Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.43.87.35 (talk) at 07:53, 11 May 2018 (→Why is is is entry ignoring a key dynamic at the heart of the anti-Semitism debate in the UK?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:53, 11 May 2018 by 82.43.87.35 (talk) (→Why is is is entry ignoring a key dynamic at the heart of the anti-Semitism debate in the UK?: 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.

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)

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. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:33, 17 February 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)

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 WP:SYNTH 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 WP:RS which we must determine WP:DUE weight for, but a consensus to include); I can't see it. Can you point me to it? The WP:RSN discussions specifically included people noting that that he didn't necessarily pass WP:DUE. In fact, looking back at the discussion here, you seem to have been the only person arguing for inclusion, so unless you can find other people saying he passes WP:DUE, 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 WP:RSN discussions (which said we could use him, but that he might not pass WP:DUE) 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. --Aquillion (talk) 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.Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If you feel it's WP:DUE 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. --Aquillion (talk) 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.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree; a summary is the best way to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to any one voice. Selecting one voice and amplifying it already introduces WP:DUE issues that cause the same WP:OR / WP:SYNTH 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 WP:DUE concerns; and we could assess those to at least pick the most representative one, if nothing else. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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 a dangerous use of the same conflation employed by extreme anti-Semites.

Categories: