Talk:Jonathan Freedland

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Thanks for your work. The article is much improved. --Ef80 (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: 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, Ben White, David Cronin, Jonathan Cook and Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi.       ←   ZScarpia   13:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: I suggest you add something if/ when it is covered by another media outlet. Jontel (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Majid Mahmood controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Author section: Summary of books written 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Views 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Media Lens, really? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Essay on Zionism