# Talk:Ken Livingstone

What about Livingstone's support for Islamic leaders who publicly advocate killing gay people? (2A00:23C4:638D:D500:F413:43AD:73EB:BBE5 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC))

Do you have a single source where this particular distinction is made? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ken Livingstone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927041402/http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-592 to http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-592
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919090621/http://www.lbc.co.uk/kate-bush-once-wrote-a-song-about-ken-livingstone-88090 to http://www.lbc.co.uk/kate-bush-once-wrote-a-song-about-ken-livingstone-88090
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please either cite or remove Category:British humanists and Category:English humanists, because currently they are not supported by anything at all in the article. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done  Also removed Category:British secularists which isn't directly covered either. His atheism is mentioned in the article, so the category indicating that is entirely appropriate. Philip Cross (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add Category:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom ... I would think that this is highly pertinent, given the suspension of his Labour Party membership in the wider context of Antisemitism within the (British) Labour Party, with every posssiblity that Livingstone be formally expelled and excluded from the Party and have his current membership cancelled and revoked, as one of the possible outcomes from Livingstone's upcoming membership suspension hearing. The addition of the category per se of course does not imply Livingstone was or is an antisemite, or has or had committed a or any antisemitic crime or crimes or hate crime or crimes. --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Common knowledge here in the United Kingdom, specifically in England ... 35,500 counts thus far [1], including the (well-known in Britain for being pro-Ken Livingstone 'and everything else' and anti-Israel) Guardian [2][3]. Are you being deliberately disingenuous here?! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Not really "common knowledge". Livingstone has certainly repeatedly faced allegations of anti-semitism (since at least the 1980s) for his critical views on Israel and Zionism, but he very much denies that accusation. (Plus, The Guardian is left-leaning, but not necessarily pro-Livingstone). In a case like this, which is a WP:BLP, we need to be cautious about how we present certain controversial issues, lest we be interpreted as saying "Livingstone is an anti-Semite" as opposed to "Livingstone has been repeatedly accused of anti-Semitism". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
IP user, please read the Reliable sourcing policy and let me know where you think "common knowledge" can be used to overcome the Policy on Biographies of Living Persons.  Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

RT - Ken Livingstone - Smearing Critics of Israel Undermines Importance of Tackling Genuine anti-Semitism, 27 August 2018.       ←   ZScarpia   14:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Interview transcrips of when Livingstone was talking about antisemitism in the Labour Party:   The Independent - Jon Stone - Labour antisemitism row: Read the Ken Livingstone interview transcipts in full, 28 April 2016.      ←   ZScarpia   12:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of pejorative and subjective terms used here (also unsourced, and without references ). I have no idea why this article is listed under good articles and locked? I am flagging this article as politically biased, and below what I would expect from Wikipedia quality standards. [seconded]
1)  "A former member of the Labour Party, he was on the party's hard left, ideologically identifying as a democratic socialist."
Unsourced, and pejorative. Then links to an article that explains the 'Hard Left' as a pejorative term.
2)  "Livingstone is a highly controversial figure in British politics. Supporters lauded his efforts to improve rights for women, LGBT people, and ethnic minorities in London, but critics accused him of cronyism and antisemitism and lambasted his connections to Islamists, Marxists, and Irish republicans."
This is subjective and unsourced - it is especially disturbing to see words like cronyism used without context or evidence.
'Highly controversial' = subjective. 
'Supporters lauded' = which supporters? Link to a news article or source
"Critics accused him of cronyism and antisemitism and lambasted his connections to Islamists, Marxists, and Irish republicans." = This is extremely poor. Each one of these arguably libellous statements should be linked to articles where these claims are made (even if you have to link to the Telegraph, or Fox News, or other far right sites). There is also a rather dark underlying assumption here that Islamism, Marxism and Irish Republicanism are 'bad' things.
Given this data is provided further on in the article, i have to assume this top portion of the article, the defacto intro/executive summary, is designed to highlight Livingstone's failures upfront, for the author's own political purposes. 
This is not up to Wikipedia quality standards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswannsong (talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 

Yes I agree there is some non-neutral language in the article. For example, the verb "lambast", which I would regard as non-neutral, is used three times in Wikipedia's voice.Burrobert (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The lede only exists to summarise the contents of the rest of the article. Every statement in the lede that you feel is unreferenced is properly referenced in the main body of the article. The ironic thing about your claims that this article shows an anti-Livingstone bias is the fact that only a few weeks ago another editor was claiming it carried a pro-Livingstone bias on this Talk Page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that references should be in the main body, not the lede. Certainly, claims should be referenced and an impartial tone used. WP:IMPARTIAL MOS:WTW Perhaps we can all look at that. Jontel (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree "hard left" should be removed. I couldn't find a reference to it after the lede. The link also states that it is a pejorative term. 130.237.201.167 (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Livinstone's claim about Hitler's support of Zionism was attacked by historians as noted in sources cited in the article and others such as this one. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to start an article on Nazi attitudes to Zionism. Some quotations:

"Blood Never Dried, A People's History of the British Empire", John Newsinger, page 297 / 703:
One other point worth making here is the extent to which the Zionist movement actually collaborated with the Nazis in the 1930s, in particular with the SS. To be blunt, they found they had a shared interest in the eviction of Jews from Germany. Reinhard Heydrich no less, later to be the architect of the Holocaust, in September 1935 proclaimed his solidarity with Zionism in the SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps. The Nazis, he made clear, were “in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry itself, the so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry throughout the world, and the rejection of all assimilationist ideas”. Adolf Eichmann, a key figure in the destruction of Europe’s Jews, actually visited Palestine in 1937 at the invitation of the Zionists. The Gestapo worked closely with Mossad, the Zionist agency handling illegal immigration. In 1939 Heydrich was demanding that Mossad should be sending off “400 Jews per week…from Berlin alone”. This cooperation extended to the SS providing the Haganah with smuggled arms.
"From Coexistence to Conquest, International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israel Conflict 1891-1949", Victor Kattan, 2009,Pages 11-12:
In that year on 15 September, Germany passed the Nuremberg Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honour, which, among other things, prohibited marriages between Germans and Jews as well as extramarital intercourse and the flying of the Reich flag by Jews. With regard to Zionism, the introduction accompanying that law included the following statement: "If the Jews had a state of their own in which the bulk of their people were at home, the Jewish question could already be considered solved today, even for the Jews themselves. The ardent Zionists of all people have objected least of all to the basic ideas of the Nuremberg Laws, because they know that these laws are the only correct solution for the Jewish people."
    ←   ZScarpia   12:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from drafting and submitting an article, of course. While discussion is not required, if you did wish to, perhaps do so on a Zionism or Nazi article talk page or on this page Zionism in the Age of the Dictators? Jontel (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking at articles such as the ones on Zionism and Anti-Zionism, it's interesting that there's no content on the wider topic of support for Zionism by antisemites. Even in the articles on Herzl and Der Judenstaat there's no commentary on the co-option by Herzl of support from that quarter.
From "Zionism, Islam and the West", Kerry Bolton:
Page 68.0 / 471: Conversely, Herzl aligned himself with the anti-Semites, and found an ally in the leading French anti-Semite and campaigner against Dreyfus, M Drumont.
Page 71.0 / 471: In his Diaries, page 19, Herzl stated: “Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.”
Page 74.0 / 471: Herzl’s most fervent supporters were anti-Semites. Both Zionists and anti-Semites concur that the Jews are an unassimilable minority which needs to be removed from Gentile society. Hence, Zionists have historically aligned themselves with anti-Semites ranging from those in Czarist Russia to those in Nazi Germany.
Page 77.0 / 471: Herzl formed an early alliance with France’s leading anti-Semite, Eduard Drumont, who had been the head of the anti-Dreyfus agitation. Drumont had written the influential anti-Semitic book La France Juive (1886) and was editor of La Libre Parole. Herzl wrote of Drumont: “But I owe to Drumont a great deal of the present freedom of my concepts, because he is an artist.” Herzl persuaded Drumont to review his manifesto in La Libre Parole, which he did favourably on January 15 1897, Herzl writing of this: [Drumont] “praises the Zionists of Herzl’s persuasion for not seeing in us fanatics … but citizens who exercise the right of self-defence.” Writing of his experiences in Paris, Herzl stated: In Paris … I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all I recognize the emptiness and futility of trying to “combat” anti-Semitism.
Page 79.0 / 471: In Russia, also, support among anti-Semites was effusive. Herzl’s chief ally was the Russian Interior Minister Vyacheslav Konstantinovich von Plehve, whom Herzl met in August 1903. Just four months previously Von Plehve had been organizing pogroms at Kishinev. ... Due to Herzl’s efforts in Russia, “there was no prohibition on Zionist activities and an official permit was even given for the holding of the second conference of Russian Zionists at Minsk (September 1902).”
    ←   ZScarpia   13:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
It could be argued that even competing nationalisms and believers in racial/ religious homogeneity have this in common: that they oppose assimilation and integration. I suppose you could see what the response was if you added a subsection here, as a first step. Zionism#Non-Jewish_support Jontel (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Anything added here would, of course, have to come from sources which discuss Livingstone.       ←   ZScarpia   16:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

We currently have "Characterised as "the only truly successful left-wing British politician of modern times" at the bottom of the lead. This is sourced to an opinion piece by Charles Moore (journalist) from 2007 and attributed quotations of Moore elsewhere. A number of issues here:

WP:WEASEL - this isn't properly attributed to Moore.
While possibly a valid assessment in 2007 in regards to modern times in 2007 (at the very least - we should state when this was said - "modern times" being an ever shifting concept) - this statement is woefully out of date given the subsequent rise of Corbyn in Labour.
There is no particular need to highlight a particular opinion in the lede.
This doesn't appear in the body of the article.
Why should this be included in the lead? Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that you make some fair points. It might be better if we move this from the lede and into the main body of the article ("Legacy and influence" would be a good place for it). However, I think in turn it might be worth adding something similar to the lede, albeit not a direct quote; perhaps something like "Considered the most successful left-winger in British politics of his generation". The fact that Livingstone was basically one of the only self-declared "socialists" to hold a major office in the late 20th/early 21st century is significant and lede-worthy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
It could be in the body - properly attributed to Moore (I think we should also be wary of the No true Scotsman nature of this blurb - the "trueness" of left-wingers is also quite contested (at least among left-wingers) - it should be attributed). I agree Livingstone was notable in this sense 2000-2010 - though I suspect that if we dig we'll find newer sources see as a first of a wave if you may (e.g. tying to Corbyn) - if we can find a retrospective source stating this (e.g. something from the past five years - looking back) - it would be good. Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy for it to be in the body but not the lede. Corbyn hasn't yet held office, so I think it is still a fair comment. Bellowhead678 (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Moving it to the body with an appropriate attribution and reference to the date on which it was made seems reasonable. Burrobert (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree. By the way, 'truly' is intended to be applied to 'successful', rather than 'left-wing' if that is not universally understood, as an alternative to really successful or genuinely successful. Jontel (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree with the move and attribution. This change shouldn't be controversial at all. --MarioGom (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The following passage is misleading:
"A few days later, a transcript came into the possession of LBC of his comments during the March 2017 hearing into his conduct.[351] He told the internal party inquiry that he had been advised by members of Corbyn's staff, including Seumas Milne and Simon Fletcher, about his comments to the media. The former London Mayor also said tweets had been posted in his name by people from Corbyn's office.[351]"
This paragraph gives the impression that Livingstone had been "fed" things to say by Corbyn's staff all along. In other words it implies, without any factual support, that Corbyn was involved in the "Nazi-Zionism" statements.
The reference cited (351) does not contain any factual indication that this was the case. It only reports that Livingstone, being overwhelmed by media attention around that episode, coordinated with Corbyn's staff. Which is a completely legitimate thing for him and them to have done. 
Finally, Harpin Lee and the Jewish Chronicle (ref 351) are far from an impartial source on this topic, having shown personal animosity in several occasions against Corbyn, Livingstone and the Labour Party's left-wing in general, including individual members.
I think that the paragraph above should be simply removed, as it does not add anything to the facts and to the understanding of this issue. Alternatively, it should be explicitly separated from the preceding paragraph, and it should be stated clearly that Corbyn's staff had nothing to do with the "Nazi-Zionism" interview.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simongella (talk • contribs) 13:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 

Any chance this can be addressed any time soon? Simongella (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I have separated it and made it more direct. The source does not say that staff had nothing to do with the interview you mention. If you can find a source saying that, we can include it. Jontel (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. However this sentence still seems misleading to me and I don't understand what does it really add to the specific issue. From the actual LBC source , it is not clear what does he refer to when he says that he asked for advice. He says that "when there was a big row blow up I'd be overwhelmed". It is not explicitly related to a particular episode. That quote follows a mention by the interviewer that Corbyn had been elected leader, so Livingstone might be referring more in general to the fact that he was a prominent party figure seen as being close to Corbyn, and that as a result media attention towards him increased after Corbyn was elected leader; in order to manage that exposure without damaging Corbyn (whom he supported), he would ask for their advice. This does not show any evindence that Corbyn staff was involved in the "Hitler-Zionism" interview directly, as the original paragraph kind of implied (and the present one still does, to a certain extent). It is a burden of those who are trying to imply something, to supply facts in support of their implications. If there are no facts to start with, it seems an odd exercise to be trying to demonstrate that those facts indeed do not exist.
I suggest the following re-phrasing: "According to LBC, Livingstone told the inquiry that, after Corbyn's election as leader of the party, he asked members of Corbyn's staff for advice on how to react to increased media exposure.
The link to the direct LBC source should substitute the strongly "cherry picked" Jewish Chronicle's source, as it gives less "interpretation" and more of what he actually said.Simongella (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I've replaced the source as you suggest and changed the quote to reflect more clearly the pattern of events. Jontel (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Does the section on the EHRC criticism of Labour and of Livingstone perhaps need more balance?  EHRC commissioners are political appointees, many appointed by Conservative governments.  The inquiry into Labour was led by a commissioner with very, very rightwing views ( https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/30/ehrc-board-member-under-scrutiny-over-social-media-use ).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.197.88.229 (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC) 

I seem to remember buying Labour Herald in 1986, so it could not have folded in 1985 as the sentence at the end of para 2 of the section on Republicanism, Ireland...... following the ref 112 states. 2A00:23C8:2E24:F300:78A2:C878:7CD3:E97F (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The Splits and Fusions archive has put online copies of Labour Herald up to vol 7 no 2, dated November 1986.[4] So the source cited in our article is clearly in error when it says that the paper folded in 1985. RolandR (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Error on my behalf, sorry.

The first 68 lines has only one reference (a quote from Charles Moore.  Most of the rest I guess has been largely written by Livingstone himself.  Could we at least have some references?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustygecko (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC) 

These lines are the introduction, which is supposed to summarise the article. It should not include content that is not included, with relevant citations, in the body of the article, and it is not usually necessary to include references in this section.
If you have any evidence that parts of the article are written by Livingstone himself, or otherwise problematic, please present this here. Otherwise, your musings and speculation are of no relevance. RolandR (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to point out that, currently, these two entries under separate headings, referencing his health, are effectively duplications. First reference [361] to a BBC article. Second reference [2] to a Guardian article:
Post-mayoral career
Retirement: 2020-
His family announced in September 2023 that Livingstone was now retired from public life.[361]
Personal Life
Health
On 19 September 2023, Livingstone's family announced that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.[2] CatNip48 (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Under “office” in the information session, change “Mayor of London” to “1st Mayor of London” since he’s the first person to hold the office. 162.211.37.146 (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The penultimate sentence of the 3rd para of section "Suspension from the Labour Party" contains the words "he had had two former Jewish girlfriends". This doesn't make sense unless it is trying to convey that the two women had ceased to be Jewish by the time they became his girlfriends. That seems unlikely. I suggest that the word "former" be removed. Misha Wolf (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
You'd think he'd make do with one at a time, wouldn't you... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Should this be removed from the intro? It’s a pejorative term that left wing MPs object to, as the sources on the wiki link for “hard left” show.
“Labour left” would be a more accurate and less pejorative term. 2A02:C7C:D19B:5F00:5D10:A02A:346D:8E (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)