Talk:Ken Livingstone

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you have a single source where this particular distinction is made? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for anti-gay activists 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request, 4 May 2018 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Common knowledge here in the United Kingdom, specifically in England ... 35,500 counts thus far , including the (well-known in Britain for being pro-Ken Livingstone 'and everything else' and anti-Israel) Guardian . Are you being deliberately disingenuous here?! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request 14 May 2018 

message: RT - Ken Livingstone - Smearing Critics of Israel Undermines Importance of Tackling Genuine anti-Semitism, 27 August 2018.       ←   ZScarpia   14:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RT article: Ken Livingstone on the Labour antisemitism crisis. 

message: Since Livingstone has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism I think this should be reworded or even removed. (86.158.167.104 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see the logic behind this proposal. Livingstone was closely involved in anti-racism campaigns for many years, including at a time when it really wasn't very common. The fact that he was also accused of one specific form of racism (which, for what it's worth, he vehemently denies) does not invalidate that or erase it from history. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see where it says "Anti-racist campaigns" - you need to say. However, there are several examples of anti racist campaigns on the page. By contrast, I am only aware of two allegations of antisemitism against him: Finegold and "Hitler supported Zionism". I do not think these off the cuff and arguable remarks are material. Jontel (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede mentions Livingstone was involved in "anti-racist" campaigning. It is offensive in view of his remarks about Jews. He was also accused of anti-Semitism during his failed 2012 campaign for Mayor of London. The article in fact lists numerous anti-Semitic remarks by Livingstone as Mayor of London, so the "anti-racist" rubbish should be removed. (86.156.74.124 (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Wikipedia should include everything that is significant and reported. He was heavily involved in anti-racist campaigning in the late 1980's around the British National Party and Stephen Lawrence (ref 172). That is a fact so it is correct that it should be included in the body and the lede. The article does not define him as an anti-racist per se or not at any point, it says what he did and when he did it i.e. when he was an MP. The body and the lede do also include references to accusations of anti-semitism. We as editors are not supposed to reach an overall judgement on him or resolve apparent contradictions in his behaviour. We just have to record what was said about him that is significant and in reliable sources. So, we have a limited role. Does that help? Jontel (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Livingstone is clearly not an anti-racist as his long history of anti-Semitic remarks and activities show. He also openly associated with anti-Semitic Islamic extremists and Holocaust deniers as Mayor of London. The "anti-racist" line should be removed as it is offensive and inaccurate. (86.156.74.124 (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: For the purposes of Wikipedia, it really doesn't matter whether or not someone is offended by its contents. See WP:NOTCENSORED for more on this policy. You may, personally, believe that Livingstone's comments constitute anti-Semitism (lots of people do). However, he has always maintained that he is not anti-Semitic and there are people who back him on that, arguing that nothing that he has said actually reflects a hatred or prejudice of Jewish people and that the accusation of "anti-Semitism" is being used to stifle his criticism of Israel and pro-Israel lobbyists in Britain. At Wikipedia, we have to report both sides of that debate as far as the published Reliable Sources present them. To start erasing other parts of his biography because you feel it conflicts with the idea that Livingstone is anti-Semitic would be silly and very damaging to Wikipedia itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference does not say that he is an anti-racist; it says that he was associated with anti-racist campaigns from 1987 onwards, which is true. I've made the reference in the lede more specific about the sort of racism he was campaigning against but it must stay in, because he definitely did campaign against anti-black/ immigrant racism in the UK at that time. The lede and article does also include references to anti-semitism allegations. If you think this is insufficient, you are welcome to suggest changes. Jontel (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he denies he is anti-Semitic, if he admitted it he would get into serious trouble (and it would cause more problems for Labour). Saying Hitler was a "Zionist god" was clearly anti-Semitic. (86.156.74.124 (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

text: I expect he felt he was campaigning against white racism against the blacks in Britain and Jewish racism against the Palestinians in Israel. So, he is not so much anti-Jewish, but symathising for those who are suffering, wherever they live. Jontel (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a separate section in the article entitled "Remarks on Jews" or "Accusations of anti-Semitism", as this is what he is now most known for. (86.156.74.124 (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "this is what he is now most known for" - I'm not sure that that is actually true, it's just that issues of anti-Semitism in and around the Labour Party are currently topical in the mainstream media and British political discourse. Moreover, I am not convinced of any need for a specific section on Livingstone's relationship with Jews and anti-Semitism; the issue is already adequately explored throughout the body of the article, at the appropriate chronological junctures. Midnightblueowl talk) 12:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article is structured over time rather than by theme. If it was to try to follow a number of themes over a fifty year career, it would get confusing. And, whatever his views on Israel or Jews, that was never his job or main focus: it was not a huge part of his very active and varied life in politics. Uou are focused on one aspect of his life but others will be interested in other areas. As you say, the antisemitic allegations are in the article. Jontel (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-racist campaigns? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Subjective writing needs correction 

message: We currently have  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Agree with the move and attribution. This change shouldn't be controversial at all. --MarioGom (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the only truly successful left-wing British politician" 

message: 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)
thread_title: EHRC

message: 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)
replies: text: The Splits and Fusions archive has put online copies of Labour Herald up to vol 7 no 2, dated November 1986. 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)
thread_title:  Labour Herald 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment on Duplication 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023