Jump to content

Talk:Respect Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism

[edit]

OK, I think the difference between the two of these is one of motive, of being guided by racism rather than political opposition to Israel. The criticim of Carole Swords seems to be that she was involved in a fracas whilst she was trying to damage Israeli goods, gaining a public order conviction that was later overturned. This seems to me to be obviously political and hence anti-Zionist (the fact that her opponent in the fracas was Jewish is arguably irrelevant, but i've left it in anyway.)

Her later comments are more problematical, but the description of Zionists as cockroaches, etc., is an obvious kickback to Rafael Eitan's famous "All the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle" comment and her remark to the other protester (at another demonstration) could also be seen in terms of Russian settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. All told, I think this belongs in Anti-Zionism, not antisemitism, unless anyone can find any evidence of racism.Steve3742 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the two sections to get around this kind of nit-picking. Telling a Jewish protester to "go back to Russia" is not anti-zionism. Philip Cross (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That you wish to conflate antisemitism and anti-Zionism is obvious, but seperating the two is not "nitpicking". I've undone the merge. If you wish to move Carole Swords' comment to antisemitism, you can make a case for it. Her altercation, on the other hand, is obviously political. Whilst I was there, I changed assault to altercation and hit in the face to allegedly hit in the face. This reflects more accurately the judgement of the appeal, as reported in the link to the Jewish Chronicle.Steve3742 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, I've just looked at the video of her saying that. I can't make all of it out, but she does make the remark after saying (to a policeman) "they go to Palestine and steal all the land", which kind of adds a political dimension to it, don't you think?Steve3742 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've noted that you deleted my link to the You Tube video that shows Carole Swords saying the remark in question, citing WP:IRS. However, I can cite WP:VIDEOLINK and note that "Self-published videos may be used as sources of information about their creator if they meet the requirements seen at restrictions on using self-published sources" and also note that this video does not violate the guidelines at WP:SELFPUB, to wit, it's not self-serving, it does not involve claims about third parties or events not related to the source, there's no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity and ithe article isn't based wholly or mainly on such sources. Arguably this isn't necessary - I think yopu're stretching the definitions at WP:IRS by saying that a video of someone making a remark is not a reliable source for her making that remark. But at any rate, the WP:VIDEOLINK and WP:SELFPUB guidelines above allow it. So I'm restoring it.(Steve3742 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't published by Swords, but by Habibi, who I'll assume is the Harry's Place contributor and creator of the video. It also involves claims about a third-party: Jews. It has not been through an editorial process as permanent downloads on the BBC iPlayer will have been. So it should really be deleted.
On the earlier issue, the distinction between antisemitism and anti-zionism is fluid and far from fixed and subject to interpretation. It was not unreasonable to merge them to prevent endless changes by editors. Philip Cross (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between antisemitism and anti-zionism is neither fluid nor unfixed. Rather it is disputed. This may lead to, as you say, endless change by editors, but that's always going to be a problem when dealing with articles relating (even tangenitally) to Israel. It is unreasonable to merge them, as that would basically be saying that there's little or no difference between the two, something supporters of Israel claim but the majority of people do not.
Regarding Swords' video, the only claims it makes, about Jews or anyone else, are quite obviously Swords' opinion (as she's the one making them.) Given that its use is to show that she did make a remark ("go back to Russia"), I can't see that it is not a reliable source. It shows her actually making the remark and the 30 seconds or so of her talking beforehand, lending context to it, not necessarily in her favour. I don't see that a 30 second vidoe that is only being used to show someone making a remark for which they have been criticised is in any way unreliable or should be deleted.Steve3742 (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a fair few instances of bias here - presenting Respect's positions through the prism of publications by people such as Eran Benedek - he has never been an official Respect spokesman - he is in fact a researcher for the Community Security Trust which is avowedly pro-Israel - and Andrew Crines whose website links to a site called new perspective on the right so again hardly a neutral source for views of a left wing party such as Respect - we even see the term "rhetorically" used - is that a NPOV term ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:100B:B8A4:4558:A29 (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are based on third party sources, so whether or not someone was "an official Respect spokesman" is irrelevant as to the inclusion of material. The comments of members such as Yvonne Ridley (Respect is "a Zionist-free party") and Carole Swords (Zionists are "cockroaches") are cited in multiple reliable sources. The comments of "pro-Israel" sources, if they meet policy, are thus entirely legitimate as a response to persons who were effectively spokespeople for Respect. Neutral point of view does not exclude citations or quotes. Philip Cross (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking in particular of this section "Respect was anti-Zionist and rejected the state of Israel's right to exist.[24] It rhetorically presented this position through the terminology of social justice and human rights.[25]" where basic Respect positions are described based on right wing and/or pro-Israel (anti-Palestinian) sources without it being made clear that they are just opinions voiced in those sources. My opinion is that for balance sure these sources can be cited - ideally in quotation marks - if its made clear that their claims made for Respect's policies are just that - their claims with the background of the quoted sources made clear. Surely it would be better if Respect's offical position in those two sentences in particular cited Respect spokesman not 3rd parties with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:100B:B8A4:4558:A29 (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely any such official source would disagree significantly with what is in the article. Respect's best known figure, George Galloway, latterly its formal leader until dissolution, has been as intemperate on the subject as Ridley, if not using the same words. Some of his comments are mentioned in the article, and pretty much back up the sources you object to. Explaining his walk out from a debate with a British-Israeli in February 2013, he said: "The reason is simple: no recognition, no normalisation. Just boycott, divestment and sanctions, until the apartheid state is defeated". It is also quite true Galloway/Respect allied with Islamist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, who do want Israel to be destroyed, and there are other sources out there on this point. People who object to Zionist/Jewish sources are on dangerous ground. Philip Cross (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlikely any such official source would disagree significantly with what is in the article" - OK So why not quote more Galloway of official material and less Benedek then ? I do doubt that Galloway would claim he was "rhetorically" defending his view that Israel was such and such. Given your Galloway quote a not dissimilar situation would be to have a prominent sentence on the Israel page saying Israel was an "apartheid state" quoting Galloway as a source and saying Israel rhetorically defended its position by saying it had a right to exist as a Jewish state. I'd feel uncomfortable with that for the same reasons I feeluncomfortable with this page. After all Benedek is repeatedly cited - are there not more NPOV sources ? I was interested in the statement that Respect is opposed to Israel's "right to exist". There is a long standing movement that the phrase "right to exist" not be used unless the original speaker uses it - thats the case on the Danny Danon and Naftali Bennett pages (where the phrases "opposed to the creation of Palestine" are used instead )- its now even the case on the "right to exist" page itself. In fact I've only seen that view where its Palestine's right to exists that the issue. Its not a movement I agree with (I regard "opposing the creation" and "denying the right to exist" as equivalent) but does Respect ever use the phrase "right to exist" itself ? Maybe they do but its not cited as doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Oh by the way its not the Ridley issue I'm most interested in - at least there there is a direct quote provided. I do wonder how Benedek knows the quote though - unless he persnally interviewed her it suggests there is another source for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Respect Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Respect Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Respect Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Respect Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Respect Party. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Include Euroscepticism in Ideology?

[edit]

There is a clear disagreement between me and other editor(s) about whether to include 'Euroscepticism' in the ideology. I would argue that it is not a sufficiently notable part of the Party's stance. Few of the seven concepts whose initials comprise the "R.E.S.P.E.C.T." acronym are listed under the ideology. Even with the letter 'e' appearing twice in 'respect', euroscepticism was not considered sufficiently important to be one of the seven concepts mentioned; and equality, which is, is not mentioned among the ideologies listed. Certainly, over the last few months this particular stance has been of more interest than usual, but the only way in which I, as an individual, have seen it reflected is on the page of 'endorsements' here on Wikipedia and through George Galloway appearing at one rally - however, it seems to me that could have attracted every bit as much coverage if it was a personal stance as it did being a reflection of party stance. DrArsenal (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--- I was involved in Respect for a considerable amount of time up until 2015 and I'm not sure I could say either way whether Euroscepticism was part of its 'ideology' as such. Certainly, almost all of the party's members and key figures could be categorised as one of two options on the issue of the European Union - a) the typical left-wing, Brexit, Euroscepticism of the likes of Tony Benn or, b) the other left-wing Euroscepticism of "the EU is bad but we can reform it/leaving it would be worse". Of course, this was reflected in the party's stance - in its 2015 general election manifesto, it proposed that the European Union was flawed but that the UK should remain as a member and work with its European allies to reform it. Fast forward 12 months and that stance had changed to one of outward Brexit. The party itself did campaign to leave the European Union which is certainly worth mentioning somewhere. However, by this point, Galloway had already encouraged the party's membership to join the Labour party and it was really just Galloway campaigning on his own for Brexit - almost like a bolt-on to the few Eurosceptic Labour MP's but without their acknowledgement. Total Dynamic (talk) 18:31 29 July 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Respect Party. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Respect Party/Archive 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Respect Party/Archive 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Respect Party/Archive 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Respect_Party&oldid=1210020941"