are Arab or South Asian in appearance - some (most?) of whom might be Muslim or of Muslim background - in this typical period. The Enstad study also draws on the one-off FRA report, which is about Jewish perceptions of antisemitism rather than actual incidents; that said that 36% of respondents perceived perpetrators to be Muslim extremists. The CST also records motivation when this is apparent. Again from the most recent:

Of these , there were 148 incidents in which far right discourse was used; 55 in which reference was made to Israel, Zionism or the Middle East; and 17 in which Islamist discourse was used. In 45 incidents, more than one type of discourse was used.

Clearly, then, Islamism is one significant motivator in antisemitic attacks, but absolutely not "the major" element. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll note that the Oslo report (which has a pan-European 2005-2015 outlook and goal) aggregated a number of CST reports for different years (per their notes - 2009, 2010, 2013 (probably since in these years there was data)) - to reach their metric. I think that the secondary multi-year analysis by the Oslo study (which is then compared to other European countries) is better than the single year, more primary, CST reports. Data for 2009+2010+2013 might be different from 2017/H1 - and I think a multi-year span is more appropriate than a single half-year which might be noisy. I don't like the "major" language either - I'd prefer to qualify it (it seems clear it is disproportionate - and if there was a number range that would be better).Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

But it is not even 'Islam' per say, as historically, Jews fared better in Islamic controlled areas better than they did in Christian areas, it has only been since the Israeli/Palestinian issue that a cultural shift began. All of this has risen as Zionism with Israeli expansionism, this is the fuel behind the cultural shift of the past century. Yes, it is very much cultural, not religious; or at least it was until the Saudis began the spread of their form of Islam in the past 50yrs. In short, it would be an error to blame Islam for antisemitism any more than you blame Christianity for the Holocaust. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, Icewhiz, about the aggregate being better than the single year. I only meant to say we need to use it with great care, and make sure that we don't draw false conclusions from the way it presents the CST data in a slightly confusing way, as there is no actual data from the UK on Muslim perpetrators, only on ethnicity of perpetrators and on Islamist motivation.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It has a prominent place in here so besides some minor adjustments, how much more do you wish to add? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I want to quote study results at the end/middle of that paragraph, possibly removing some of the speculation there (as to what may or may not be the motivation) and modifying wording. At most an addition of 1-2 sentences.Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure and did you happen to find that article about the Pakistan based press putting out blatant slurs and antisemitic propaganda in the UK? I with I could remember what source I heard it from... C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent rise of the far-right in politics affecting antisemitism in the UK

Noted that there is not much in this article regarding the rise of Ukip's xenophobia as part of the rise in UK antisemitism. As Ukip is perceived by the majority of UK Jewry as the most antisemitic, outside of the BNP, it seems so strange that there is no focus on their association with this issue. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Perceptions section

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)

RV, why

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. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Categories: