Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Another Labour Party member

suspended over vile antisemitic posts, should we add it? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I can just see the text "Someone said something antisemitic and they were suspended".Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Guido is reliable Ya. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. A blog is not a WP:RS unless it meets one of the WP:SPS exemptions, which this clearly does not. Additionally, unless a source talks about the labour party specifically, using it in that section is synth. (ie. "here is a general article discussing perception of the labour party" is acceptable; "here is a random accusation against a member of the labour party" is not, because you're making the uncited implication that this affects the reputation of the labour party as a whole.) EDIT: I went over the section and removed another blog cite. Generally speaking, blogs (even ones published in otherwise-reputable publications) are not usable as sources, since they lack the fact-checking and editorial control that gives the rest of the paper its reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This reliable for sure [1]--Shrike (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

We also have these (Nasreen Khan - a Bradford shortlister) - Serious concerns as Labour shortlists councillor accused of anti-Semitism, Labour candidate's antisemitic social media posts revealed, Labour candidate Nasreen Khan dropped 'for anti-Semitism'. I think we should make a push for sourcing showing the connection between pandering to Muslim constituencies and antisemitism by candidates - I've seen attributed opinions for this that could be used - e.g. Ruth Deech, Baroness Deech here - Why the Labour Party Won't Confront British Muslim anti-Semitism Too many Labour politicians cravenly adopted the anti-Semitic tropes and anti-Israel demonization they think will get them British Muslim votes, rather than standing up to the prejudice that exists in the community. or perhaps this [2]. An in-depth study of the correlation (that seems quite obvious between representing Muslim constituencies and anti-Jewish speech/post) would be better.Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

News blogs are RS so I have restored that content, it is attributed and there is nothing wrong with it Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

People may need to read WP:NEWSBLOG Darkness Shines (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No they are not, blogs are blogs. Blogs are sometimes accepted as RS if the blogger is a noted expert in the field, who the hell is Mr Daisley?Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. Note may, not are. You need to establish that Mr Daisley meets the above criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes they are, from the policy "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer" which is what i did, there is feck all wrong with the edit Darkness Shines (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And Daisley is a journalist Darkness Shines (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets see what RSN say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly RSN agrees it is RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel that his statements generally fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL; but even if they didn't, Daisley isn't a high-profile enough commentator to justify citing him here. (As I recall, he was actually fired from his job following allegations that he was using it as an "activist" rather than a journalist.) Citing him here, when many higher-profile and more reliable sources are available, is if nothing else giving his views WP:UNDUE weight. If he must be mentioned, I would suggest collecting multiple opinion pieces and summarizing them all, along the lines of "Labour has been criticized for this by multiple commentators, including [name], [name], and [name]." This avoids the problem of undue weight by placing the emphasis on who is commentating, rather than risking using the article to give excessive weight to marginal viewpoints. --Aquillion (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Not exceptional at all, given the Home Affairs Select Committee report says, "The failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with anti-Semitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic,"[3] Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This mission to make multiple WP pages a noticeboard for debating alleged current Labour Party issues (or rather one in particular) is becoming a little tiresome. This page, most of all, does not need to document every single instance of an obscure Labour member being an idiot on social media in 2017; nor does it need to tell us what the Mail said (inaccurately) about a non-Labour member's comments at a conference fringe event. Nor does it need to quote and cite random newspaper columnists like Stephen Daisley. Can people take all this crap to their blogs? Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 00:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is NOT Anti-Semitic in and of it's self

We must be careful not to link or confuse anti-Zionism or the actions of Israel in the occupied territories with anti-semitism; the two issues should never be mixed in an encyclopedia. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

If RS make the link so must we, but it should always be made clear these are accusations not facts..Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism IS anti-semitism per several (e.g. [4] and [5]) and certain forms of anti-zionism (e.g. "Israel free zones" in Bradford) are definitely anti-semitic per most sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You can be pro-Jewish and anti-occupation or anti-expansion of settlements in Israel; they are not contradictory as many anti-Zionist Israelis will tell you. You mix the two issues and muddy the waters to push a POV. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It is one thing to oppose Israeli policies. It is another to deny the right of self-determination specifically of the Jewish people. The latter type of anti-Zionism is recognized as antisemitism by most RSes. Regardless, there are plenty of RSes stating unequivocally that part of the conduct of several Labour politicians is antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, your "per several" are not useful. The first is the opinion of a politician, uttered at a very opportune moment. The other is...also an opinion, printed in a Detroit newspaper. You'll have to do much better than this. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Some better sourcing for several:

Taguieff, Pierre-André. Rising from the Muck: The new anti-Semitism in Europe. Ivan R. Dee, 2004.

Wistrich, Robert. "Anti-zionism and anti-semitism." Jewish Political Studies Review (2004): 27-31.

Herf, Jeffrey, ed. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in historical perspective: Convergence and divergence. Routledge, 2013.

Litvak, Meir. "The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism." The Journal of Israeli History 25.1 (2006): 267-284.

Kaplan, Edward H., and Charles A. Small. "Anti-Israel sentiment predicts anti-Semitism in Europe." Journal of Conflict Resolution 50.4 (2006): 548-561.

Wistrich, Robert S. Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger. New York: American Jewish Committee, 2002.Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Now that looks interesting. Leave the last one out. I'm not familiar with Taguieff or the publisher. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

None of which is relevant, we say what RS say, and we attribute opinions. Can we please drop all the soapboxing. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The sources are out there, but this is as close as I can get to the text of the page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

If you have sources post them here. The n we can discus how to add this to the page. But at this time nothing is being discussed in this thread about how to improve the article as far as I can see..Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I gave you one earlier, 'Avi Shlaim had an interesting article [6]' and there are many more along this line of Jews that are opposed to the current policies of the State of Israel. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Then suggest an edit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Avi Shlaim, who is an anti-zionist AFAIK, wrote an opinion piece - not an article.Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You mean like a blog entry? Sorry but it was in an RS and his views would be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

An opinion piece by a notable person can be included, and can count for something beyond opinion as well--but why all this focus on newspaper articles? Why don't y'all read books and academic articles? We're not the news, and RECENTISM (with all the aspects of undueness) is a real danger. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• So, this article is huge, and almost the entire history of antisemitim, let's say the first 1000 years, gets four or five short paragraphs. Aaron, Son of the Devil is found only in the "See also" section. I find no mention of this--which deserves incorporation and its own article, perhaps. This book isn't cited, nor is this. Rather than picking on which contemporary opinion piece to cite, can we lay the groundwork for a strong, encyclopedic article? Drmies (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the history that is because this is what this article was about, 21st century antisemitism (and very narrowly focused even in that). What it needs is a re-name.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

If you do that, you are simply reinforcing recentism--and the history of antisemitism shows that we do so at our own peril. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no issue with that, this is what the page is about so why hide it? If it is not then those who do not want it to about 21stC antisemitism can do more to make it less about 21stC antisemitism. I am happy to just rename it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm not. Antisemitism in the United Kingdom is a bigger and more important topic than Antisemitism in the United Kingdom in the 21st century. See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: anti-recentism is one of our goals. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

So just rename it Antisemitism in the Labour Party, as that appears the goal of some of the editors. They make this too political and too much about Labour, it's like an attack piece in The Daily Mail, more than an encyclopedia. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Muslim voters

The new section 'Muslim voters' seems to raise a few issues, but immediately the issue is that Baroness Deech does not describe the 2 present and 2 former Bradford MPs as 'anti-semetic', simply as critical of Israel: "Naz Shah, George Galloway, her predecessor as MP, and David Ward, a former Lib-Dem MP who was suspended from his party for calling for the end of Israel, all represented Bradford. The U.K. census of 2011 revealed that Bradford's population was 24.7% Muslim, and no doubt it’s higher by now. There are wards of Bradford, Blackburn and Burnley (the suspended councilors' constituencies) where British Muslims reach 70% of the local population. David Ward's successor as MP, Imran Hussain, has also gone out of his way to criticize Israel". Pincrete (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Deech most certainly describes this speech as antisemitic, read it again. 30 times in her piece she mentions antisemitism by Labour pols, and in the context of Bradford MPs she continues to describe these stmts as antisemitic down in the paragraph and in the next paragraph where they are still the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

To avoid argument over phrasing (despite your claim being an unreasonable parsing of the text) - I modified the article to quote Deech directly.Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Your change is OK from the verifiability angle (Deesh's main drift is anti-S, but the specific remarks about Bradford (ex)MPs was not). I only came here for the RfC, so will leave it to others to question/endorse whether this is undue given the subject is meant to be about the whole history of UK anti-S. Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree based on the sourcing that the entire section appears to be WP:UNDUE, Deech may say it is anti-semitic to criticize Israel but this is not a majority view of scholars. The section is also WP:REDFLAG for inserting claims connecting anti-semitism to anti-Zionism. It needs much better sourcing then it currently has. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

As well as any countering arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Two major scholars, Deech and reknowned antisemitism scholar Manfred Gerstenfeld, and an in depth study and poll - sourcing does not get better than that. This is not anti Israel speech exclusively - when you bring up Hitler and the holocaust - this is antisemitic, not "just" anti Israel, and the vast majority of RSes agree on this (as well as the Labour party who ejected pols for such stmts, and some of the pols themselves who apologized). Attempting to get votes from Muslims has been recognized as a major cause of this hate speech by politicians.Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

What has this to do with putting both sides of this debate?Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, we should reflect justification for antisemitic speech if they are available from notable persons or RSes. It was my understanding that most in British politics, Labour included, denounce stmts such as "when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews", however I might be wrong. How would you propose adding the other side of this debate?Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

And is that the only statement being called antisemitic? This is about antisemitism in the UK (or even antisemitism in the Labour party), not anti antisemitism in Ken Livingstone.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It is far from the only one. I believe we are over 10 high profile national level Labour figures (i.e. ignoring local level stuff). Antisemitic stmts by Labour (and ex Labour) figures has become a major issue in Jewish affairs also beyond the UK.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it has to be rewritten, Mahdi Hasan is not writing about anti-Israel sentiment in elections. There can be a section about Muslim Antisemitism, but I think it should be pulled out of the "British politics umbrella" and represent the sources accurately. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Deech (who cites Hasan) and Gerstenfeld directly address UK politicians, mainly Labour, reaching out to Muslim antisemitism to get Muslim votes - this is wider than just the antisemitic prejudice in the Muslim community itself, and directly affects UK electoral strategies in areas with a high enough proportion of Muslims.Icewhiz (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The muslim population of UK is about 4%. A large percentage are in areas which are, were and probably ever will be labour. Even if 100% of Muslims loathed Jews and Israel and voted as a single bloc as a result, the impact on UK politics would be negligible. Pincrete (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Deech citing Hasan is not really helping your argument, since Deech is undue for this article, she is a scholar on Reproductive Technology, with regards to antisemitism she is a biased activist source as a member of UK Lawyers for Israel. And three editors seem to think that it is WP:UNDUE. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Hasan article is excellent and should be included in the article with the information it serves, however some of the other citations in that section might be a violation of WP:DUE at first glance. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The labour party

As we now have an article on them maybe we should start to trim the material we have here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it needs trimming anyway (see above), but of course that page may not last. N-HH talk/edits 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please trim away given the WP:UNDUE of Labour issues and not enough reflection on the problems of the other UK parties. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Muslim section, undue weight

Given that the UK Muslim population is only about 4% of the overall population, it seems strangely over pronounced to have an entire section under Politics devoted to them. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• If they deserve their own section, them even so should the BNP and most definitely Ukip given their history. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Since there is already an article Antisemitism in the Labour Party, certainly a brief addition to this article with a link would be sufficient for this subject. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

As this [7] material is already included in Antisemitism in the Labour Party a short mention of it in the Labour paragraph should be enough, if there are not many objections? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This should be included. Antisemitism by Muslims (in Labour or otherwise) - is a major factor in the UK. They are 4% of the population, perhaps, yes. But per polling - 55% of them hold at least one anti-semitic view, and "prevalence of anti-Semitic views among Muslims was two to four times higher than the rest of the population" per a poll. They are "punching above their weight" in regards to to proportion of antisemites.Icewhiz (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

And it will be included in a shortened form under the Labour section as it is currently just a exact repetition of what is in Antisemitism in the Labour Party right down to the sources. Also giving so much space to a view held by less than 4% of the UK population violates WP:UNDUE and focusing merely on Muslims while leaving out the far-right antisemitism is simple WP:CHERRYPICKING, and finally you have the WP:BIAS of those sources listed that are more than problematic. Your comment, "prevalence of anti-Semitic views among Muslims was two to four times higher than the rest of the population" is also true of Ukip voters and the numbers go even higher for BNP types; yet you focus only on this small part of the population based on their religion is out of size to their impact on UK politics.[8] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

If you have a source for right-wing antisemtism - put it in. Muslims - per the RS I quoted above (not my comment - backed up by [9]), are a much larger proportion of antisemites than 4%.Icewhiz (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Muslims are not a political party and so should not be in this "British politics and antisemitism". Muslims are adherents to a religion, not a voting block. Far more important, they are such a small portion of the population that this section gives FAR too much weight to them; and many of the sources you quote have a built in bias. I would no more rely on JTA for a neutral view than I would the Daily News-Egypt, even Ha'aretz and Al Jazeera are suspect on such issues. These are the issues, and to the points you raise, everything here is merely a repeat of [10] which is linked already. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, clearly the cited RSes disagree with your personal view here. Coverage by Jewish outlets, who write to a target audience that is victimized by antisemitism, is usually key for coverage of antisemitism. Suggesting we exclude JTA for antisemitism coverage.... is quite an extraordinary suggestion.Icewhiz (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

All I ask is that you consider the built in bias of these RS and well as giving so the fact that the entry gives undue weight to what some 4% of the population think and divide them out based on religion in the political section of this page. It seems more than an odd mistake, almost intentional biasing of the article in this way.

"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." WP:DUE As this minority view in the UK is already covered on other pages and those pages are linked, it seems more than reasonable to trim it on this page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

We follow the amount of coverage in the sources. This is far from a minority view. Trimming, perhaps. Removal? No.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? So why nothing on UKIP that in the 2015 general election, secured over 3.8 million votes (12.6% of the total); but focus on 4.41% of the population BY religion as if all Muslims vote as a block? This makes no sense and meets no good measure of WP:NEUTRALITY. So move the reference up to the paragraph on Labour and as it is already covered on another page, trim the rest to keep this in line as not to be seen as WP:DUE or WP:POV. Currently, it just doesn't pass the WP:DUCK test. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to add on UKIP but please don't remove sourced material.--Shrike (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The information of Muslims is a duplicate of what is in Antisemitism in the Labour Party which this page links, so nothing will be removed; only trim the duplication. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This section is not about Labour, but about Muslim voters. Furthermore, if there is a spinout article, then this article should contain a summary of the spinout.Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that an expert in reproductive technology is undue for both articles, and I don't think JTA is the best source for this - JTA is a fairly mediocre source all around, I would use it for basic facts, but not rely too much on their analysis because they do tend to editorialize. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

While I disagree on your characterization of JTA, in this case we are merely using their reporting on a report by JPR - [11] - which was reported on by others as well.Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not rewrite it to make it not about the Labour party, but the wider Muslim community? After all [[12]] It is POV pausing to trey and claim that antisemitism and Muslims is only a labour party issue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, because this is about 'Politics in the UK', not religion, and secondly, it is unfairly lumping all Muslims into one voting block in the UK (which they are not), and thirdly, it puts far too much emphasis on the views of a portion of small portion of the population of the UK, and fourthly, it mixes up antisemitism with anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli expansionism. This is pure POV pushing, unbalanced, and encyclopedic; in short it is a true mess of a section. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:50, 17 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)

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 - [13]. 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 [14]) - 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 [15] (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 [16], 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 [220 incidents], there were 148 incidents [67%] 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 [17] 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)

RFC about political parties

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

• 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.

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)

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)

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)

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/wiki/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/wiki/Talk:Jackie_Walker_(activist)#Request_for_comment_can_we_say_Jackie_Walker_is_Jewish Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

antisemitism or anti-Semitism? antisemitic or anti-Semitic? antisemite or anti-Semite?

I can see that multiple variations are used across this article with little consistency. Though I think quoted text should remain as-written, it is a little jarring to see different versions interchanged even within a single paragraph. Can we come to a consensus on one version and stick with it? I've noticed that some articles (such as Adolf Hitler) use the hyphenated version exclusively, while the Wikipedia series (and the article on Antisemitism itself) exclude the hyphen.

Bonus reading: What’s in a hyphen? Why writing anti-Semitism with a dash distorts its meaning Domeditrix (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously at very great length, and the clear consensus was to prefer and use the form "antisemitism", except when citing a direct quote which hyphenates the term. See the section "Anti-Semitism" here and linked articles. If there are any inconsistencies in this article, they should be resolved accordingly. RolandR (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! There are a fair few pages that need a lot of editing then... Domeditrix (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see why the version without the hyphen is felt to be better. However, I can also see that the BBC, British Library and nearly every dictionary uses the hyphen. So, it could be a long battle to insist on one version against all other authorities. Jontel (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It was a long battle, and was resolved in favour of the non-hyphenated form. One reason is that the hyphenated form implies the existence of a phenomenon of "Semitism", and an organised opposition to it. That is why nearly all academics and activists involved in the issue prefer the unhyphenated form.RolandR (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2019 (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 Wikipedia 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...[18]. 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)

Lets not be coy here. Here's continuing coverage by Telegraph in September 2018 - "Jeremy Corbyn has been swept up in a fresh anti-Semitism row after he was pictured with an activist who has previously called for Holocaust denial to be treated as free speech.. [19]. ((Icewhiz) 07:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC))

Some comments:

• It's fairly questionable that the incident involving Miko Peled deserves mention in an article covering the whole subject of antisemitism in the United Kingdom, particularly when that article is supposed to be encyclopaedic in style, and particularly when the cited source is an article in The Guardian, which was condemned in the Birkbeck College, Media Reform Coalition report on reporting on the the Labour Party antisemitism controversy, citing an article from The Daily Mail.
• The current Wikipedia article states: "Miko Peled, who stated that people ought to be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened." That wholly distorts what Peled is reported to have said: "This is about free speech, the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue, whether it’s the Holocaust: yes or no, Palestine, the liberation, the whole spectrum. There should be no limits on the discussion."[20] In fact, I think that the current text should be deleted on WP:BRD grounds and if anyone thinks that it should be re-instated, they should be made to argue it out on the appropriate noticeboard.
• In the UK, the current situation is that it is permitted to discuss or criticise what is said about the Holocaust and there is no great pressure to change that; Peled is therefore just saying that should continue, along with free speech on other subjects, including Palestine.
• Peled was speaking at a meeting organised by the Free Speech on Israel group whose title appeared to be "How Israel Silences Its Critics: Why We Oppose the Witch Hunt". He made a passing reference to the Holocaust in a reply given during the question and answer session which followed his talk. It's noticeable that the whole context of the comment is missing in newspaper reports: the question which was asked isn't described; nor is the gist of the reply. In subsequent comments Peled clarified that he'd been talking about whether the expression of a variety of views should be treated as criminal.[21][22][23][24]

    ←   ZScarpia   16:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Cable Street

The short section mentioning the Battle of Cable Street seems inconsistent with the Wiki page on the event.

It says

"The Board of Deputies of British Jews denounced the march as anti-semitic, and urged Jews to stay away".

and

"The BUF marchers were dispersed towards Hyde Park instead while the anti-fascists rioted with police".

(Although elsewhere I seem to recall reading that the BUF just decided to go home rather than being 'dispersed')

So it seems the resistance to Moseley and his fascists wasn't in any significant way led by Jews as implied in the text, nor was the BUF really 'repulsed' by anyone, since the actual 'battle' was between the objectors and the police who were trying to restore order.

Perhaps a small correction might be made to clarify things.

Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandrathesceptic (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've changed it to make it clear that the battle was with the police, not the fascists, who agreed to abandon their march. The defence was clearly a collaborative exercise between a number of groups; I've omitted any claim to leadership by any one group. Jontel (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(Blogpost) Comparison of the Met Police and CST antisemitic crime figures for 2014

Mira Bar-Hillel - #Antisemitism: The Myths and the Maths, 29 August 2015. [Elsewhere on her blog, Mira makes some interesting comments on incidents involving Ken Livingstone]     ←   ZScarpia   21:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)