Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom

Why is is is entry ignoring a key dynamic at the heart of the anti-Semitism debate in the UK?
There is no balance in this article to counter the false assumption made in it that arguments against actions by the government or military of Israel, or against Zionism, are automatically anti-Semitic. In this way the article is one sided and pushes a false narrative that can in itself be seen as anti-Semitic since it employs the very same tactic used by extremist anti-Semites who would blame all Jews for the actions of Israel or extreme Zionists. That assumption should not appear as a flat assumption in this article - it should be stated that in the debate about anti-Semitism in the UK, one side is trying to push that assumption and is being criticised for doing so as both an attempt to shut down criticism of Israel and extreme Zionism and as a dangerous use of the same conflation employed by extreme anti-Semites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.87.35 (talk • contribs) 07:54, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

Removal of text and sources
A new editor has removed text ("However, a number of academic studies have heavily disputed this assertion") and relevant sources (Kuper, R., 2020. A Reply to ‘Labour and Antisemitism: A Crisis Misunderstood’. The Political Quarterly, 91(4), pp.832-838; Gidley, B., McGeever, B. and Feldman, D., 2020. Labour and Antisemitism: a crisis misunderstood. The Political Quarterly, 91(2), pp.413-421) following the sentence "Contemporary antisemitism is also prevalent on the left"), with the justification that the sources are "specific to the Labour Party". Well, of course they are - any response to claims of antisemitism in the Labour Party is bound to relate to the Labour Party. After I reverted this edit, the editor re-reverted, saying in the edit summary "I don't give a pass on left wing antisemitism". The removal of this text and the sources which support it means that the article gives a misleading impression of academic support for the assertion, and combined with the edit summary suggests that the editor is here to right great wrongs, rather than to contribute constructively. Should the text cited above and supporting sources be included in this article? RolandR (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you are synthasising, while Labour is left of center, they are not all of them left. wp:v is clear, a source must explicitly support your text, not infer it. I can see their objection.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, so are the sources supporting the text remaining. Currently, different standards appear to be applied to sources supporting the assertion of "left antisemitism" than to those disputing this. RolandR (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, feel free to remove them if they only cover the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism in literature
e.g. Marlowe's Barabas, Shakespeare's Shylock pr Dickens's Fagin. Quite virulent antisemitic Stereotypes. - Is there a dedicated article about this already? Or shouldn't it be drafted? --2001:9E8:257:CD00:1DCC:F85E:ABA3:47AE (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Section: Political Parties
The paragraphs discussing the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats are split up by the paragraph concerning the Labour Party; it would be more straightforward to combine them since the relevant information belongs together. Additionally, (my previous edits were removed, so I'll explain further here) the information about antisemitism in the labour party should be updated, since there is more recent information than the Chakrabarti Inquiry, such as the EHRC report, which also contains relevant findings. This particular section also does unnecessary interpolation, such as the opening sentence: ("allegations of antisemitism have been made since its members elected Jeremy Corbyn as leader in 2015, partly due to his past associations with anti-Zionists"). This lacks any source, and is just analysis on the part of the editor. Jacobin is also not a useful source for summary (since it is explicitly opinion commentary), as opposed to the report itself. Update: I'm not looking to get into an edit war, but "better before" is not an explanation. Unless you want to discuss it, which I'm perfectly open to, I've explained my reasoning for the edits and am going to revert it. Moshe HaTzaddik (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is you who needs to explain why this is an improvement, case by case. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)