Talk:Ruth Deech, Baroness Deech

message: Ruth Deech used very harsh words in the Polish-Israeli dispute over property restitutiuon. I don't think it should be removed, what polish side thinks about her claims. 
Despite the fact that she visited Ustrzyki in search of property of her grandfather, would make sense to state that she herself has no claim to any property. Cautious (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Cautious, what source do you want to use, to support what material? Please also confirm that you have read WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course all the rules shall be obeyed. There are plenty of resources, articles in wikipedia, articles in newspapers, please use google. Cautious (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: When I use google, I don't see many reliable sources discussing this. Since you wish to add it, can you mention the specific sources that do? Jayjg (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for property restitution 

message: Commentary related to the "Labour anti-Semitism controversy". Claims that the Labour party failed to tackle Muslim anti-Semitism, a reason being a desire not to lose votes. Refers to "renegade Jews" and gives a list of Jewish opponents of Zionism. Deech further refers to one of those listed, Norman Finkelstein, as a "Jewish Jew-hater."  Deech refers to BDS as, "the program of the destruction of the only Jewish state ... and the resurrection of the anti-Semitic attitudes of the 19th and early 20th century, but this time directed towards the Jewish state rather than the Jews."
Summarises: "So we have a failure of education, a craven attitude towards the supposed beliefs of Muslim voters (set to worsen as migration increases), a foreign policy toward Israel dictated by fear and hatred, and a Labour party leader who has shown himself unable to analyse this and take a stand against it."
Article: Haaretz - Ruth Deech - Why the Labour Party Won't Confront British Muslim anti-Semitism, 04 May 2016: "Too many Labour politicians cravenly adopted the anti-Semitic tropes and anti-Israel demonization they think will get them British Muslim votes, rather than standing up to the prejudice that exists in the community."
Note: Primefac removed text cited to the article on the grounds that: "this is referenced to an opinion piece, which is not reliable and should not be used for information." The problem wasn't so much that the article is an opinion piece (significant opinions may be included and the author of this particular opinion piece is the subject of the article), but that the text stated as an unverified fact that "Deech engaged in Islamophobic comments."
Haaretz also published, four months previously, in January 2016, another opinion piece by Ruth Deech, titled "Free Speech on U.K. Campuses Is Under Attack as Never Before – and Jews Are Prime Targets," sub-titled "British universities are rife with hatred, closed minds, ignorance, stereotyping and, yes, anti-Semitism." (A curiosity of the piece is the acknowledged misquotation, near the beginning, of Martin Niemöller's "First they came ...") 
    ←   ZScarpia   19:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I will admit, I somehow missed the fact that Deech wrote that opinion piece. I would argue that it is still not worthy of inclusion, if only because the statement being made () is not directly supported by the source; indeed, the quote itself can only be used as a statement against the people she is complaining about. If there are concerns about her being anti-Muslim (or anti-anything, or making claims against any particular body) it should come from secondary sources, not just her own writings (as it would be OR to do anything but quote or summarize her). Primefac (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Haaretz'': 2016 opinion piece written by Ruth Deech: ''Why the Labour Party Won't Confront British Muslim anti-Semitism''