Talk:Jonathan Freedland

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jonathan Freedland article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Views[edit]

Why does the article have a lengthy section outlining Freedland's supposed views? He's just a journalist and columnist, not some great philosopher. Despite being so long, the section misses a number of important areas - he's a remainer activist and writes lots of anguished stuff for The New European, for example. If the section is to remain at all, it really only needs to say he's a moderate Zionist, has centre left political views, and has advocated the abolition of the UK monarchy. --Ef80 (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Freedland is one of the leading liberal-left voices of the day, and an expansive outline is therefore justifiable. That does not mean there aren't any gaps. As the article is only 22K in length, it is not especially long. Incidentally, the article concerning Ludwig Wittgenstein, who I suppose could be thought of as a "great philosopher", is almost 160K in length. Philip Cross (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A columnist is paid to express his opinion on a wide variety of topics. However, columnists are necessarily unlikely to be particularly original, profound or seminal. This article has depended too much on long quotations, particularly as they link to the original articles. I have used paraphrasing instead. Doubtless, one could add very many other subjects on which Freedland has written. Jontel (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. The article is much improved. --Ef80 (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

There is a large amount of overlap between the 2 articles, neither of them lengthy. We have a single article on Eleanor Hibbert, who wrote under several pseudonyms. PatGallacher (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bourne was redirected to Jonathan Freedland in September 2018‎. Feel free to copy (merge) any non-redundant content from the page history. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

The article extensively covers Freedland's views on "Israel, Zionism and antisemitism". Various criticisms have been made of those views and Freedland's influence on the way those subjects are covered by The Guardian, for example, by Blake Alcott[1], Ben White[2], David Cronin[3], Jonathan Cook[4][5] and Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi[6]. ← ZScarpia 13:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article does read as if it was written by Freedland's mum. The problem is that the article is already long for a jobbing newspaper columnist, and if we add lots of critical stuff it will become even longer. I suggested pruning it but was slapped down by Mr Cross, who denied there is an issue because the Ludwig Wittgenstein article is longer. --Ef80 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Mahmood controversy[edit]

Should we add something about the subject of this page mixing up two Muslim men, calling the wrong one (a prospective Labour candidate) anti-Semitic based on a 'reliable Labour source', tweeting it out, and it being reported on the Guardian's website? He's tweeted out a correction and the Guardian has reported "Reports of a fourth Labour potential parliamentary candidate being identified as having made antisemitic comments have proven false. We earlier shared on the blog a tweet from the Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland which identified a shortlisted candidate from Birmingham Hall Green as having been fined over comments made on Facebook. Freedland has since deleted his tweets and replaced it with this correction." https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/nov/08/general-election-parties-unveil-plans-amid-spending-warnings-live-news 83.218.151.178 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you add something if/ when it is covered by another media outlet. Jontel (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it was covered by The Guardian who had to make an official apology for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.128.209 (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added a para. In November 2019, Freedland apologised for making a "very bad error" in falsely reporting that a shortlisted Labour Prospective parliamentary candidate had been fined for making antisemitic remarks on Facebook. He ascribed the confusing of two lawyers with the same name on a "previously reliable Labour source" whose information he had "passed on too hastily".[12][13] Jontel (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author section: Summary of books written[edit]

THREE non-fiction books written, not two. The Escape Artist has been added to the bibliography list but is not included in the numerical summary in the Author section. Horseshoe123 (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Views[edit]

I read in this section that "Freedland approves of Keir Starmer's support for genocide."

Yeah, that's what it says. Someone who knows the ref might want to clarify, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4300:B8C0:A1B9:C2BC:AD44:D186 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media Lens, really?[edit]

Media Lens cannot possibly be seen as a credible source for an encyclopedia 2A02:C7C:37D6:C100:C5A3:79EA:5264:9707 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essay on Zionism[edit]

This is an encyclopedia not a space for sophomoric essays on the flaws or otherwise of Zionism - the lines about the GDR, for instance, don't belong here and should be removed by editors as little better than vandalism. 2A02:C7C:37D6:C100:C5A3:79EA:5264:9707 (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]