Talk:Jeremy Searle

Jewish Guilt Comments
I added this section on Searle's recent Jewish comments in this edit here and was summarily removed by User:Sachamcd. I appreciate User:Sachamcd protectiveness over the page as both creator and primary editor, I think removing it is uncalled for - would appreciate other's thoughts and input. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  02:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As the RfC below reached a consensus, as summarized by User:Cunard, I went ahead and re-inserted the section. Despite this, User:Sachamcd has gone ahead and removed again with this edit. What is the proper procedure to continue from here? &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  18:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Comments on Jewish guilt that have created controversy - Include?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the recent comments by Jeremy Searle on "Jewish guilt" be included in this page? Relisted RfC. Cunard (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC), originally posted &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  06:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments referred to above. Pincrete (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Politicians say silly things all the time. Is there any evidence that this particular soundbyte has received sufficient coverage for it to be included? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are a few of the articles about the comments: Montreal Gazette CTV News Calgary Herald Canadian Jewish News Canadian Jewish News Global News CIJA The Suburban &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  23:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * comment summoned by bot. If it's going to be called 'controversial', the cited source should label it as such.
 * Otherwise, I think it belongs. Costatitanica (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Any consensus? &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  07:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Relisting RfC comment: There is currently no consensus for or against including the material due to lack of participation. I have relisted the RfC to solicit more feedback from the community. Pinging previously involved editors and . Cunard (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the politician in question, but when this RfC was first listed, I'd checked and seem to remember he has a history of inflammatory remarks. I did not leave a comment at the time, however. When I just checked the cite in the article, this was the text immediately following.

Borough Mayor Russell Copeman is later seen objecting, and brings up another comment by Searle. “In the same way I objected, Mr. Searle, at the last council meeting when you drew an analogy between myself and some of my colleagues to ‘camp guards.’ That was precisely your term. I don't think you were referring to day camp guards,” he said. When asked by CTV if his language was appropriate for a politician, Searle said: “I speak the language of Shakespeare. What do you mean is my language is appropriate for a politician?” When pressed about whether the terms ‘Jewish guilt’ and ‘camp guard’ were appropriate for an elected official to use in 2016, Searle said: “Damn right.” Searle stands by his comments and said he will not apologize. “The rabbi did Jewish guilt, Russell Copeman did Jewish guilt. Marvin Rotrand did Jewish guilt. Lionel Perez did Jewish guilt. It's called, ‘We should get whatever we want because we're Jewish.’ Sorry, it doesn't work that way, it's a zoning change,” he said.
 * It seems to me that it's appropriate for the quote to be included. It appears to have signficance. It's well sourced. Additional editing should reflect that he doubled down on his remark when an apology was solicited by his fellow NGP board members, and that he had had made that similar gratuitous comment not long beforehand. That would provide a better context for the reader to understand the interchange. Activist (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.