Talk:Respect Party - Revision history

Cewbot: Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Socialism}}, {{WP UK Politics}}, {{WikiProject Politics}}.

2024-02-24T16:32:23Z

Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Socialism}}, {{WP UK Politics}}, {{WikiProject Politics}}.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 16:32, 24 February 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Socialism~~\|class=C~~\|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Socialism\|importance=low}}
	{{~~WP UK~~ Politics~~\|class=C~~\|importance=mid}}		{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject Politics \| political-parties=yes\| political-parties-importance=low~~\|class=C~~\|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Politics \| political-parties=yes\| political-parties-importance=low\|importance=low}}
	}}		}}
	{{annual readership}}		{{annual readership}}

Cdjp1: added page views, added section sizes

2023-04-24T09:17:59Z

added page views, added section sizes

← Previous revision		Revision as of 09:17, 24 April 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	{{WikiProject Politics \| political-parties=yes\| political-parties-importance=low\|class=C\|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Politics \| political-parties=yes\| political-parties-importance=low\|class=C\|importance=low}}
	}}		}}
			{{annual readership}}
			{{section sizes}}

	== Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism ==		== Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism ==

Sonic678: Notification: listing of :Respect Party/Archive 2 at WP:Redirects for discussion.

2022-12-30T06:26:44Z

Notification: listing of Respect Party/Archive 2 at WP:Redirects for discussion.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 06:26, 30 December 2022
Line 133:		Line 133:

	Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot\|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot\|Report bug]])</span> 11:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)		Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot\|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot\|Report bug]])</span> 11:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
			== "Respect Party/Archive 2" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion\|Redirects for discussion]] ==
			[[File:Information.svg\|30px]]
			An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Respect Party/Archive 2]] and has thus listed it [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion\|for discussion]]. This discussion will occur at {{slink\|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. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> Regards, [[User:Sonic678\|<span style="font-family:Magneto; font-size:95%; color:#0F45D2">SONIC</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sonic678\|<span style="font-family:Vladimir Script; color:#D4AF37">678</span>]]</sup> 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot: Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.6.1) (Balon Greyjoy)

2017-12-11T11:10:23Z

Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.6.1) (Balon Greyjoy)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 11:10, 11 December 2017
Line 120:		Line 120:
	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.		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. [[User:Total Dynamic\|Total Dynamic]] ([[User:Total Dynamic\|talk]]) 18:31 29 July 2016 <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|undated]] comment added 17:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		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. [[User:Total Dynamic\|Total Dynamic]] ([[User:Total Dynamic\|talk]]) 18:31 29 July 2016 <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|undated]] comment added 17:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== External links modified ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,

			I have just modified one external link on [[Respect Party]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/814865231\|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot\|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711132438/http://www.gscene.com/national/Muslim_homophobe_backs_Tatchell_s_bid_to_be_MP.shtml to http://www.gscene.com/national/Muslim_homophobe_backs_Tatchell_s_bid_to_be_MP.shtml

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

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}

			Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot\|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot\|Report bug]])</span> 11:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

NihlusBOT: fixing Lint errors in signatures (Task 2)

2017-09-29T23:49:26Z

fixing Lint errors in signatures (Task 2)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 23:49, 29 September 2017
Line 54:		Line 54:
	{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}		{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}

	Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II\|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II\|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 08:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)		Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II\|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II\|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 08:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==
Line 68:		Line 68:
	{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}		{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}

	Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II\|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II\|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 15:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)		Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II\|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II\|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 15:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==
Line 84:		Line 84:
	{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}		{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}

	Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II\|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II\|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 07:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)		Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II\|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II\|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 07:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==
Line 97:		Line 97:
	{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}		{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}

	Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II\|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II\|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 02:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)		Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II\|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II\|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 02:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==

SineBot: Signing comment by 2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE - "/* Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism */"

2017-04-03T05:38:50Z

Signing comment by 2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE - "Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism: "

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:38, 3 April 2017
Line 36:		Line 36:
	: 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. [[User:Philip Cross\|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross\|talk]]) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)		: 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. [[User:Philip Cross\|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross\|talk]]) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
	"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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE\|2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE#top\|talk]]) 05:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		"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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE\|2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE#top\|talk]]) 05:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	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.		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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE\|2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE#top\|talk]]) 05:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==

2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE: /* Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism */

2017-04-03T05:37:16Z

Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:37, 3 April 2017
Line 36:		Line 36:
	: 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. [[User:Philip Cross\|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross\|talk]]) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)		: 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. [[User:Philip Cross\|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross\|talk]]) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
	"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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE\|2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE#top\|talk]]) 05:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		"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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE\|2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE#top\|talk]]) 05:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			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.

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==

2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE: /* Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism */

2017-04-03T05:31:50Z

Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:31, 3 April 2017
Line 35:		Line 35:

	: 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. [[User:Philip Cross\|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross\|talk]]) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)		: 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. [[User:Philip Cross\|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross\|talk]]) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
	"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 ot the creation of Palestine) are used instead - its now even the case on the "right to exist" page itself. Its not a movement I agree with (I regard "opposing the creation" and "denying the right to exist" as equivalent) but does Respect ~~even~~ use the phrase ? Maybe they do but its not cited as doing so. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE\|2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE#top\|talk]]) 05:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		"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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE\|2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE#top\|talk]]) 05:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==

SineBot: Signing comment by 2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE - "/* Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism */"

2017-04-03T05:28:18Z

Signing comment by 2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE - "Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism: "

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:28, 3 April 2017
Line 35:		Line 35:

	: 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. [[User:Philip Cross\|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross\|talk]]) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)		: 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. [[User:Philip Cross\|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross\|talk]]) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
	"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 ot the creation of Palestine) are used instead - its now even the case on the "right to exist" page itself. Its not a movement I agree with (I regard "opposing the creation" and "denying the right to exist" as equivalent) but does Respect even use the phrase ? Maybe they do but its not cited as doing so.		"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 ot the creation of Palestine) are used instead - its now even the case on the "right to exist" page itself. Its not a movement I agree with (I regard "opposing the creation" and "denying the right to exist" as equivalent) but does Respect even use the phrase ? Maybe they do but its not cited as doing so. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE\|2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE#top\|talk]]) 05:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==

2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:BCC8:D29D:E1E5:63AE: /* Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism */

2017-04-03T05:26:44Z

Antisemitism v Anti-Zionism

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:26, 3 April 2017
Line 35:		Line 35:

	: 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. [[User:Philip Cross\|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross\|talk]]) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)		: 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. [[User:Philip Cross\|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross\|talk]]) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
			"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 ot the creation of Palestine) are used instead - its now even the case on the "right to exist" page itself. Its not a movement I agree with (I regard "opposing the creation" and "denying the right to exist" as equivalent) but does Respect even use the phrase ? Maybe they do but its not cited as doing so.

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==

← Previous revision		Revision as of 06:26, 30 December 2022
Line 133:		Line 133:

	Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot\|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot\|Report bug]])</span> 11:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)		Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot\|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot\|Report bug]])</span> 11:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
			== "Respect Party/Archive 2" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion\|Redirects for discussion]] ==
			[[File:Information.svg\|30px]]
			An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Respect Party/Archive 2]] and has thus listed it [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion\|for discussion]]. This discussion will occur at {{slink\|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. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> Regards, [[User:Sonic678\|<span style="font-family:Magneto; font-size:95%; color:#0F45D2">SONIC</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sonic678\|<span style="font-family:Vladimir Script; color:#D4AF37">678</span>]]</sup> 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)