Jump to content

Talk:Ken Livingstone/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

Re: My change from "fringe" to "minor party":

Before my edit:

Livingstone beat the other candidates: Frank Dobson (Labour), Steven Norris (Conservative), Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat) and seven fringe candidates decisively in an incident-filled election, becoming the first modern elected Mayor of London.

To me the word fringe is a very POV word. minor party sounds more NPOV to me. --hoshie

"Fringe" is the standard term in politics. It don't think it was meant negatively here. Chamaeleon 14:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree fringe is a correct term and not POV in its usage here, in addition minor party may be factually incorrect as some of the candidates may have stood as independants (in fact Livingstone himself was independant of any party as it notes in the article) -- Sfnhltb 22:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Article needs attention

Just a quick note to suggest that this page needs a bit of a rewrite and restructure as its starting to get confusing. Totallycrazyman 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As with any political page it gets rewritten a hundred times a day, by people with differnt views. Personally I think the whole POV is wrong, everytime people mention the harm he has done as Mayor it is edited out.Djarra 10:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know...

why he is called "red" Ken?

Because he is vaguely socialist. Chamaeleon 14:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He's so left-ist that it hurts when he sits down. Klonimus 04:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
It was originally coined by tabloid newspapers to suggest he was a communist. PhilipPage 01:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Preferential voting

"...which he won with a total of 828,380 first and second preference votes."

I didn't know the UK used Preferential voting. Perhaps a link should be put in here.

Singkong2005 9 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

It uses Supplementary Vote (only two choices) to elect the London Mayor. 87.113.65.239 09:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Come to think of it... 828,380 out of how many voters (and how many potential voters)? The number means nothing if we don't know the size of the electorate.
Singkong2005 13:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ken and Muslims

This page should make mention of Livingstones' welcoming of a muslim cleric to London who was a supporter of suicide bombings in Israel and of his support for the IRA in the past.

But it should not mention it unless it actually names the cleric and documents the criticism, otherwise it looks just like a mud-throwing assertion and original research, which is banned in Wikipedia - and use proper capitalisation. -- Arwel 22:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Here's a reference to get it started (it's hosted on a blog, but it's a cut and paste of a document compiled by Outrage!: http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/02/20/outrage_responds_to_livingstones_dodgy_dossier.php
I propose a short paragraph along the lines of "Livingstone was criticised in 2004 after inviting the controversial Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi to city hall. In particular, gay rights organisations, notably OutRage! objected because of perceived homophobic content on al-Qaradawi's website Islamonline.net." Joe D (t) 18:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ken and Jews

We report what he has said, but some recent additions are border on the mudslinging Arwel mentioned above. Pcb21| Pete 10:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again Livingstone showed signs of anti-Israeli policy in July 2005 when he said young British men who go to Israel to become suicide bombers that kill innocent civilians, are as morally justifiable as young Jewish boys from Britain who join the Israeli army and "kill many Muslims". He also claimed that the elected party in Israel Likud were on the same side of the coin as terrorist organisation Hamas. [3]

I've NPOV'ed the phraseology of this a bit but it nevertheless seems to me that every comment Livinsgtone made about Israel is being dragged up here. Is anything in the above excerpt really significant enough for inclusion? My instinct is to delete it, maybe adding something like "Livingstone has made statements opposing Israeli actions on a number of occasions."

Well, aside from it being a major Mis-representation of what he actually said, his opinions that Muslim youth feel marginilised and his view that to Muslims there is an apparent double standard in British Foreign policy regarding Israel might well be worth a Mention. But that statement, the one who NPOVed, is particularly POV ridden and rather inaccurate. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I do feel that Ken's controvertial views about Israel and the jewish people should be noted on the article, including his most recent outbursts which made front page news on two local newspapers [1] and [2]. If the coverage form the Jerusalem Post was not sufficient, please see [3]! Newmhost 16:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ken's position is that murder is always wrong. Yes, even if committed by Jews. If that counts as controversial these days, there's no hope for humanity. — Chameleon 18:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Chameleon - what the point here is that Ken sees no difference between an a soldier killing a member of a terrorist group, and a suicide bomber killing people travelling to work on the bus. (unsigned comment by User:Newmhost)
Is your problem with Ken the fact that he sees no difference between members of ethnic/religious group A killing members of ethnic/religious B for belonging to that group and members of ethnic/religious group B killing members of ethnic/religious A for belonging to that group (in which case you are disagreeing with a basic anti-racist position), or is your problem with Ken the fact that he points out that such acts are committed on both sides (in which case you are rejecting facts in a manner similar to holocaust deniers)? Which is it? — Chameleon 14:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Newmhost, just a word of advice, you are not going to win any argument if you use articles from The Sun as part of your Justifcation. Does anyone have a full transcript or video of that interview? --Irishpunktom\talk 18:58, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ken's views are that terrorist acts against Israelis are justifiable; that is notable. Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

That is not Ken's View, Kens view is that to a disenfrachised minority, that is the Muslims in the UK (in particular London), Palestinian Terrorist attacks on Israel are a legitimate means of self-Defense, and that many Muslims in the Uk see a double standard in how they would be treated if they help their Muslim brethren, and how Jewish people are treated if theey join the IDF and kill innocent Muslims. Ken has always condemned attrocities on both sides. Jayjg, have you read the full transcript of what exactly he said ? --Irishpunktom\talk 08:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ken thinks blowing up civilian buses and teenagers at discotheques are "legitimate means of self-defense"? You seem to be supporting my statement. Which atrocities against Israel has Ken condemned? Jayjg (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Ken doesn't claim to hold these views himself, but rather foists them on "disenfranchised Muslims in the UK"? Very convenient. Again, you claimed that "Ken has always condemned attrocities on both sides". Which atrocities against Israel has Ken condemned? Please be specific. Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You may dislike anyone who is critical of Israel, that is your own POV, however, beleive it or not, not everyone who disagrees with Israel supports suicide bombing. Regarding Ken's comdemnation of Suicide Bombing, Sources, Have you looked for any? Start here --Irishpunktom\talk 11:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Please focus on the topic of the article, Ken Livingstone, not me. As for his "condemnation", lesse, you bring a condemnation of Israel which contains a solitary and perfunctory "Similarly, we condemn the suicide attacks employed against innocent people" sentence followed by an immediate "Nevertheless"? He can't even bring himself to use the word "Israelis", much less the word "atrocities". And tellingly, he doesn't define what he means by "innocent people"; do any Israelis even qualify? Has he ever, for example, spoken out against a specific attack on Israelis? Said something about the killings of Israeli civilians? No, I'm afraid there is no evidence that he has ever condemned any atrocities against Israel. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Riiiigggghhhhhttt... So "Ken's views are that terrorist acts against Israelis are justifiable..." is your opinion, based on the fact that when condemning said terrorist inncidents, "he doesn't define what he means by "innocent people"" . Jayjg, that is one huge leap of logic. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Livingstone is a politician, and is obviously being ambiguous. He's quite clear when he wants to condemn Israeli actions vis a vis the Palestinians. He has no trouble coming straight out and saying that he blames Israel, that it is the Palestinians he sees as victims, that the Israelis are wrong etc. In contrast, has he ever once clearly and unambiguously said "Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis are wrong", much less described them as "atrocities", as you claim? Livingstone is as notable for what he refuses to say about Israel and Israelis as for what he willingly and repeatedly says about the Palestinians. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of people, when talking about the mid 20th century, fail to condemn the murderers of a great deal of Nazi collaborators in France. That doesn't mean they really support those acts. They are just not very interested in picking on the underdogs for their crimes. Only someone who has condemned those murderers as harshly as they have condemned the Nazis has the moral authority to demand that others criticise equally all parties in modern-day conflicts. I doubt anyone here meets that standard. — Chameleon 18:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Ken has condemned Suicide Bombings on Civilians, thus we know that he does not support them. Your asking of him to "Define innocent people", and then using a lack of such a definiton as a reason to believe that he in fact does support Suicde Bombing is.. well it's Baffling. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hardly baffling, Tom; Ken has, contrary to your various claims, never made an unequivocal statement condemning attacks on Israelis, much less "atrocities", and the bombers themselves insist that no Israelis are civilian or innocent. Like I said, the contrast between his clarity regarding Palestinians and his ambiguity regarding Israelis couldn't be more stark. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, so I said "Ken has always condemned attrocities ...", i did not say "Ken has always condemned X,Y,Z as attrocities..", thus the definition of attrocity is clearly mine. Secondly, you have already seen how he has condemned suicide bombings, How do you see this condemnation as, in fact, support of the same? You're argument makes no sense. Are you suggesting that Ken livingstone does not believe the people of israel are civilians? Thats one hell of a jump Jay --Irishpunktom\talk 22:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

You left out "on both sides"; Ken has never condemned "atrocities" against Israelis. And if you've read my previous comments, you'll note that the view that no Israelis are civilians is all to common. Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I've already shown you where he condemns suicide Bombing, suggesting his failure to define "innocent people" menas that he, in fact, Supports killing all Israelis is a patently ridiculous leap from logic. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Another Ken-Quote from Todays Guardian: "The injustice done to the Palestinians does not justify the actions of a suicide bomber."--Irishpunktom\talk 10:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
You have to realise the role of what might be called the J Filter (from a certain username). It is an interesting psychological phenomenon whereby words on a page metamorphose into others if they deal with certain subjects. For example, consider the following passage:
Korsholm (Mustasaari in Finnish) is a municipality of Finland. The town of Vaasa was founded in Mustasaari parish in 1604 and today the municipality completely surrounds the city.
Looked at through the J Filter, this looks like:
Korsholm (Mustasaari in Finnish) is a municipality of Finland. The town of Vaasa was founded in Mustasaari parish in 1604 and today the municipality completely surrounds the city.
Notice how the text is intact. Now let's try a different text:
If a young Jewish boy in this country goes and joins the Israeli army and ends up killing many Palestinians in operations and can come back, that is [supposed to be] wholly legitimate. But for a young Muslim boy in this country, who might think 'I want to defend my Palestinian brothers and sisters' and goes and gets involved, he is branded as a terrorist.
Through the filter, this looks like:
If some Yid in this country goes and joins the Israeli army and nobly defends God's chosen people by exterminating Muslim terrorist towel-head scum, then I'm against that because I, Ken, am a scurrilous anti-Semite. Similarly, I think it's justified — nay, cool — when Muslims kill plenty of those Israeli Yids.
You see, this is why there is a slight problem when discussing certain texts with people suffering from this unfortunate condition. You're just not talking about the same text. In real life you just call the men in white coats, but on Wikipedia it's a different matter. — Chameleon 14:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Chameleon, play fair: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
No, I pointed out an interesting phenomenon. I'll do so again if I please. — Chameleon 18:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
They're personal attacks, and they make the talk page toxic, so please give it a rest. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The page is already toxic from the presence of supporters of crimes against humanity. The filter is not a personal attack. It's a psychological phenomenon that afflicts a lot of different people. — Chameleon 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Straw lashes anti-Israel Livingstone

This recent bit ought to be put in the article.

Straw lashes anti-Israel Livingstone by Herb Keinon, published in the Jerusalem Post July 27, 2005

It took a week, but British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw finally issued a public condemnation of London Mayor Ken Livingstone's diatribe against Israel.

Diatribe

"Palestinians don't have jet fighters, they only have their bodies to use as weapons. In that unfair balance, that's what people use."

Klonimus 01:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC) Anti-Idiotarian Notice Board

Why would you use two notoriously rubbish tabloids, The main feature of one is Page 3, to make a point? Neither are capable of articulating a point without throwing around insults. Indeed the J Post slurred Straw when he condemned the assasination of Sheikh Yassin. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Livingston's defence of police

We have a paragraph here: Livingstone defended the police after the mistaken killing of an innocent Brazilian man, Jean Charles de Menezes, who police believed was a suicide bomber. Which has been changed back and forth a few times. My concern is that the statement that the shot man was 'innocent' is not just making a judgement on the Menezes issue (and before all the facts are known), but irrelevant to the Livingstone page. Anyone with further interest in the Menezes case can look up the voluminous page of rights and wrongs about this hugely controversial issue. The point is that as far as Livingstone is concerned, he defended the police in the shooting. I think the phrasing of this should be as NPOV as possible and therefore be reduced to the most basic reportage: Livingstone defended the police after their shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, whom they believed was linked to suicide bombings. Is there a consensus on this? DavidFarmbrough 14:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The significant part of this issue is that he defended the police in spite of their making such a serious mistake. Thus it's relevant. Leave in the word innocent. Singkong2005 14:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologise for that vandalism. As stated previously, this pc is a shared one, and someone found it funny to use my account for vandalism - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 10:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Suspension

Ken Livingstone was publically criticised in February 2005 after he compared a Jewish Evening Standard reporter to a concentration camp guard after he tried to interview him after a party.

What he actually said, after the reporter said "I'm just doing my job...." was something to the effect of "Thats what the Nazis said". It isn't really comparing the reporter to a concentration camp guard, it is more an illustration of the fact that "just doing your job" doesn't necessarily mean that your job is, in itself, not a pleasant thing. But I doubt anyone gives a damn one way or the other, it kept the tabloids (and the BBC) busy for a week or so, which is all that really matters after all.

  • In response to this I urge you to read the transcript of what he said to determine the facts that Ken did say "Arr right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard," and he said this before the journalist claimed he was doing his job.

Here's a transcript of Ken Livingstone's altercation with Oliver Finegold:

Finegold: Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard. How did tonight go?

Livingstone: How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?

Finegold: How did tonight go?

Mr Livingstone: Have you thought of having treatment?

Finegold: Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?

Mr Livingstone: What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?

Finegold: No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?

Mr Livingstone: Arr right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?

Finegold: Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?

Mr Livingstone: It's nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots.

Finegold: I'm a journalist and I'm doing my job. I'm only asking for a comment.

Mr Livingstone: Well, work for a paper that doesn't have a record of supporting fascism.

Mr Livingstone then walked off.Triste 01:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Correctly quoted - can be heard on the BBC audio player. Have amended the summary to match, pad out and link to Oliver Finegold article.--Mikegoodstadt 23:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


To me this seems very incomplete - what was happening before this happened, where was it, was this the beginning of the conversation? Context, I feel, is needed.

Are you one of those people who can't stand it when people talk using terrible grammar? If so, I'd be delighted if you could pass the proverbial fine-toothed comb of grammar through my user page. Thanks! 01:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The conversation reads as from the beginning, based on Feingold's first line, so I guess we have to assume for some reason he has an exceptional dislike for the Evening Standard (/Daily Mail), as he doesn't seem to know the reporter in question. See [4] for some of the developments as reported in the Guardian recently. Sfnhltb 22:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing

The removal of this Livingstone described the decision, whereby 3 unelected government officials removed a democraticaly elected official from power, as "striking at the heart of democracy while adding more anti Livingstone material is pure POV and as such is strictly prohibited under wikipedia rules. Do not remove Livingstonme's side of this story while leaving that of his critics, SqueakBox 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The entire section "Announcement of 2006 one month suspension as Mayor" is ridiculously pro-pov and appears to have been vandalized. The use of "alleged" should be limited to the introduction and perhaps once in the Announcement section. Otherwise it's being used as truism for pov-pushing. KI 14:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? What are you talking about? There has been no vandalism here and for you to falsely claim so marks you out as probably a POV pusher (this is a classic POV pusher move, to claim those who disagree with them are vandals). The suspension hasn't yet taken effect so we mustn't treat as if it either has or if it definitely will take place as was implied before I edited this. What is wrong with putting in the POV that this move is an attack that strikes right at the heart of democracy? Easily sourced as it is what Ken said, SqueakBox 15:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at what I changed in my edit. One of the links was broken because it had {{ on the left and ]] on the right. "Tiny" is a pov pushing adjective. I wasn't pointing fingers at you as you seem to have interpreted my comment. Quoting Ken is one thing. Putting his words as facts is quite another. KI 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Section severely edited to a more NPOV position. It's amusing, in a way: Blair creates the SBE/APE to throw a lot of mud at Tory and Lib Dem councillors, and then their most high-profile decision is one of his own. Js farrar 11:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason the SBE was created. Before that there was practically no way of handling disputes over non-registration of interests etc. David | Talk 12:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The problems with Irishpunktom's edit

Firstly, the controversy over Qaradawi was not because Ken had embraced him, but because he had been invited at all. The reason for the invite was not the reception but the conference. It is POV to give Qaradawi the title "Sheikh" which is not included in the lead paragraph of his own biography article. The mention should make clear exactly why Tatchell objected to Qaradawi (which was not specifically Qaradawi's homophobia, though that was included, but a general belief that Qaradawi was a reactionary and that alternative progressive voices were not invited). There is no website configured at the address given, and the dispute over whether Qaradawi was a respectable person to invite has continued at intervals since the conference.

In general I find Irishpunktom's edits to be highly POV and his reluctance to discuss them (instead performing blanket reverts) makes it difficult to work with him. David | Talk 15:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Errr, no the controversy, regarding Ken, was that ken embraced him. Sheikh is not a POV title, he gives Fatwas, he's a Sheikh. We could detail Tatchells objections, but then NPOV would dictate that we include the rebuttals to these, and then the counter rebuttals, and the rebuttals to these too. If you want to know about Tatchells beef with Qaradawi should be detailed on either Tatchells page or Qaradawis' page, not here. Tatchells beef with Livingstone was embracing Qaradawi. Further, the idea that "alternative progressive voices were not invited" is simply a lie. One of the leading Muslim progressives, Tariq Ramadan was supposed to be the main attraction, till the controversy over Qaradawi erupted (Then Qaradawi got a five minute standing ovation which emphasized, clearly, the support the man has from the mainstream of Muslim Opinion). The edits I have made are factual, and you have yet to substantiate your accusations to the contrary. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That response is absolutely breathtaking. I want to take it apart piece by piece.

  1. The first time the name Qaradawi hit the headlines was when Louise Ellman (and others) complained about his invite given his views on suicide attacks in the Israel/Palestine dispute [5]. He was invited by Ken Livingstone to the conference on the hijab. Naturally having invited him, Ken Livingstone greeted him when he came in the room. Ken's actions of greeting him were not in themselves controversial. His action of inviting him was.
    Thats a rather ethnocentric view, Qaradawi was in the headlines previously Attempting to help to free prisoners from insurgent groups in Iraq. He is also immensely well know for his Talk show on Satellite TV. Nonetheless, the controversy, the main controversy, was caused with the embrace. it was the embrace on the front of the tabloids, it is the embrace of every page of the Outrage! website, but, ok, I'll change it to invite.Irishpunktom\talk
    His name was little known among non-muslims in the UK until this incident. David | Talk 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thats a nice piece of orignial Research you got there, wanna back that up with factual resource?Irishpunktom\talk 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    Very well. If you search the Guardian site, which is continuous since 1998, for mentions of Qaradawi, you find that there are none in 1998, none in 1999, none in 2000, three in 2001, none in 2002, two in 2003, and none in 2004 before the controversy over the invite to the conference. Since the invite to the conference there were 41 in 2004, 49 in 2005 and 3 in 2006 so far. If that doesn't indicate that Qaradawi was little known until the July 2004 controversy but much better known after, then I don't know what does. David | Talk 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thats still orignial research man. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sheikh is a POV title. As its article indicates it can mean almost anything, but it is an honorific and its presence in the article here is simply a POV attempt to boost Qaradawi as someone to be respected.
    Saying Qaradawi is not respected is your ignorant POV. Qaradawi is one of the single most respected Sunni Scholars on the planet right now, can you name any Sunni Sheikh or Mufti with more influence than he?Irishpunktom\talk
    I did not say that Qaradawi is not respected. As a matter of fact he is highly respected among Islamic scholars but not terribly well respected by progressive opinions in Western Europe. That's why it's someone's POV to give him an honorific title. Referring to him just by his name is neutral. David | Talk 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    Tatchell is not the be all and end all of progressive thought. The man is a Sheikh, and he is highly respected by many non Muslims.Irishpunktom\talk 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Having reported that Qaradawi's invite was controversial, we need to explain why it was controversial. It is manifestly a lie for you to say that Peter Tatchell's objection was that Ken had hugged him when he came into the room. Look here or here. It doesn't even mention it but it does give a lot of reasons why Tatchell contends that Qaradawi ought to be persona non grata.
    If you are going to list Tatchells objections, then you must list Livingstones rebuttals, and for the ske of things the counter rebuttals, and then the rebuttals therafter, otherwise you are engaging in a POV attack.Irishpunktom\talk
    I'm not resisting an attempt to list rebuttals, although there is no need to go on ad infinitum as you suggest - they can merely be summarised. The main items which came over to me were firstly that Qaradawi was one of the most respected Qu'ran scholars in the world, and that secondly he was on the moderate side of Islam on most issues. David | Talk 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    The addition I reverted had no such rebuttals, it was a POV insertion Irishpunktom\talk 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Tatchell's objection was that Livingstone had not invited moderate muslims - see here: "But why is Ken having a dialogue with a reactionary Muslim leader? Why isn’t he meeting liberal Muslims who believe in human rights? Why does he host a homophobe like Qaradawi while ignoring pleas from the Muslim gay group, Imaan?" This ought to be mentioned.
    No, Tatchell has no right to determine that IMAAN, and IMAAN alone constitute Liberal Muslims. As stated previously, Tariq Ramadan is one of the most prominent Liberalising Muslims on the planet right now, and was present.Irishpunktom\talk
    Peter Tatchell has never said that Imaan alone constitute liberal Muslims - that's your invention. What he has said is that if Ken Livingstone wants to meet Qaradawi, he should also be prepared to meet those who offer a different view within the ambit of Muslim scholarship, and that one such group is Imaan. It does seem reasonable to include that because Ken Livingstone is normally willing to meet such groups, so a refusal in this instance is significant. Imaan are not always supportive of OutRage!, of course. David | Talk 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    But that makes no sense, because there was a variety of views inside from the different schools and different views. Tatchell worked with IMAAN for a short period, and has a reason for wanting them in, but IMAAN are just one of many groups within the more progressive and liberal streams of Islam, and one of the less prominent for that matter, unlike Mr. Tariq Ramadan.Irishpunktom\talk 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Not everyone agrees that Tariq Ramadan is actually a moderate.
    Not everyone agrees IMAAN members are Muslim, whats your point?Irishpunktom\talk
    What prompted that irrelevant response? If you want to include a defence of Livingstone's actions on the grounds that moderate Muslim voices were involved, it becomes a relevant point to cast doubt on whether those labeled as moderate are in fact so. David | Talk 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    Tariq Ramadan is a more respected moderate Muslim scholar than any other I know. Some people doubt that, but some people too doubt that IMAAN are truely muslim (thus, using your logic, why should IMAAN be mentioned at all considering some people say they are not Muslim)Irishpunktom\talk 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Any ovation given to Qaradawi is not relevant to the biography of Ken Livingstone, and is not particularly surprising since the protesters were outside the conference protesting.
    I know it's not, and thats why it is not added to the article, however, if the POV you are pushing is added, then the opposing POV, including this detail, must too be addded.Irishpunktom\talk
    The issue over Qaradawi was not his popularity or lack of it, but whether he was a suitable person to invite. So it would still not be relevant in any case, even if I was pushing a POV, which I'm not. David | Talk 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    His popularity as an Islamic Scholar is obviously relevent when it comes to a meeting concerning Muslims. Irishpunktom\talk 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope this helps. David | Talk 16:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from attacking my positions in the way you have. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I will do no such thing. I have found on examining your edits that you have a consistent record of pushing a pro-Islam POV, of being unwilling to use talk pages to explain your edits, and of making blanket reverts even when blatant factual errors have been pointed out to you. That's not a personal attack ("I'm sure you're a very nice person!"), it's a comment on editing style, and I should give you fair warning that it makes you very difficult to work with and I might put a user RFC up if it continues to cause problems. David | Talk 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You Blanket reverted, you have clashed with me over your Pro-Tatchell POV previously, and you refused to use the talk page till after I made the request. Would you rather be the pot or the kettle? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

London mayor tells immigrants: "go back where you came from"/Media smears Livingstone with anti-Semitism label again/Reuben brothers incident

Someone should add a short section on the newest bubbling controversy: Livingstone tells two businessmen, long-term residents of Britain, to "go back to Iran". Guardian link here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_hirsh/2006/03/livingstone_employs_lowlevel_r.html , there are also BBC and This is London articles. Babajobu 15:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring context to attack another.. shurely shome mishtake. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Who is ignoring context? Livingstone? Or me? I'm not ignoring the context, and I'm not attacking Livingstone. It's getting media attention, I checked the article and there was nothing there, so I think someone who is more up on London politics and Livingstone's career should put it in. FWIW, I don't think there is really a context in which it is appropriate for a mayor of a city to tell a resident to "go back where you came from", but that's neither here nor there. Anyway, I'm used to assumptions of bad faith on your part, no offense taken. Babajobu 16:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I wasn't referring to you, rather that vicious attack piece by David Hirsh. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Assumption of bad faith on my part, then. D'oh! Babajobu 16:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Nopes, poorly phrased sentence on my part... And I can't believe that that is the only link to the story on the Guardian site.--Irishpunktom\talk 17:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for consideration on former point, agreed on the latter point. The story is actually only a blog post by Hirsh, albeit on the Guardian's official blogging area. They link to his blog post from the main page, though...I think they're still trying to figure out how to run the new "Comment is free..." section of the site. Unwieldy, though, I agree. Babajobu 17:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned at the end of the section on Oliver Finegold, and has been since about 3.30 this afternoon. And your section title is mis-leading - Livingstone didn't tell them to go back where they came from, he said they could go back to Iran, which is where they appear to have made a lot of their money. - Gregg 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the brothers used to have a company that did business in Iran, among other places. I don't think that's what Livingstone was referring to, especially considering that when later told the Ruebens were not from Iran, he then apologized to the Iranians for associating them with the brothers. It sounded like, and has been interpreted as (by the BBC among others), as "go back to (your country)". As of now, the article goes with the sympathetic-to-Livingstone interpretation that he was referring to one of the brothers' former business interests, but I don't think that interpretation is put forward by The Guardian, the BBC, or anyone else who has covered the story. Babajobu 22:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't go with any particular interpretation, it simply presents the facts in an unbiased way. Livingstone said "they could go back to Iran" not "they should go back home" as various stories (which all seem to feed from a blog post) suggest. The Trans-World Group is, and as far as I know alwyas has been, a joint venture between both brothers, and its operations in Iran in the 1980s were quite controversial at the time. But this is Wikipedia - if you think it needs more work, edit it. - Gregg 22:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I've seen four different people refer to him as Anti-Semetic because of this remark, which is a rather bizarre spin to put on it. I don't really see how it makes sense to say "Go back to..." unless it does refer to either the business deals in rian of the Brothers, or, If livingstone had mistaken their iraqi heritage as iranian. The former seems probable, the latter Im not so sure about, but, if it can be sourced should be added. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Transworld did business in Iran, but also in India and most notably of all in Russia. ALso, an earlier Guardian profile also mistakenly described the brothers as of Iranian descent. At this point it seems unclear exactly what Livingstone was trying to say, but the BBC, at least, has been very clear in describing it as a "go back to [your country]" gibe, and that's also how the Conservative politician and the Guardian columnist have characterized it. I don't think the information is presented neutrally in the article at the moment, because in emphasizing the brothers' former business interests in Iran immediately after the description of Livingstone's comments, it suggests that Livingstone was referring to their business interests rather than telling them to go back where they came from. If, instead, that sentence was switched to one that said "the brothers are not in fact of Iranian ancestry, but Iraqi" it would instead suggest that Livingstone was referring to their ancestry. Neither formulation is entirely NPOV, because we don't really know what he was trying to say. For now, I'm content just to wait and let the story mature a little before making any changes to the article. Babajobu 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the interpretation of The Times in a Leader they just put up: "The remarks carried two implications — first, that the Reuben brothers come originally from Iran, which they do not (they were born in India), and secondly that it is acceptable for London’s first citizen to suggest that a legal immigrant go back where he came from." [6]

But thats only true if looked on as one way, not the other. Was he saying Go back to Iran, because they had businness dealings in Iran, or was it go back to iran because he thought thats where they came from ? - Ken needs to explain. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The Guardian has now also run a Leader suggesting Livingstone was telling them to go back where they came from. That's the BBC, The Times, and The Guardian all interpreting it this way. At this point, the notion that Livingstone was referring to their 1980s business interests is original research--it's not suggested by any source other than Wikipedia (though personally I do agree that it seems plausible, even if no reliable sources are mentioning it as a possibility). It's a fact that they had business interests in Iran, but there are lots of facts about the Reuben brothers, the ones that we add to Ken's article should be related to their episode with Ken. I really think it should go. Anyway, in the meantime I'm at least adding putting the fact that they are not Iranian in front of it. Babajobu 07:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'm removing the lead-in that says he was "again accused of antisemitism when...". I haven't seen him accused of anti-semitism anywhere...even the Hirsh blog post doesn't accuse him of anti-semitism, but for contributing to an atmosphere that may lay the groundwork for anti-semitism, whatever that means. Of the few Jewish orgs that have commented on it, I've not seen any accuse him of anti-semitism. Like the Guardian and Times, most sources just seem to be accusing him of having made an obnoxious, apparently anti-immigrant remark. Babajobu 07:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
According to the BBC article, Coleman said "This is the latest anti-Semitic remark by Livingstone, he clearly has a major problem with the Jewish business community". I've added that back in, and also that Livingstone was responding to criticisms they'd made of him (because otherwise it sounds like it was some sort of unprovoked outburst). - Gregg 18:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Most of the criticism, and the criticism by the most prominent sources, i.e. the Guardian and Times leaders, just say Livingstone made an anti-immigrant remark. Also, do you have a source for the contention that Livingstone was responding to "criticism" from the brothers. I've not heard that anywhere. It seems that he was just annoyed at their handling of the development. Babajobu 05:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeps, I like how you have it now. - However, should we include the reason for the outburst? - Olympics developers could cost taxpayers £700m, says Livingstone ?--Irishpunktom\talk 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ken and Tiannamen Sq

Ken recently got in the news again by comparing the Tiannamen Sq massacre to the poll tax riots in London in 1990. This should be mentioned along with his other bon mots. That was really a strange one even for Ken - no-one got shot at, much less killed, by the police in London in the Poll Tax riots, in contrast to the massacre at TS. And the poll tax riots were an aggressive protest against what was seen as an unjust tax, not a peaceful process against a Communist/Fascist gvt. Then Ken dredged up something from the early C19 and came up with some really windy waffle about how he was just saying dodgy things had happened in every city. JRJW April 06.

Britain didn't have a Cultural Revolution in it's history, so it's probably hard to appreciate the context within which the CPC saw this protest. 500,000 people died the last time people took to the streets there. Even so, Ken likes to shoot his mouth off, and gets away with it. He'll probably compare Mother Teresa to Hitler next and get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing it. That thing about the Reuben brothers is hilarious - "I would offer a complete apology to the people of Iran to the suggestion that they may be linked in any way to the Reuben brothers" --Dilaudid 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Babajobu 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what? Ken did say these things, maybe his old socialists ideas coming out, but it sounds notable enough to be included to me, SqueakBox 14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No he didn't- he compared Tiannamen Square to the Peterloo massacre of 1819, where British Troops killed 11 people for protesting for the right to vote. Source: [7] (skip to about half way through.)81.104.175.188 21:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

amsterdamaged says... I take great exception to the assertation that "the poll tax riots were an aggressive protest". Where they? I was there and from what I saw (and it appears that others agree) the violence occured once a great number of people where unable to leave Trafalgar Square. This, because the Police had blocked the exits and a number of mounted police rode at speed into the crowds. Perhaps you might like to refer to the article entitled "Poll Tax Riots" in Wikipedia? I also believe that "windy waffle" although poetic is not helpful to any cogent arguement. You might not like what he said, but his suggestion that "There is no such thing as one country with a perfect record." is surely correct? http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/londonmayor/display.var.728790.0.ken_compares_tax_riots_to_tiananmen_square_massacre.php)

Newts

Does anyone have an actual reference for the newt-loving? I just removed one reference, as it was essentailly a joke. The one left up is not very good. It might be good to situate Livingstone's newtophilia in time, with an interview or something beyond 'he is known for...' 143.167.143.173 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article reads like it was written by a combination of Brian Coleman and The Daily Mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.58.233.129 (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would add that it identifies the Political Studies Association as a "left-wing" group, when it is in fact an academic organization that I am sure would not identify themselves that way. While I understand many criticisms of academia as being liberal, it seems more like a way to diminish the award he received by making it sound partisan than to accurately describe the PSA. Dittmer161 (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Mark Steyn - aka the Godfather of sensationalist right-wing theories - is also pretty dubious, there must be more objective sources out there than him. Blankfrackis (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, he's being quoted in the "criticism" section, which I think is perfectly valid; a more objective source probably wouldn't be making criticism in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The logical extension of that principle is to include any criticism - even from borderline lunatics like David Icke (who no doubt sees Ken Livingstone as a shape shifting lizard). Mark Steyn represents a very marginal section of public opinion on the extreme right, there are more mainstream political commentators who have criticised Ken Livingstone's position on Palestine/Israel. The fact that the quote lies within the criticism section doesn't make it immune from NPOV standards. Blankfrackis (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Mark Steyn's last book, America Alone, was on the New York Times bestseller list, so I don't think he's as fringe a commentator as you might think. By what standard would you define someone as mainstream? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
By British political standards - as this is an article about a British politician. Mark Steyn's opinions are far to the right of British political standards. Many extreme left and right political commentators have sold a large number of books, that doesn't make their opinions any more credible - see Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, George Galloway and numerous other examples. I'm not approaching this from either a left-wing or right-wing perspective, I'm articulating the fact that Mark Steyn has an exceptionally low level of political credibility in the UK and that, in my opinion, using a quote of his devalues the article. Blankfrackis (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that criticism of politicians in WP has to fall within the mainstream of political thought in that country? I bet I could easily list 15 exceptions to this supposed rule, starting with an extreme case like, say, Kim Jong-Il. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
At no point did I ever suggest there was such a rule. What I am stating is that including critiques from a marginal section of public opinion has the potential to devalue the article - particularly when more mainstream political commentators have made similar points. Just as it would devalue the article if we added large sections based on the conspiracy theories of David Icke, the extreme-right opinions of the British National Party, the extreme left opinions of the New Communist Party of Britain and numerous other examples (all of these individuals/groups have criticised Ken Livingstone in the past).
The point I am making is not that "criticism of politicians in WP has to fall within the mainstream of political thought" it's that we should try and refrain from adding the opinions of every conspiratorial lunatic and fringe group and instead look for mainstream and credible sources where possible. In this case there are numerous sources which are more credible than Mark Steyn and using his quote just makes the article look "like it was written by a combination of Brian Coleman and The Daily Mail". If you seriously think it adds something to the article to use sources woefully lacking in credibility when numerous mainstream and credible sources exist, then I'll be interested to know how you've arrived at that conclusion. Blankfrackis (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't live in the UK, and I don't know you, so I don't know what standards you use to judge who's mainstream and who isn't. I live in the U.S., where Steyn represents, in my opinion, a certain strand of mainstream thought. But if you find a source that you consider more mainstream making the same point that Steyn is, feel free to change it; you have as much right to edit the article as I do. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we could replace it with an article by Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jul/27/july7.religion) who makes virtually the same argument. Given that he's left leaning, if anything, it would remove the ammunition for those who would criticise the article from a pro-palestinian/leftist perspective. He's also undoubtedly a "mainstream" commentator in the context of British politics. Any objections? Blankfrackis (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me. I don't know if I agree with your specific reasoning, but I'd agree that it's probably a better citation anyway because it's a whole article on the subject, instead of just being a throwaway remark in a discussion on an unrelated topic. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The article claims that Livingstone 'is a distinguished supporter of the British Humanist Association.' The adjective 'distinguished' needs fixing for obvious Wiki reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.252.17 (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded this. Headhitter (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Grudgingly" hosted Hannukah celebration?

Neither of the references mention that he was "grudging". ---TCA

Chavez's snub

Should we mention that his recent planned trip to Venezuela was called off at short notice after Chavez refused to meet him  ? -- Beardo 03:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Chavez didn't refuse to meet him. He was simply otherwise engaged. Livingstone later pulled off an oil deal with Chavez.SmokeyTheCat 10:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

{{POV-check}} There are several sections in the article that appear to have been written by Mr Livingstone's own press office.

Are there? This seems like a fair article to me. There are plenty of negative things said about the subject.SmokeyTheCat 10:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A few NPOVs:

- (As Livingstone's subsequent election as Mayor would show this was false. Kinnock was unelectable; Livingstone was not.)

- Tony Blair said that Livingstone as mayor would be a "disaster" for London. He was wrong.

- Dobson ... foolishly based his campaign on claims that Livingstone was an egomaniac 134.151.33.106 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Those first two are verifiable facts. Blair did say that. Events proved him wrong. Kinnock *was* unelectable; Livingstone was not. Dunno about the Dobson quote. SmokeyTheCat 10:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's verifiable. He's definitely an egomaniac.--Dilaudid 00:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are very POV statements. Whether a politician's election is a disaster or not is usually strictly opinion.--Gloriamarie 21:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those statements are phrased in a non-neutral way. All are more or less true (with the possible exception of #1). But that doesn't matter.. Verifiability, not truth. I would say that the article as a whole however is not partial towards Livingstone, to my reading. More probably the reverse, in fact. Badgerpatrol 02:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Better photo

Any ideas on how we can get a better photo of Livingstone? None of the ones used give a good, clear likeness.--A bit iffy 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that one is needed - also for London. London Mayor's office has been emailed to see if they can submit one - the issue with the previous one appeared to be lack of public domain confirmation. MarkThomas 12:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this photo okay? Seems a fair image. Could it be a bit bigger? SmokeyTheCat 12:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just added one from flickr, seems a bit faded though as its a picture taken from a screen--Ruddyell 11:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The current picture is not so great; I'm surprised his office doesn't provide a better one.--Gloriamarie 21:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Abolition of the GLC

The article says "The Conservative Party... forged ahead with their long-standing plan to abolish the GLC" Is this correct? It's a long time ago now but my recollection is that it was very much a spur of the moment idea during the election campaign. BTLizard 11:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This could get very complicated! Yes, it was a spur of the moment thing to put abolition in the manifesto. However, there had been a long build up of pressure from the outer London boroughs to get rid of the GLC; the Marshall report in 1979 had considered abolition and only narrowly recommended against it. I know of one presentation to a London history conference which makes the point very forcefully that to regard the abolition of the GLC as a Thatcher-motivated act of spite against Livingstone is good politics but ahistorical. The GLC would have been abolished anyway, by any Conservative governmnent sooner or later, because the outer London boroughs simply did not see the need for it and did not get enough out of it. A bit of wordsmithing called for I think. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Most expensive bus fares?

"As of 1 January 2007, non-Oystercard journeys became the most expensive in the world with journeys now costing £2."

Most expensive under what definition? This is a very vague assertion, and needs a reliable citation. I know there were headlines in "respectable" newspapers like this one, but a headline is no good without substantiated facts in the text. Are we really sure that there are no short-distance urban bus fares in the entire world costing over £2? Or are we just comparing average bus fares in major capital cities? Mtford 05:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC) It might be worth pointing out that there are now more buses in London than there have ever been before. So Ken is spending the funds from the congestion charge wisely IMHO.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK•

Actually, there are many sources for this-- "most expensive" can be pretty straightforward actually-- whatever costs the most is the most expensive. Just take a look at the text of the article you cite above. The Guardian is a reliable source.--Gloriamarie 21:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC) "the city's cash single fare is over two and a half times that of Tokyo, the next most expensive city, and almost three times the price of the European average, £4.00 compared with £1.37.

Researchers say that even the much lauded and cheaper Oyster fare is 56% higher than the world average, £1.50 compared with £0.96. The average monthly fare is seven and a half times that in Lisbon."--The Guardian

This really depends on what people consider to be expensive and by what means people chose to pay. Comparing cash fares alone is rather disingenuous when Oyster fares have actually reduced the amount that nearly everyone I know pays per journey. The Oyster fare for a bus ride is only 90p for example. To selectively present this information is more than a little dubious.TfL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.80.61 (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

2000 nomination attempt

Although Livingstone received a healthy majority of the total votes, he nevertheless lost the nomination to former Secretary of State for Health Frank Dobson, under a controversial system in which votes from sitting Labour MPs and MEPs were weighted more heavily than votes from rank-and-file members.

Whilst the MP/MEP weighting may have been a factor, my recollection is that one of the most controversial aspects of the selection was that there was no requirement for affiliated trade unions to ballot their members (unlike for the Labour Party leader). Those that did were generally pro Livingstone, but many didn't and instead threw a block vote behind Dobson. Does anyone have access to a source from the time? Timrollpickering 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson

Not sure if the substantial chunk of Jesse Jackson's speech is appropriate to this particular article's subject. 3tmx 23:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ken Livingstone Press Conference on 2005 London attacks in Singapore.jpg

Image:Ken Livingstone Press Conference on 2005 London attacks in Singapore.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Article may be too long

It seems to me that this article is very long (as in quite possibly "too long") and that it would benefit from condensing and summarizing throughout.

I'll be quite content if the consensus of the contributors to this article is that shortening is not warranted, but I'd like to see some discussion of this, please (from more than just two or three contributors.) -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

- Well, in general terms,

"Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style)." - Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues

And checking this article, "This page is 62 kilobytes long." - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Livingstone&action=edit
(Depending on what is "readable prose", article could even be twice the recommended guideline. Even if not, is almost certainly over or near the recommended limit.)
So, we obviously can't make an absolute rule on this, but "some readers may feel that this is too long".
-- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • An article is significantly longer than that (50KB), it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries

There is absolutely no need of splitting this article. The proof is nobody had ever asked for that to be done. Anyway you have to exclude footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", footnotes, bibliography) etc... of the 62 Kb estimation. Mrpouetpouet (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see this 'readability issues' stuff. People still read Middlemarch (800+ pages) and War and Peace ( 1200+ pages) without getting noticably bored.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Some parts could possibly be removed to Greater London Authority as policy decisions; the problem is, nearly all policy decisions come from the mayer, and he comments on them, so even separating the two on these grounds is tenuous. There is hardly a WP precedent for Ken Livingston:The GLA years. MickMacNee (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, articles like Premiership of Tony Blair are quite common for world leaders; the equivalent here would probably be "Mayoralty of Ken Livingstone". I don't think the article's quite long enough for that kind of branching, though. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Livingstone-hanukkah-2005.jpg

Image:Livingstone-hanukkah-2005.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Meeting with Sinn Fein in 1982

Quite why this meeting of a quarter of a century ago should be in the controversies section, otherwise applied to Controversies during Livingstone's time as Mayor in the 2000s, is inexplicable. I am not seeking to deny the controversial nature of the meeting, merely putting it in its chronological place. The Hyde Park bombings of a few months earlier had nothing to do with Livingstone, are thus not relevant here, and are pushing a point of view as a result, which is counter to WP policy. Philip Cross (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

I agree with Philip (above) that the controversy section should go (I added the {{criticism-section}} tag a day or two ago). It seems very arbitrary what is and isn't controversial - for example, his congestion charge isn't in controversies but surely could be. It makes the "policy" section too positive (racism initiatives) and makes the controversy section too negative (a racist remark) - I've now placed these under one heading

I think organising the article by grouping similar topics - like "foreign policy" or "transport policy" - could be better than a strictly chronological to help everyone find relevant information quickly, but either is fine. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the "Controversy" section is fine - in fact, I don't think Philip, above, actually disagrees with its existence either, just with the inclusion of one specific controversy. Trying to integrate information from there into other sections is justified when it's part of a mayoral policy such as the congestion charge or the Routemaster phase-out; but putting "Remarks regarding the Reuben brothers" into "Racism policies" doesn't make sense - it wasn't part of any policy. Similarly, I don't know if the resignation of his racism advisor for corruption belongs there either - it's not directly policy-related either. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the Reuben/Racism issue. However, I'm not clear as a newcomer why the links are being fought over. I see for example that Korny you have just removed quite a number of links, some of which might be helpful in casting light on the integrity issue, such as the accusations and counter-accusations over Al-Qudawai. Can you explain this please as it seems on the face of it to be using links and references to be part of the perception of bias, is that right? Smorgasm (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The links thing is an entirely separate issue, and I don't think it's being fought over. Basically, external links should provide general information or commentary on the subject of the article - if there's any specific information that's in those removed links about the al-Qaradawi controversy that's not already in the article, that information should just be added to the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You dont know anything, your just a bunch of puppets to ken. He did support Sinn Fein and they are the political wing of the provo's a bunch of murdering gansters. And if he really gave a shit about london he wouldnt of assotiated with Sinn Fein/IRA who had month before bombed london. Not only that but Gerry adams is resposible for the Bloody Friday (1972) bombings which killed innocence. Making this stated in this page is just displaying whos ken was getting involved with and their crimes. END OF - Paddy 23:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am having trouble formatting the link for the 1.6 million severance payoff. I have attached it here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041453/Ken-Livingstones-political-aides-1-6-million-payoff.html. When I add it it deletes sections of the article, and it doesn't add itself to the reference log.Cillmore (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I also do not believe the controversy section should go, it is quite relevant to Livinstone. Boris Johnson by the way will be a "political gaff machine" much in the same manner as Livinstone. I do not believe its POV to post what has been a trade mark of his political career. If he gets re-elected in 2012 we will be able to fill more "controversy." We should split the article then.Cillmore (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cillmore, I fixed the citation for you: if you need help with how to create citations, then WP:CITE is the best place to learn, and any other links from there, particularly Wikipedia:Citation_templates. Also, the reasoning for removing the criticism section would be because of Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, which says we should integrate controversies into the rest of the text, rather than have a section labelled "Controversies" as we have now. Personally, I think we could do a split anyway, as there's a lot of controversy around Ken, and a new article could be created about it (especially since there is info from other sources too about the one you added). Deamon138 (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I was having difficulty here. I toyed with the idea of adding to the "post Mayoral" section just below the radio station as it would integrate it better in the article as you have stated. The list of contoversies is very long, though much of it could be integrated in the body of the article.Cillmore (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that some of the topics listed under "contoveries" should be moved as they read like critisms when in fact they are discriptive (mostly) of Linvinstone's views. The Undergroud section and the relationship with Socialist Action as examples.Cillmore (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reinserted the section under controversy. As there is a section titled "controversy" it is relevant to the title. Perhaps we should discuss either removing the entire section, or as some have suggested splitting the article. I do not agree with deleting sections that are properly sourced, and cited (the sources) throughout other sections of the article. The portion deleted also provides useful links to other parts of Wikipedia.Cillmore (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23526206-details/Ken+Livingstone's+eight+political+aides+get+1.6+million+payoff/article.do This the link for Livingstone's qoute, and this should be added to give parity to the issue: "A spokeswoman for Boris Johnson confirmed that the payments were legal, as provisions of employment law superceded the GLA Act and that the payments would be made." It's the same source as 44. I cannot format the citations in this section for some reason.Cillmore (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I searched for "Healy" in this article, but nothing came up. Much of what some people would consider the dark side of Livingston is related to his connections to Gerry Healy. I understand that Livingston spoke at Healy's funeral. That relationship needs to be explored.74.66.82.195 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Aim for article in post-2008 election period

From the 4 May beyond this article needs to be checked, and edited, to ensure that the article reflects the fact that Ken Livingstone no longer is the mayor of London, but was the mayor of London. The main focus should be on the use of past & present tense i.e. replacing sentences along the lines of "As mayor, he is working on expanding the departments of" to "As mayor, he did work on expanding the departments of".

Thank you.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Change the two bio articles. Anything else is pretty low priority imo. Any sentences of the form above were not really appropriate for wikipedia anyway, every addition is supposed to be framed in a timeless way. MickMacNee (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"Priority aim" was a bit too much of a grandiose statement, upon reflection. However, whilst occurences of sentences which do have an inappropriate tense are probably few in this article, there will probably be a few around that need to be addressed. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing debate on Boris Johnson's article about his status as mayor. He signed his acceptance today at 11.30 BST - yet both Livingstone's and Johnson's article list both as 'incumbent'. We can't have two incumbents - Boris is officially Mayor, although his office begins at midnight tonight. Just wanted to agree on what we should do before I changed anything. Jsdixie uk (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother yourself. It's lame. It won't even matter in 2 days time. (Not to say it doesn't matter, it does, i.e. if there was an attack, who's in charge? But frankly, Wikipedia is useless in trying to deside these things, wikipedia has no clue as to the actual legal position, so why even try? It's not like the authorities will check wikipedia to find out who has to make a decision. MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that very shortly (or already? I don't know) it won't matter, but what does matter is that Wikipedia is factually correct. Sure the authorities don't check it (if you discount the CIA!) but the point of Wikipedia is to be factually correct for ANYONE that reads it. My thoughts on this is that perhaps it's like when someone gets voted in as US President later this year: George Bush will still be official President just into 2009, so the one voted in becomes "in" only when the others official term has ended. Maybe. Deamon138 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute with the Evening Standard

Ken Livingstone gave a rebuttal of these accusations at [8]. How should this be integrated into the article? Oh and there's this too: [9] Deamon138 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not socialist?

He calls himself a socialist here: [10]

I will reinstate it, Im off on hols tommorrow for a week so if you reply here and I dont answer soon, please dont be offended! CaptinJohn (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously right and there are many other references that could be placed in the article, for example, from the excellent recent book "Ken". Smorgasm (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The Labour Party is fundamentally a socialist party - based on socialist principles - and thus its members are socialists. Calling Ken Livingstone a socialist is like calling Sarah Palin a conservative. It's relatively obvious, so I don't think we need to include it in the lead section. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 16:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Considering the "not all Labour members are socialist" edit summary, I guess we can leave it in if socialism is something he personally identifies with. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 14:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on controversy section

I have placed an NPOV tag on the section. It needs to be discussed prior to removing sourced material. The section is titled cronyism and corruption allegations, and the material is clearly to the point. If the entire section needs to go then so be it.Cillmore (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The material may be "to the point" but virtually the whole of the paragraph in question (about the payments to Livingstone's ex-advisers) is taken from one highly biased article in the Daily Mail. We need to include a point of view in defence of Livingstone. Also I'm not convinced that quite so many quotes (from Tony Travers etc) are necessary to illustrate the point. Comments such as "You could do a lot about knife crime for £1.6 million" are clearly editorialising and not strictly relevant to the matter in hand. MFlet1 (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As you may know both the Daily Mail and the Guardian are highly biased against Livingstone, though both sources are citied elswhere in the article. Any critisism of Livinstone is likely to come from the DM. His point of view was also citied in the article, namely that the payments were entirley legal. Boris Johnson's office also stated that the payments were based on the law. The knife crime comment was because of a recent death of a 15 year old, and does I would admit, need to be left out. Perhaps there are less biased sources on this particular issue.Cillmore (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How can the controversy dominate so much of this article? Needs a lot of editing down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.119.217 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Is he ?

K.L. = Jew ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.210.197 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No evidence he is. The way he spoke to the Evening Standard journalist and his welcoming of Al-Qaradawi to London would not be things a Jew would do. WP improver (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Working for Chavez?

I know the story that Livingstone working as a consultant for Hugo Chavez was reported by the BBC, Times etc. last August, but last December on Have I Got News For You he explicitly said "I don't work for Hugo Chavez" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbOAdPOe7m4, 5:17 to 5:50). --AdamSommerton (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and remove it. --AdamSommerton (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon's personal responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres

There is nothing "alleged" about Ariel Sharons personal responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Sharon was the General responsible for letting the killers into the camp. It's a fact of history, precisely documented to boot. He is a war criminal. Plain and simple, if ever there were crimes committed during war, this was one, and it was among the worse.

You might want to take it up at the Sabra and Shatila massacre article, since that one doesn't state it as "fact", either. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Family

Does anyone have any info about his three elder children? Does he have siblings? Is his father dead? WP improver (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

This is a controversial man who has made statements that enraged Jews, and others, and has cozied up to many hardline Islamic preachers, and is strongly suspected of working Hugo Chavez' interests by the BBC, and Borris Johnston has a controversy section without telling people return to Iran or calling Jews concentration camp guards.

So unless Wikipedia officially endorses the Labor Party maybe it is a good idea to tell the negative bits about this man? I don't think telling people return to where you came from would be overlooked from Tory or Lib Democrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScriptusSecundus (talk • contribs) 04:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are some well sourced examples that should be obvious to everyone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4830878.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/mar/22/livingstoneemployslowlevelr

Red Ken also endorsed Qaradawi.

There is fairness, and there is bias, a Tory who said the same thing would have a section dedicated to it, it is dissapointing that the most anti-semitic person in Britain who isn't a laughingstock is white washed. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There was, in fact, a long "Controversies" section - it was removed by a vandal a few weeks ago and then, apparently due to editing error, never re-added - I just added it back now. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Durham Miners' Gala

Why was the detail of what he said removed from the article? It is a major event and a major role at that event to speak at it. This, and what he said, makes it notable enough to mention, especially given what else is considered notable in this article. I don't think it is enough to include a single sentance saying he was a speaker at it. 79.79.190.192 (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove it completely just trimmed it as I thought the content was a bit cherry picked and given undue importance. trimmed from this

In July 2010, he was a speaker at the Durham Miners' Gala, a role which he described as "like a Royal Command Performance for the Labour movement" In his speech he noted his "biggest mistake" as London mayor was "not inviting the Durham Miners' Gala to come to London and march through Oxford Street and Hyde Park and show the people of London that working class culture that you have kept and defended", suggesting the "solidarity" and "strength" it gives may have reduced "some of the problems and alienation" there He also used the speech to attack spending cuts by the new coalition government, claiming they were not necessary.

to this ... In July 2010, he was a speaker at the Durham Miners' Gala. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I imagined he must speak at hundred and hundreds of places and likely tailors his comments accordingly and I though that although he said the biggest mistake of his mayoral career was not to ask the Durham minors to march in London I doubt if that is actually in any way the total answer but was more a tailored answer to fit the audience at the time, I wouldn't object to the bit about.. in the speech he attacked spending cuts by the new coalition government, claiming they were not necessary....I also did not think the you tube video was classed as reliable and was the home made video of a single unofficial user. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. Well what you're suggesting is that he wasn't sincere in what he said - I don't think you can suggest that. Clearly the 'biggest mistake' remark was likely a deliberate exageration that wasn't meant to be believed, but what is notable is that he thinks alienation in London could be reduced by replicating this culture of the Gala: this is clearly something very fundamental to his own beliefs. You surely can't write this off as an insincere remark (on what grounds do you have the right to do so???). Moreover, he also used it to comment on the new government - also notable. Also, the YouTube video is an unedited recording of his speech - what is unreliable about that? I agree we could probably remove the 'command performance' remark, since this says little about himself and more about the event. Anyway, I propose the following amendment:
In July 2010, he was a speaker at the Durham Miners' Gala. In his speech he suggested the "solidarity" and "strength" the "working class culture" of the Gala gives could have reduced "some of the problems and alienation" in London had it been brough there during his time as Mayor. He also used the speech to attack spending cuts by the new coalition government, claiming they were not necessary. 79.79.191.201 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done - If you are suggesting this as a compromise then I accept it, its better. Feel free to add it. (without the youtube link). Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
ec. - I appreciate and agree that there is far too much not noteworthy content in the article and as I remember that was part of my consideration when I removed it.I am not strongly in support of its removal also for that point, the article is bloated so why not bloat it some more.. no , that is not a good reason to keep it though. I do strongly think the youtube link should not be replaced though. If anyone else thinks the written content is worthwhile then feel free to replace it. On the side issue, the article is awful long and that makes it imo close to unreadable and actually reduces its informative and educational value, someone should go through it and trim the fluff out and reduce the article by around a third. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • - as regards the youtube link - I do still think a personal users uploaded video is not a correct place to support any content, we use youtube extremely sparingly and only use official content from recognizable uploaders, if you want another opinion I would suggest you ask at the WP:RSN that is the discussion noticeboard about such issues, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:50 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Thanks for accepting the amended version. I still think the YouTube video is valid. It represents a primary source (how can you question the reliability of a video of someone's speech?), and it seems absurd to look for a secondary source as it is only then that this introduces problems of reliability (did they make any mistakes in writing it down? Did they miss anything out? Do they have a motive for modifying the speech? Etc). The only way the video can be seen as unreliable is if there are unclear aspects in the sound (and I agree some parts are muffled, but not the words I quote), or else he/she somehow managed to manipulate the audio to give a false speech (which is incredibly unlikely). Anyway, I've included it for consideration at WP:RSN, as you suggested, and it can be found here. Thanks! 79.79.186.76 (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I accept the argument made at WP:RSN that if it is not in a secondary source, then it is not notable. And the parts quoted about "solidarity" and "solving some of the problems and alienation" are not directly quoted in notable secondary sources. Therefore, I have amended the text to make reference to the fact that he felt the "working class culture" of the Gala should have been brought to London during his time as Mayor, and citing a notable secondary source. 79.79.140.195 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

press external

Ken Livingstone forced to stop taking Iran's money 172.129.186.174 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

an op ed blog by Andrew Gilligan of no value to this encyclopedic biography at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead inclusion and exclsuion

In the long career of Ken, I am sure he was called many things, maybe even a womanizer. Certainly he would have been called that more times than antisemitic. It is Undue weight on something that was not (NOT) antisemitism. It gets a little tiring see this minor accusations by one person made so heavy it ends up in someones lead. 1 time the word comes up in this entire article, yet it is added to the lead. By the way he is still alive so the standard needs to be higher. It is not a notable critique of Ken Livingstone. worst than that it is a typical loose accusation.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ken_Livingstone/Archive_1&oldid=1140151375"