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)

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)

New bus line

Although the Jerusalem Post reported that the new 310 bus route in London was introduced "to protect (the Jewish community) from antisemitic harassment", this is denied by members of the local community. According to the Evening Standard, "Yet as Rabbi David Mason tweeted in reply to a man decrying the 310 as an emblem of a divided city: “Safety was never the main reason”. Buried in most reports was the fact that the 310’s route was first proposed 15 years ago, by GLA member Brian Coleman, to “connect families and friends in the Jewish community and enable them to get to community events going on in those areas”."[1] It is misleading to use this as evidence for an increase in antisemitic activity, and I will accordingly remove the reference. RolandR (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes there does seme to be an undue issue with this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The reference from the Jerusalem Post is accurately referenced. You have brought a source claiming otherwise. I will restore the Jerusalem Post source and add that others have argued that the new bus line is not related to antisemetism. Minden500 (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It is also untrue to suggest that Finsbury Park is an unsafe location for Jews. I worked there for many years, and was a regular patron there of one of the largest - and, in my opinion, best - bagel bakeries in London. Hardly a sign of a hotbed of antisemitism! RolandR (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It is categorically your prerogative to believe that it is not unsafe for Jews, but the reference states otherwise. If you can find a reference to the contrary, feel free to add it. Minden500 (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

And other denies this is the reason, thus wp:undue may come into this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

We follow references. The references cited state that this was the reason. You can feel free to cite other references that say otherwise and give context, but the fact that others argue on the reasoning in the source does not automatically make it wp:undue. I encourage you to self revert. Minden500 (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

And just because you can find a source, is not a guarantee of inclusion. THis really tells us nothing other than an Israli sources think its an issue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This need to be included. We need to follow sources. ABHammad (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I just saw your message on this Talk page and I fully agree with your viewpoint. Steven1991 (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

The article seems to be too long, consisting of a substantial amount of run-on and repetitive sentences. Some of the article’s sections may be grouped together rather than separated from one another. Sources backing up the content also need some degree of clean-up and rearrangement. It would be great if anyone can take the lead in achieving some or all of the possible goals for the betterment of the article. Steven1991 (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)