Talk:Peter Jenkins (diplomat)

message: Hope we can discuss here the edits starting from 24 October by 109.158.51.240 relating to alleged anti-Semitism. As the warning at the head of the article states, 'Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful.' The comments added by 109.158.51.240 (and subsequently reverted and replaced a number of times by various users) fall into this category and require significant justification and consensus before inclusion in this article.
Claims of anti-semitism are serious, potentially libelous or defamatory, and are the potential subject of legal action in a number of countries inlcuding the UK. The standard for including such claims in a Wikipedia is therefore justifiably higher than for other, non-contentious or biographical contributions. I take the view that the sources given for these opinions are neither notable nor neutral, that taken together they do not meet the threshold for including such claims in a Wikipedia article, and that the original contributor may be pushing a non-neutral point of view in making these edits in the first place.
Comments were added by 109.158.51.240 at 09:21 on 24 October 2012‎ to the effect that, 'In 2012 Jenkins was accused of anti-Semitism for stating, in a debate at the University of Warwick, that: "the idea a just war requires a use of force to be proportionate seems to be a Christian notion and not a Jewish notion.' This was sourced to a single posting on a blog of a newspaper in Israel. The author of the edit, however, also noted in his edit comments: 'Mentioned accusations of anti-Semitism in Jerusalem Post. British Jewish Chronicle also to publish article this Friday, will update then'. The contributor clearly has some foreknowledge of the letter or article, perhaps as the author or as someone known to the author. To my mind, this raises a concern as to whether or not this contributor is promoting a non-netural point of view, and might be involved in a partisan campaign against Jenkins.
Given that the debate also seems to have been on the justification or otherwise of preemptive military action by Isreal against Iran over nuclear weapons fears, we should be doubly vigilant about claims of anti-Semitism raised by a small number of partisan commentators in newspapers known for their support of such preemptive action (whatever the merits or demerits of either position in the debate). It appears that the debate heavily backed the position taken by Jenkins against preemptive action; it may be that those involved on the other side in the debate have sought to carry on their fight through blog posts and Wikipedia. What is an (admittedly important and contentious) policy debate should not prompt the sort of ad-hominem attacks that the authors of these opinions seem to wish to push into this Wikipedia article.
The claims made by 109.158.51.240, sourced to the opinion of one author, on one blog pieice, of one newspaper, are potentially libelous. They are clearly a matter of opinion on the reading of comments made by Jenkins during a clearly heated debate. None of us here can have an idea of the context of his remarks (are they on the Just War theories of St Augustine?), and we have no other non-partisan opinions or reporting to go on. Subsequent edits by other contributors hint that others might have viewed the comments as uncontentious when taken in context.
Given the seriousness and potential legal ramifications of these claims, more than a couple of one-sided opinion pieces are needed to justify the inclusion of such a claim in a Wikipedia article. 
I would welcome further comment from 109.158.51.240, and demonstration of more notable and non-partisan sourcing before including these sort of claims in a biographical article. 178.148.73.180 (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially libelous edits from 24 October 

message: Other newspapers carried reports of Jenkins' comments. Will re-add with their comments included. 109.158.51.240  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.116.227 (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: I am truly shocked by this entry. I know Peter Jenkins, as someone who works tirelessly for a consistent and honest non-proliferation policy. He in a single retired diplomat who cares about UK nuclear diplomacy and has an opinion on the hypocrisy that has developed in the way we manage nuclear proliferation around the world, to the detriment of UK and global security. He is active in this and many other areas, and has a long and distinguished career. To have such a large proportion of this entry to be dominated by this discussion over comments at a single event that many within Israel would agree with (note, his comments were not that the Jewish faith was more implicitly violent, but rather that the actions of the Israeli state gave that impression) is a discredit to his career and continuing international work, and a discredit to Wikipedia and its volunteers. It means that I cannot use this entry for the purposes it was intended - to inform people about Peter's work. I am not afraid to be associated with him and would flatly deny that he is anti-semitic, and see these accusations as extremely counter-productive to the cause of religious tolerance and to the cause of anti-semitism. Paul Ingram, Executive Director, British American Security Information Council (BASIC).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul nukes (talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another response