Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Israel

Many of the instances of antisemitism on this page are not instances of antisemitism, they are instances of criticism of Israeli policy. I don;t want to charge in to what is quite a highly charged area, but I am thinking of removing them. What do people think?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolive21 (talk • contribs)

Which ones? ― Padenton|✉   06:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I must react to this claim. There's no doubt that the number of antisemitic incidents in UK is increasing due to the israel-arab conflict, and there are actually a lot of anti-Israel incidents across the UK. Some researches fully support this assumption (I think that even in this page u can find sources about that topic). Anyhow, in this specific page all of the incidents are undoubtedly antisemitic. Sometimes, the perpetrator's motive is based on opposing to Israel, but the result is pure antisemitism, such as in the sentence: “We have to kill all the Jews as they kill Palestinians" (comment 27). Once he refers 'Jews", the definition is clear...ScottyNolan (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That a particular person or organisation (police, newspaper, etc.) calls something anti-semitism, is a fact, that a WP editor deduces it is WP:synth, unless those very words (or a precise synonym) is used.Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Melanie Philips

Is Melanie philips actually a reliable source? She's just a columnist (not any sort of statician or jouranlist?), as is Horowitz blog FrontPageMagazine (which is a right wing blog known to have previously printed fabrications). I'm going to remove them, unless someone can find a source to back up what they're saying? NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It would depend on the claim Melanie P is supporting, I have to rush now but will look back later. Pincrete (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I remeber somewhere on this site that FrontPageMag was unreliable given the fact that it is a blog, rather than a news site and therefore lacks neutrality. I will search for it and see what they say. NarSakSasLee (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Melanie P would generally be considered reliable for her own opinions and claims, which, I think, would be the case here. Don't know about FrontPage, a blog is not automatically invalid, it depends on the writer/content. WP:RSN is there to help with such questions. Although there are specific problems with some of these 'stories', the bigger problem to me is that the article is not in any sense encyclopaedic, simply a list of events which may/may not have been reliably described as anti-s, all of which are 21st century (did anti-s not exist in the UK in the preceding two millenia?). Pincrete (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OR, dubious sources and constructive suggestion

This article appears to contain a lot of WP:OR and WP:Synth, where editors themselves are defining what is/is not anti-sem. There are also many basic grammar and factual errors (eg the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism is NOT the UK Govt, nor even an official part of it). It is also OVER dependent on this source, which as an 'advocacy group' is probably not RS. I removed the section on 'Easy-Jet' magazine because it was obviously Synth, the original NS article does not mention anti-sem, and the incident was obviously an expensive gaffe by Easy-Jet and gross insensitivity and stupidity on the part of the fashion photographer.

Many of the stories on antisemitism.org.il are mirrored from notable UK/US and other journals, so why not use the original sources and discard those that are not RSed?

The 'Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism' is used heavily, so why not devote a section to that report, rather than just using its content? Or improve All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism, which is barely a stub and link from this page?

Why does the article start in 2000, is there no history of antisemitism before then, or other articles to link to which cover the subject? If it intends to only cover the modern period, it should be renamed.

This subject is not my speciality, but at the moment, a serious topic is being weakened by carelessness.Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is also a failure to give context eg in the 'Galloway' incident, there is no mention that the CPS found that there was clearly no cause for prosecution, nor that the full quote of the Liberal is:

Ward said Galloway had made a "schoolboy error", adding "of course" Israelis were welcome in Bradford. "Our complaint is not with Jews, it is not with Israelis, it is with Israel and those who support the state of Israel. It is quite dangerous talk, because the danger is of course that anybody from a Jewish background - because people will not necessarily differentiate - is then subject to abuse and anti-Semitic acts, ..... adding: "I applaud much of the work he has done over many years on the issue. But I am interested in a serious campaign to bring about change." Ward said there were now more than 75,000 signatures on a petition calling for a boycott of Israel and sanctions if the "military operations which endanger civilians in Gaza" do not cease. "This is a proper campaign," he said. "I'm not interested in a throwaway remark. Ward is clearly distancing himself from any anti-semitic reading of Galloways words, but wholly endorsing the criticism of Israel.

Similarly, in the 'Waterstone's, Mein Kampf' incident, the 'staff recommendation' describes the book as an essential read for anyone seeking to understand one of history's most despicable figures. A shocking read and a vital warning for future generations. I know that some people object so much to this book that they think it should be banned, but what is anti-semetic about this incident or about this 'recommendation'. Pincrete (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Improving the article

Hi everyone! I would like to put some effort to improve the quality of this article. I wonder if this is the place for all the "incidents lists", or maybe this article should focus on contemporary trends and also histoy of the antisemitism in the UK. What do you think about removing all the Incidents section? Most of the cases reminde reports from newspapers, and not encyclopedia... Do you think that there is a place in Wikipedia for another article contains only the incidents, or it's better to erase them and enrich the article from other sources? ScottyNolan (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You've probably read my comments above. What concerns me is that at the moment the article is no more than a list of ALLEGED incidents in the 21st C. with no clear context or even clarity about what is anti-sem, what insensitivity, what poor commercial choices (Waterstone's and Easyjet seem to me, in the first instance to be an 'unfortunate' choice, (why anyone would want Mein Kampf as a present is a mystery to me, though it was obvious from the fuller accounts that WS were selling it as a warning not as 'propaganda'), EasyJet was a very insensitive choice by the fashion photographer, probably ignorance on the part of Easyjet itself. The info on the parliamentary body should be on that article's page. The longer term history (8-900 years? at least) ties in with the presence of Jews in the UK, both that subject and what pages exist on WP, are not my strong subjects. I do feel that at present it is very unencyc. and was considering calling for help from editors more familiar with this subject area.Pincrete (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out on other pages, I don't think these incident lists are appropriate unless they are of particularly important incidents. Since ScottyNolan and I have disagreed on this point on other pages, I am a little surprised, but also pleased to see that we now seem to be on the same page? -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Given lack of objections and RfC results on this same issue at [1] I am going ahead an removing these incidents. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, in this article the incidents lists seemed a little exaggerated...ScottyNolan (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822190807/http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf to http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn

In the interests of political neutrality; isn't it surely wrong to have Jeremy Corbyn as the only pictured current politician. Nobody is claiming that Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic. If a picture is going to be included shouldn't it be a picture of antisemitic desecration of a synagogue or a cemetery? But not a picture of the leader of the opposition. Garageland66 (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No, as the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has been implicated in a tolerance of antisemitism by very many sources, it is entirely relevant to include a picture of him. Perhaps if or when Ken Livingstone is expelled, he has been reported to be under investigation again, an image of Livingstone could be substituted, but Corbyn is currently the politician who is most connected to this issue as it affects the Labour Party. That he "repeatedly condemned antisemitism and all forms of racism" (no source cited in the caption below Corbyn's image, BTW) is irrelevant.

While it would be absurd to compare Corbyn to individuals on the far-right, passages on more recent antisemites than Arnold Leese, say Nick Griffin, Colin Jordan or John Tyndall, passages on these individuals are not present in the article as yet. If there was a passage on NF and BNP types with images, it is true including the image of Corbyn would then seem odd. Philip Cross (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Philip Cross. --GHcool (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There is almost no evidence and a mass of conjecture in relation to Jeremy Corbyn and antisemitism. Indeed even Corbyn's critics have not actually accused him of being an antisemite. The Conservative Party has also often been accused of racism; but we'd all agree that it'd be wrong to place a picture of Theresa May on the Wiki article on racism in the UK. Garageland66 (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The recent problems Labour has had with this issue are entirely asociated with the rise of Corbyn as leader. Philip Cross (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

That's really not an objective or, in any way, neutral assessment of the situation. Almost every accusation (Naz Shah etc) refers to incidents that took place under the previous Labour leader, not Corbyn. This is a page on antisemitism. I've therefore provided a picture of Nick Griffin. A political leader that is indisputably an antisemite and holocaust denier. This is surely a far more appropriate image. Garageland66 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The article specifically mentions Corbyn by name. The caption under the picture says that Corbyn gave evidence about antisemitism. Wikipedia is not commenting on whether Corbyn is or is not an antisemite. We are simply saying that Corbyn is an important figure in the discussion about antisemitism in the UK, and specifically, the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry. --GHcool (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"The article specifically mentions Corbyn by name". Yes it also specifically mentions David Cameron and Tim Farron and a host of others by name, but no picture of any others is included. Look this is clearly a very toxic and controversial issue in British politics. Wikipedia should be impartial and should not lend its weight to any media campaign against any political figure. I think there's a consensus on the picture of Nick Griffin but wouldn't it be fairer to have a picture of the chair of the select committee rather than just one political leader? Garageland66 (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Garageland66, don't take my edit of the Griffin image caption as acceptance. Corbyn's icon, sorry image, is more appropriate than Tim Loughton in the article's current state, as he is more connected with the article's topic in the last few years than him or the others. In any case, for all his faults, Farron finally acted against David Ward and Jebnny Tonge, and the select committe witnesses Cameron and Robertson are only mentioned in passing. Again, Loughton, like Griffin, isn't mentioned in the article, other than in the image caption. Anything to protect St Jezza from accusations of infallibility, it would appear. Philip Cross (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Garageland66, please refrain from WP:CENSORSHIP and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It would appear that Philip Cross has exposed her/his lack of objectivity with the St Jezza comment. No one has claimed that Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic. It is therefore wholly inappropriate to include his picture. Are you going to place a picture of Boris Johnson on the racism in the UK page? No you're not. So don't place a picture of Corbyn on the antisemitism in the UK page. I've added to this page providing the York massacre and the football issue. It might be better for all to contribute to and improve this page rather than engaging in political point scoring. Garageland66 (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"don't take my edit of the Griffin image caption as acceptance" So a picture of Corbyn is acceptable but a picture of antisemite Nick Griffin is not? It's also noticeable that the Corbyn picture was only just added on 27th July 2017, yet the inquiry published its report in October 2016. Too late to add it and, evidently, politically motivated. Garageland66 (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Since I have not deleted the image of the former BNP leader, your comment does not make sense, despite my earlier comments. I meant "acceptance" of the Corbyn image being deleted, which I still think should be present for reasons already stated. Philip Cross (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Garageland, Please stop edit warring or I'll report you. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It was only a matter of time before the edit warring threats would start. The Corbyn picture was only added two weeks ago. There was no consensus agreed for adding it. Its addition is only supported by two editors, one of whom clearly has an agenda (he used the phrase St Jezza). The criteria on Wiki is the appropriateness of an addition not a political POV as exhibited by Philip Cross. Garageland66 (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Do any RS say he is anti-Semitic, if not we cannot imply it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, has turned a "blind-eye" to anti-Semitism among his supporters and can no longer ignore their "twisted views", Theresa May has said Darkness Shines (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

That only says his supporters are anti-semetic, not that he is. Try again. --Tarage (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz: Will Brits vote for hard-left, anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn?

An opinion piece. TRY. AGAIN. --Tarage (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz, hismopinion is notable, and you asked for a source saying Cornyn is antisemitic, I gave you one, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but as has been pointed out this is an opinion piece. So WE still cannot say he is anti-Semitic we can (at best, and I am not sure that there is enough coverage of this to include it) we would have to say that Dershowitz has called him anti-Semitic (which would not be enough to warrent a photograph in my opinion).Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Corbyns image should be in this article I was just pointing out he has been called antisemitic. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I asked if RS have, an op-ed piece may well not fit the criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The image is most likely undue

Is Corbyn a known antisemite? Or is the party he leads antisemitic? If the answer to these questions is "no", then the image is undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is what I am, saying about the source, it is one columnists opinion, and thus would fail, BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't fail BLP, it's why we havr WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Darkness Shines (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

That is not a BLP rule, this is [[2]], as this is one persons view it fails as it is the view of tiny minority (of one) and so should not be included at all.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

has hosted, promoted and vigorously defended vicious anti-Semites and racists. Not just one persons view, this one's not an opinion piece btw Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Does it say he is an anti-Semite, if not then it is not a source for him being one?Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

gap between Corbyn and May is small, but he is far from the only anti-Semite in UK politics. Previous source taljs of his support for antisemitic groips. This one says he is, so definitely not a single opinion as suggested. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Still a tiny minority (you now have two people saying it. Do you think we should include Corbyn as anti-Semitic?Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, or at least his well documented support for antisemitic groups. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree, as (I do not think it has been established this is anything but a small minority view. This page is about people and groups who are Anti-Semitic, not just those who may support them for a variety of reasons that may not be anti-Semitic, and again I ask, does the telegraph source say he is anti-Semitic? Perhaps you would like to suggest some text to add to the article?Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

If tjis page, as you say, are about people and groups who are antisemitic, with no doubt these people and groups having been described as such, pray tell why Corybn being described as such, along with his well documented support for antisemites should not warrant a mention, or perhaps the antisemitic rantings of his supporters. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Because this is a view held by a tiny minority, ohh and it does not matter if he supports some one holds anti-Semitic views, we have to show he supports those views, and two sources sating that (in the headline mind, without actually providing a single anti-Semitic quote from him). This is simply guilt by association, made by a minority of people. To include this we need more then a couple of click bait accusations. But until we see what you want to add this is all rather academic anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The bid to slap in an image of Corbyn here is bizarre. Images have a massive impact and leave no room for nuance. Of course Corbyn has been mentioned in the context of anti-semitism recently, often due to political opponents exploiting the issue to target him (hence why there are "sources" on this). He is clearly not, however, a prime example of somone substantively associated with anti-semitism in the UK, such that an image of him is warranted, over say Griffin or Mosley. People pushing this should be embarrassed, either of their stupidity or their brazen attempt to score a cheap political point. N-HH talk/edits 09:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Except he is. Many people are not voting Labour because of Corbyn and his allowing antisemitism to fester in the Labour party. It's really terrible that increased antisemitic activity is not allowed to be mentioned here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I note that May is also mentioned in one of these sources, yet there is no call for here to be included.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Dispute

Due to an ongoing content dispute involving adding images of high profile individuals to an article which could negatively portray the person (and thus fall foul of BLP-style policies) I have fully protected this article for 1 week. Please use this break to calmly discuss the dispute, and reach a consensus. Edit requests should be utilised to suggest changes during this full protection period -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Good move. When protection expires, I will immediately block anyone who adds any pictures of living people without an absolutely rock-solid consensus for it. Be advised. --John (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

John There'sNoTime They're at it again. Could someone have a look at the latest attempt to try and add an opinionated comment designed to discredit the Chakrabati inquiry Garageland66 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It is attributed and the source is reliable, there is no reason for it's removal, "I think it's opinionated" is not a policy I have heard of. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I added a quote which had a reliable source and it was removed. So I've removed the quote which is opinionated and has not been discussed on the talk page. Garageland66 (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And why not have both? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Because Jewish Socialists' own website isn't a reliable source. Furthermore, they are not notable actors. --GHcool (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, allegations of antisemitism in the labour party are covered widely in the past few years, e.g.: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Most of the coverage seems to includes a photo of Corbyn. Regardless of whether there is a photograph in the article (and odd that no one shouted BLP foul on Nick Griffin who while he seems to fit the description, is definitely less significant), coverage of the issue within the Labour party should be expanded.Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any studies saying it is greater then in say the torry party?Slatersteven (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No. In fact, we have a very reliable source saying the exact opposite, The 2016 House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee's report on "Antisemitism in the UK" stated explicitly that "This report focuses to some extent on the Labour Party, because it has been the main source of recent allegations of antisemitism associated with political parties. It should be emphasised that the majority of antisemitic abuse and crime has historically been, and continues to be, committed by individuals associated with (or motivated by) far-right wing parties and political activity. Although there is little reliable or representative data on contemporary sources of antisemitism, CST figures suggest that around three-quarters of all politically-motivated antisemitic incidents come from far-right sources."[10] RolandR (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if there are, but why would such a study be required? Antisemitism in the Labour party has been documented by the many, not the few Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV, we cannot single out a UK political part for attention unless they have been singled out explicitly by sources who say they are more anti-Semitic. If we have material about the labour party we must have similar material about mall three major UK parties, or have a very good reason not to mention them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV says nothing of the sort, we do not exclude content just because others dont get up to shenanigans, that's not how it works. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism (and anti-zionism by itself and in conjunction) has been documented and covered widely in the media (and this case, mostly RS media) regarding the leadership circles (including party efforts to root this out) in Labour in the past 2 years or so. This has become a major issue in the party. Regarding wider society (e.g. voters) - I'm not sure there is data.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No but is does say that we must reflect fairly and proportionally significant views. Thus (I would argue) we cannot single out the Labour party for criticism over antisemitism unless it has been claimed they are more anti-Semitic then any other UK party. We must also reflect the antisemitism as reported being present in any other UK political party. It is not that they do not get up to "shenanigans" [11] many other parties have issues with antisemitism in their ranks [12], so why is the labour party being singled out here rather then (say) the torries [13] or the liberals?Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "reflect fairly and proportionally significant views", and Labour most certainly are proportionate and significant with regards to reports of antisemitism, we do not require a source saying they are worse, we just use what the sources say. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

But we are also singling out the labour party, why? There are accusations against all then parties. This is why I say this violates NPOV because it ism pushing the POV "labour bad" by using selected sources that only discus the labour party (but do not (as far as I can say) say this is a labour party problem alone).Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec)And it has been shown that Labour are more anti-Semitic than any other party, link cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. [14] RolandR (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"alleged antisemitism".Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Your point being? I could add that to the article right now, with attribution, along with all the news reports, even the new ones from conference, and it would not violate a single policy Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

So can I "In April 2015, a Tory candidate for Derby Council, Gulzabeen Afsar, said she would never support

“the Jew” in reference to Ed Miliband."

The point is that this is not about anything they are willing to say is antisemitism. We either list all British parties (and by all means say "according to antisemitism.uk the labour party is more antisemitic", what we should not do is single out the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So called Islamophobia is a totally different issue (and I'll note that part of the issue in Labour is Muslim-Jewish conflict). The difference between the Tories and Labour - is that in Labour this goes to the top (rightly or wrongly!) - including allegations regarding Corbyn and top members over various statements (often made in conjunction with extreme anti-zionist statements [15] [16] [17] - which are lumped together by detractors, whereas the party is attempting to separate). With the Tories - you have more minor incidents regarding less known figures. I do not know if there are sources regarding the prevalence of antisemitism amongst voters or the rank and file (e.g. the "average private thoughts of a backbencher") - but in terms of coverage - it has been focused on Labour - starting before Corbyn was appointed but when he was high-profile (his somewhat retracted "friendliness" with Hamas and Hezbollah going back to 2009 stuck a cord -[18] [19] [20]) - and increasing post appointment. In terms of actual coverage in RS - Labour is very much covered. Whether media coverage is correct in its focus or not - that is a matter of WP:SOAP and out of bounds here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

{od}So that is what any material must reflect, allegations (and no more) against labour leadership and the wider (but lower level) int eh torries, as well as other parties. We need to reflect the whole story and not just concentrate on a single party.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

We can only use what the sources provide, I look forward to seeing your sources on antisemitism in the conservative party. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Like the examples provided in this source you mean [21]?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ya, all four of them. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

All four they list, I already mentioned least one other they do not. Which is besides the point, this is not some numbers game. If we are talking about antisemitism in contemporary British politics it must all be covered.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure I already agreed all instances of antisemitism should be covered. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

So it is agreed that we cannot just talk about the labour party, so what has this all been about?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the problem here that the page will drift in to political disputes if there is too much focus on political parties. I've added sections on the York massacre and on anti-Semitism in football. The page should focus on examples of hate-crimes and other examples of hostility and hatred toward British Jews. There was a report on this page of vandalism of a Jewish cemetery (Swastikas scrawled on gravestones etc), yet this has been removed. By contrast, editors have tried adding pictures of Jeremy Corbyn. The focus is drifting away from evidence of hatred of British Jews and into this very controversial political debate. It, surely, ought to stick to anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom.Garageland66 (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

hostility on the base of race/religion towards Jews who are not British subjects (technically, some are/were British protected person)) - in particular when such Jews may be in the UK in self declared "<class of Jew> free zone" - is also a manifestation of antisemitism in Britain per RS, [22].Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

New page for the Home Affairs Select Committee Report into Antisemitism 2017

Isn't the best solution to create a new page for the select committee report. This page is supposed to be on antisemitism in the UK. The section on the report is going to start getting very big if we include the Jacobson quote, the Jewish Socialists Group views and other third party opinions. However, if a new page were to be created just for this report then, by all means, all sorts of third party views can be added. Garageland66 (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

POV fork, we just mention the report and leave it at that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Poll

This indicates it is a bit more complex https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2017.pdf Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Clearly there are many strata here. However secondary WP:RS chose to report the rather glaring outlier of 83% percent thinking that Labour is tolerant of antisemitism.Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hence the rewording, they are clearlry not giving an unaltered version.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

not acceptable to add Jacobson while excluding the Jewish Socialists Group

Really? So add it, the lack of one is not reason to revert reliably cited content. As such I will be restoring it. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No reason to exclude Jacobson. JSG's relevance to the matter is unclear - having Jewish in the group name shouldn't lend this any more credence as a Corbyn supporting group.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Loving the latest edit summary "No new discussion has started on the Talk Page" What's this section then? And so far neither revert has given a reason within policy for the removal of reliably cited content Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There hasn't been a discussion, no consensus has been agreed and it was dealt with in the edits. This edit was tried weeks ago. So was an edit which added the views of the Jewish Socialist Group. There has been no consensus agreed on adding the JWS views or Jacobson's views. This page is turning into a political football. The focus is supposed to be antisemitism. Garageland66 (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No argument within policy was given to exclude a critique on a report into antisemitism, so either give a reason within policy to exclude cited content or it goes back in. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism without the Labor party has become a topic of considerable coverage for the past few years. We definitely should devote to the subject of Labor antisemitism roughly the same proportion devoted to it in proportion to overall coverage of antisemitism in the UK in reliable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

How much is that (and you did read the parliamentary report I take it?)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Does that report cover the antisemitism from this year's conference? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No, which party this one [23], or those who do not have rules explicitly banning racism [24]?15:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the content, not a single policy has been given for its removal. I will also expand on the well documented instances of antisemitism within labour as reported on by the press. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no consent for adding this highly subjective criticism on the report. Should this be added from the report "there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party" We can all cherry-pick opinions on the report to back-up a particular political agenda. Wikipedia should be above this. Garageland66 (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed, someone has already added this quote. The plot thickens! Garageland66 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You need to provide a reason within policy to exclude it, constantly repeating your opinions on the content have no place here. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of a policy that allows a subjective criticism to be added to an article because it's in line with one editor's political agenda. If the Jacobson quote goes in, does the report quote on the Labour Party also go in? Or shall sense prevail and the article stays as it is? Garageland66 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:V would be the policy, and when citing a primary source it seems to me that criticism from reliable secondary sources is required for neutrality. Anyways this is going in circals, either cite a policy to exclude the content or drop it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits should be agreed by consensus, not because one editor wants to further her/his political agenda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus Garageland66 (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is decided by policy driven reasons for exclusion of content, you have given none, should you continue to remove reliably cited content based on nothing more than 'your opinon' and without reason within policy I will have little choice but to report your disruption. Last chance, a valid reason within policy for your constant removal of reliably cited content. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Last chance

[Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight] might well cover it. We are giving to much coverage to criticism of one party, when an unbiased report says they are not in fact any worse then anyone else. It might also be seen (for the same reason) to breach the more general [Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]. Especially as some material (such as media reporting how labour are the only party that explicitly bans it) is not being included. If we are to have commentary lets have it about the issues that affect all parties, not just labour.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

A critique of the report shows it is not seen ad unbiased, you are using a primary source and removing cited criticism of it, that us not NPOV, it is whitewashing Darkness Shines (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And you are misrepresenting the source, it is critical of the Chakrabarti inquiry, not the parliamentary inquiry.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting anything, I never mentioned a parliamentary enquiry, so reason within policy for exclusion of the content or it goes back. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Odd as I was clearly talking about the inquiry that found that the labour party was no more anti-Semitic then any other (something the Chakrabarti inquiry was not set up to look at, just anti-semitism within thew labour party. Why do we not also mention thty neither the Conservative and SNP constitutions made no mention of antisemitism? Sorry but you are focusing on one party, that violates NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Should we not mention that despite the number of incidents the conservatives have never held any inquiry into antisemitism withing their party [25]? this violates NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The source you brought is about fear of Islam, or Islamophobia, which is a separate issue all together - that would belong in a separate article. There are oodles of sources regarding Labor and antisemitism. If there are similar sources regarding the tories or any other UK party - then perhaps they should be worked in.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing one edit here, which is the content removed without a policy based reason, if you feel the article is lacking in other areas then add content to address those concerns Darkness Shines (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The only conclusion to be drawn from this discussion is that there is no consensus for adding the controversial and needless Jacobson quote. Garageland66 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That is not how it works, I have suggested an edit, we remove it (we just talk about the parliamentary report). If you want to include it it is down to your to make an edit that is acceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That is how it works, you removed reliably cited content, you need to giv a reason within policy for it to remain out. I'm not arguing this further, either give a reason within policy or it goes back, and stays. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have NPOV, we do not single out one party. All parties have accusations made against them, and the only study found that no party is worse then any other. So if you want to include peoples opinions also include those about other parties antisemitism.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

83% percent of UK Jews think this is a problem in Labor, as opposed to 19% who think the same of the Tories. So no, this is not singling out.Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You may need to reread NPOV. It says nothing like you are suggesting. Like I said, and this is the last time, we are discussing content which has been removed, that content is a critique of a primary source being used. What policy based objections do you have to this edit? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said I have, you may not agree. Thus we may need to take this higher up. It does not discus the subject of the section, and in fact no comment on the Chakrabati report should not be there, as it is not about that, except the committees opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

As a solution, we could include the report's conclusion exonerating the Labour Party, the Jewish Socialist Groups views AND the Jacobson quote. But then the section on the select committee report would be far too big. Hence my suggestion below that a separate page be created on the select committee report. Garageland66 (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit follows on directly from the Chakrabarti Inquiry which is mentioned in the report from the committee, so given your inability to give a reason within policy to remove the content in question I will restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not about the parliamentary inquiry and has no place there, so I will just revert it again. There is no consensus for this addition.|Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have now raised this here [[26]]Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Richard Williamson

Any objections to adding Richard Williamson (bishop) to this article? Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

With regards to what? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the UK. Consider this article: [27]:

"Tension between the Vatican and Jewish groups looked set to explode yesterday after Pope Benedict XVI rehabilitated a British bishop who has claimed no Jews died in gas chambers during the second world war."

Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I would support that addition Darkness Shines (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I too would oppose it because Williamson doesn't appear to represent trends in the UK. --GHcool (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok I wanted to check before adding it, will leave it open for comments. I think it's a fair point that this issue in the Catholic Church is not really taking place in the UK per se and that while born in Britain, Williamson was ordained by a French bishop as part of a Swiss organization, etc. - the history is somewhat complicated and spans multiple countries Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure this is really reflective of anything other then maybe the catholic church, it's not as if we had any choice over this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think he was ordained without permission from the Church so it's not really the Vatican either - David Irving is also not mentioned, but when naming living individuals there may be BLP issues, so maybe thats why this article doesn't really single out living persons. Irving in particular has been litigious over this issue. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe in Irvings case he also has been found guilty (more so then say nick Griffin, who is also alive).Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It may not be an issue, but it's another thing to consider. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Howard Jacobson and the Chakrabarti Inquiry

Any further discussion of the Chakrabarti Inquiry should be on that page and not here. It is all ready mentioned but anything more in depth including what Howard Jacobson says about it should stay on that page. This subject has been politicised enough, IMO. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Blood libel

We call it a libel (look up what libel means), we do not need to say it is also a myth. Unless we are saying that the idea it is a libel is a myth.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The blood libel is a myth Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What it is a myth that it is a libel?Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

pictures

Why the hell do we have photographs of people who are not even discussed?Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I added a few that are less controversial as they show the issues as nothing new, I believe it adds context to current discussions. I hope this will improve the page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I think pictures illustrating antisemitism are better.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's all yours, then. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

History of Jews in England

Noted that reference #2 was not great; I found this [28] which states that the Jews of Rouen arrived at the invitation, if not the command, of William the Conqueror from the Tsarfat Jewish Community in Northern France. Perhaps someone could update the reference as I'm usually terrible at formatting. I also found [29] which tells the same tale. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Why little mention of the far right?

seems to me they're just mentioned in passing whereas there have been a number of incidents related to the far right and antisemitism in recent years in the UK. I'm happy to add more content about this and sources at some point if people agree. Fourdots2 (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If you have sources on far right antisemitic incidents then of course it should be added Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Fourdots2 I'm certain it has nothing to do with editor's having BNP leanings, but I also find the undue weight given to the focus on Labour quite troubling. The Tories and Ukip do not have great track records either. What is concerning for me is the politicisation of this article going too far. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fourdots2, it may also have something to do with lower expectations of conduct from the right and far right of UK politics. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, we have at one time or another up to three paragraphs on Labour yet virtually ignore the BNP or UKIP.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That was the point I was trying to make back in the RFC, but I made a mess of it. Personally, I feel that only minimal references should be given to any political anti-semitic scandal as they are just a mirror of society at large and the rise of nastiness in general against 'the others'. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I know from experience that there are antisemitic people on the left although I think this article gives undue weight to political scandals and doesn't use sources such as the latest CST report and the like, which shows there has been a rise in antisemitic incidents. I'm happy to try and add more information perhaps tomorrow or during the week using those sources, I don't think there is a need to delete anything but I do think more needs to be added rather than just the scandals in Labour, because it could give the impression of a political agenda. Fourdots2 (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it not odd we have a photo of Nick Griffin, yet he (nor the party he represented at the time) is even mentioned in the article, I shall remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I note that in our section on political parties only the labour party is mentioned, this is a violation of NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from adding content. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

Means we do not alter sources to make claims they do not, the Guardian said SOME labour activists, alteration of that made it seem like it was all (or at least a majority). That was a blatant POV violation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Avi Shlaim had an interesting article [30] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Labour conference

So this was removed as being in the wrong section, so I moved it to another. This incident was of course widely covered and belongs in the article Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Which was reverted again, care to explain why? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I said why in my comment above.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

So it would have been too difficult to add the word 'some'? Reverting being easier I suppose? So I'll revert and add 'some' then, no worries Darkness Shines (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There are other POV issues, it gives over prominence to what is a fringe of the labour party. Why (for example) is a talk at a fringe event even worthy of a mention? We are discussing the Labour party (and therefore it's official stances) anything else is over emphasizing fringe views.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

O please, this was covered widely it is POV to censor it. How many sources would you like? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Censor what?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well if that's the best you can muster I'll restore the content, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Do not do that, as you do not have consensus (and it would be edit warring). I have asked what it is you think I am trying to censor (you did make that accusation), so either say what it is you think I a censoring or withdraw the accusation. Then maybe we can have a constructive discussion about how to word this material.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Censoring what occurred at conference, what else? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, this is not an article about me, and I now ask you to stop making this about me caqn the whole section about me censoirng material be hated now as off topic?Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you can't hat irm cos it's not off topic. Now I asked you, how many sources would you like for the content you removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, I am contesting the wording, not the content (as I thought was obvious).Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You contested one word. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No I have not (read above) I am contesting the whole wording. I am saying it gives undue prominence to fringe opinions at the expense of the official party position (and implies they are more then just a fringe with no official backing or position).Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It does not give undue prominence to a fringe position, it makes clear in fact that it was a fringe event were these antisemitic comments were made, and which were widely reported on. So given your wrong on that, anything else? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I think your choice of words only implies that one meeting was Fringe, and that the claim that outlawing Antisemitism within the part is "thought police" was not a fringe view. AS I said it is the general tone of the edit. So why not offer a re-write here and we can discus it's merits?Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you disagree, the edit is accurate to the source. The choice of words is also accurate to the source, how is it not? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I have already pointed out one area where it was not accurate to the source (and in fact altered it in a way that gave an undue emphasis to a fringe view point), so you need to re-word it (and ask for opinion here before re-adding the material).Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

During the 2017 Labour party conference new rules were introduced to combat antisemitism within the party, some party activists made the accusation that Labour were policing “thought crime”. 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 that people ought to be allowed to question if the Holocaust happened.

There Ya go Darkness Shines (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is the Miko Peled incident worthy of inclusion, it gets the same amount of coverage in the source as you give it (in pact this is a copyvio, but hardly a surprise given the brevity of the material)? In fact this whole thing is a virtual cut and paste.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not a cut'n'paste, and Peled is worthy of inclusion for the same reason as the rest, it was widely reportted on, holocaust denial tends to get attention Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Did he deny the Holocaust at the event? Also (again) why does this need to be here, "it in RS" is not a reason.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This is also in the source (re-worded) "The proposition was backed by Corbyn", "The grass roots of the party support the proposition", "the majority of delegates supported the move"

Why not make it clear the degree to which the n-LAbour party backed this, rather then report one fringe meeting (after all RS do).Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It is clear from the first line "During the 2017 Labour party conference new rules were introduced to combat antisemitism within the party" You can't get clearer than that Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not that the senior party supported it it's not, nor that Corbyn backed it. It is also not clear that the source for the claim Peled said that the Holocaust should be questioned was the Daily Mail. Nor does it make it clear new rules changes were passed unanimously by the NEC.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, I ain't citing the Mail so that's irrelevant, if you feel something is missing, add to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No, but your source makes it clear it is the mail that claimed it, and we say what RS say do we not?Also lets put the labour parties rules into context.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

During the 2017 Labour party conference new rules were introduced to combat antisemitism within the party, some party activists made the accusation that Labour were policing “thought crime”. This makes the labour party the only UK political party that expressly forbids antisemitism within its ranks. Whilst UKIP's rules say “all party members shall refrain from any posting expressing racist, homophobic, xenophobic or otherwise discriminatory views [online]”.

You appear to have neglected to add Peled, no doubt an oversight? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No, as I said I do not see it's relevance. It is after all sourced (by the Guardian) to the DM, which makes it suspect. It was also a fringe meeting, so it's relevance to the labour parties new rules is questionable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

So questionable Watson released a statement on it at the same conference? Oops, theres the relevence. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Watson has said there will be an investigation into what was said “I’m sure these allegations from the fringe, which is nothing to do with the Labour party, will be investigated,”. So has anything been done, it was 2 months ago? By now we should at least have had confirmation of what Pelod said, do we?Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Go ask Watson he's the one who promised an investigation. I'm just going with the sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is a source I would say would hardly go light on Holocaust denial [31], I am not seeing what the DM claims was said. And no you are not going with the source, you did not point out it was the DM who made this claim (your source does).Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail is not the issue here, so drop it. I am citing the Guardian, which is a pro Labour paper for gods sake. Now give an actual reason for not having this antisemitic bile which was spouted at conference and which was widely reported on, causing a controversy which Watson had to respond to. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Care to quote what the Guardian said? I help, the guardian did not say Pelod said any of this, as such we cannot say he said it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Lol, the Guardian reported on what he said. So ya, we can say he said it. Hell even the C4 source you give mentions this. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That is misrepresenting the source, If they said he said it provide the quote.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

LMFAO, did he say it? Hell Ya he did. Has it been covered widely by the press? Hell ya it has. Did the Guardian also cover it? Fuck me, they did, so there is no misrepresentation at all, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Does the source say he said it, yes or no?Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Does the source report on it? Yes or no? Or this one or this one, He said it, the source's report on it, we go with the sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page, as this is now about policy.Slatersteven (talk)}~

Ya lol, which source was cherrypicked then? So if that's all you can manage I'll go right ahead and restore the edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing further to add then? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have already said how, the sources do not say what you say they do. So either re-write it to (accurately) reflect what they say happened or do not add it back.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It is accurate, so job done then, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No it is not, and Also it is edit warring to add it back, I will report it if you do not undo it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The fella with four reverts is going to report me for one revert since 8 November 2017? Good luck with that. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

References

The BNP leads the way in antisemitism

It is odd that the modern political focus is on Labour while the BNP[32] and even Ukip[33][34] have a far worse and far longer record of antisemitism in UK politics. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

UKIP does not have a worse track record. BNP - which is a fringe party without any representation perhaps does. The focus on Labor is by highly reputable media - RSes - who probably focus on Labor since it is a major UK party that traditionally has a legitimate shot at forming a government. If an when the BNP would have a chance to enter government, perhaps said coverage would change. In any event - our article should give the same weight to Labor antisemitism as is present in the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Right[35]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It has had plenty of coverage. [36] [37][38][39][40][41]. Yet we do not even mention them. So has hope not hate said the Labour party are anti Semitic, shall we look who UAF think are? What about scholarly (rather them media) sources, shall we look who they judge as Antisemitic?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it's not just the media, e.g. - - [42] [43] [44] [45] or a book - [46]. And this is far from comprehensive. Anti-semitism in Labour is quite widely covered.Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism in both the BNP and UKIP are widely covered (and have been in scholastic publications for over a decade, not a few years). So why do those who think we even need a section on our parties not think we should mention them?Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The thing that I find oddest is that over the years (ever since I have been an need here) we have had to fought tooth and claw to include accusations of antisemitism against the BNP and UKIp on their pages. Yet on the one page about the subject we are fighting tooth and claw to give them equal coverage to the labour party.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

They are not of equal weight - in terms of coverage, or in terms of anything else. BNP doesn't have a seat in Parliament (did it ever? It did have MePs) and was never too big. UKIP is more significant - but still a very small minor UK party. Labor, in contrast, is the main opposition party (and has held government several times in the past decades). In UKIP's page? BNP? This would belong if properly sourced. On a UK level? Might belong, but weight should be in proportion to what they are receiving - which is not much.Icewhiz (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

So now Icewhiz is making up new rules as to that is and what is not UK politics, that is nice. Please remenber that Brian Parker, the last remaining councillor to be a member of the BNP did not lose his seat until November 2016. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT.Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Even though at one time we used Griffin as a illustration of British political antisemitism (without actual mentioning him or his party in the body of the article). YES (by the way) the BNP and UKIP have received plenty of coverage in terms of antisemitism. [47], (this is a good one) [48] (LOL), (this one covers the Torries too) [49], [50], [51], [52]. I could give more. The fact is the BNP have (and still do) get plenty of coverage over their antisemitism.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

See the discussion above and how expansion of the article will even out the undo wieght given to the current Labour issues. You can not have it both ways. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom politics

Far too much weight is placed on the fringe elements of Labour while little to nothing is said about the BNP of the past, or the Tories, or indeed Ukip among other parties, this is troubling.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• [53]"Revealed: the most anti-Semitic people in Britain -- and who they vote for" No surprise[54]; Ukip is first[55], then the Tories[56]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

By all means add this to the article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, other editors will have to add them, remember, I don't want to step close to the IBAN line. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• See the RFC above, which, while confusingly worded, seems to be about this topic. --Aquillion (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Although the paper is interpreting the survey as anti-semitism, the questions were actually about 'loyalty to Britain/Israel', which is not synonymous with anti-sem. Because I think that someone with roots/connections/attachments in Ireland may have split loyalties, it does not mean I am anti-Irish. Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

Is the following content suitable for inclusion in this article, it leads on from "Shami Chakrabarti’s report into antisemitism in the Labour Party to be somewhat lacking in a clear definition of antisemitism." Darkness Shines (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested addition is

• British author Howard Jacobson called the Chakrabarti Inquiry "a brief and shoddy shuffling of superficies" that "spoke to very few of the people charging the party with anti-Semitism and understood even fewer of their arguments."

Oppose We concentrate too much on the labor party when the parliamentary inquiry found they are no more antisemitic then anyone else. Also why is his view worthy of inclusion? We have parliments ts comments, why do we need some authors?Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Per WP:BALASP - We should give labor the same about amount of proportional coverage, in regards to antisemitism, as they receive in RS. Antisemitism in Labor receive wide coverage in RS in the UK, Jewish press (in and outside of the UK), and Israel. Conversely, antisemitism in other parties hardly receives coverage at all. As a simply yardstick when 83% of British Jews think there is a problem (as opposed to 19% for the Tories, and various levels (much lower than Labor) for minor problems) - it is a clear sign this is a party specific issue - which explains the media focus on Labor.Icewhiz (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Jacobson is just one of scores (at least) of people who responded publicly to the Chakrabarti report. And he does not have any particular expertise in this field. Why should he be singled out for inclusion, rather than, for instance, Professor David Feldman, the director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, who said "This is an important document at a time, when more than ever, we need to stand firm against all forms of racism and intolerance. The report marks a positive step towards ensuring that the Labour Party is a welcoming place for all minority groups. It recommends steps to ensure that members act in a spirit of tolerance and respect, while maintaining principles of free speech and open debate. The recommendations are constructive and provide a sound basis on which the Party can move forward"?[57] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandR (talk • contribs)

Oppose This is an article on antisemitism not on the select committee inquiry or on the Chakrabarti report. Adding so many third party comments will make that whole section far too big. There is already a page on the Chakrabarti report. So, if anything, put the Jacobson comment there. Garageland66 (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason why we cannot have a see also link to then page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support The Chakrabarti Inquiry part needs expanding, as well as the critique to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Darkness Shines There is a separate page on the Chakrabarti Report Garageland66 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes I know, which is why it warrants a mention here Darkness Shines (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The Chakrabarti Inquiry has it's own article as a 'political' issue, not substantial to this article in any tangible way. If you wish to add content, there is more than enough in the UK's political right and far-right parties where, sadly, evidence is more common. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a "2016 investigation into allegations of antisemitism and forms of racism in the United Kingdom's Labour Party". How is that "not substantial to this article in any tangible way"? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It smells of political dirty tricks for the Tories to point the finger at Labour first when not putting the mirror to themselves, and it is already mentioned here; that should be more than enough for an inquiry that found no major problems in the Labour party. I can only imagine what such an inquiry would have found in other parties...[58] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Conservative Party (UK) gets mentioned as well. There's no reason to gloss over Labour's problems in this context (which have, e.g., also been reported internationally. e.g. Corriere della Sera, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, Tages Anzeiger, El País, Haaretz, etc. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Tories would have to get a 'mention'; in fact they and Ukip would have gotten a lot more if the inquiry was not such a political weapon directed at the Tories main opposition. The focus of the inquiry was driven by headlines at places like The Daily Mail, but by all accounts was a political shame of an inquiry.[59][60][61][62] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I do support including more instances of anti-semitism among right-wing parties of the UK in this article, but this doesn't mean inquires into Labour's issues need to be kept out of it. The article isn't titled "who is the greatest antisemite in the United Kingdom" or "which party is the most antisemitic". It's titled "Antisemitism in the United Kingdom". WP:WEIGHT should be considered, but it's better to expand what has been reported on the weighty side rather than excluding what has been written about the possibly unweighty side. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So lets expand it in a NPOV way, so we have commentary from both sides, as well as expansion about the other parties. We already mention the about party far more then any other party.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It means it gives undue weight to including more than a mention of the inquiry. This is where we step too close to giving the Tories and Ukip a free pass while screaming at Labour for what appears more minor offenses, unless you are just reading The Daily Mail. I'm no fan of Labour (not for more than a decade), but this does seem very unbalanced. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I looked over the article and I think the current content on this is sufficient, the quote proposed for inclusion does not really add much imo. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discus British politics, or editors perceived bias, please stop.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

-Then it is no place to give undue weight to the Chakrabarti Inquiry, as it was very much a political stunt of 'whataboutery'. You have just made the case for things to be left as they are... C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is about this article, not other users or their politics. Please stop comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly why the Chakrabarti Inquiry should only be mentioned in passing as it currently stands. You made the point for it very well, "This is not a forum to discus British politics," and that is what would happen with an expanded section on the inquiry. It is fine as it stands. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The !vote from Gilmore has to be discounted, he has obviously followed me here just to oppose my edits. Anyone who thinks the Chakrabarti Inquiry is a Tory party inquiry into antisemitism in Labour are obviously clueless about the subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your comment is to be discounted as delusional given that it was Slatersteven that queued me into to this terrible idea of putting Labour on the spot while letting the far more anti-Semitic parties to the right of Labour off without equal questioning. It is to politicise this article to expand on the Chakrabarti Inquiry and undue weight to allow that expansion without consideration of the deplorable record of the Tories and Ukippers. This should not be politicised. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per Icewhiz and others. This is an important document and important in the sphere of antisemitism in the UK and should of course be in this article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The issue under discussion is not whether we include any mention of the Chakrabarti report. This is already in the article, and no-one has suggested removing it. We are discussing whether to include Howard Jacobson's opinion of the report. RolandR (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Which Document?Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Possibly include in Chakrabarti Inquiry but definitely not here. The problem I see with this is that we're basically injecting the opinion of one semi-notable author into an article covering a pretty major subject. Including opinion from semi-notable people on a subject can very rapidly clutter a page. NickCT (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The article is already plagued by recentism and weight issues, this is ostensibly about the history of anti-semitism in UK, yet we have no mention of 'pogroms' or 'blackshirts', but the addition of a (frequently provocative) writer of - mainly comic - fiction is to be included? It might belong on the 'report' page. Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)