Jump to content

Talk:Labour Friends of Israel

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


First section

[edit]

How can citation '1' be seen as a relevant and impartial reference. Surely a better reference can be found for the view of the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.76.199 (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC) just out of interest: how many articles rely on the official website of an organization to provide a full and accurate picture of the organization's aims and purposes? particularly when the organization is political. Jamaissur[reply]

Several of them do. But all article have a place for legitmate criticism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can u tell me what these articles r and whether they describe the organization using text cut-and-pasted direct from the official website? Jamaissur
To me the difficulty seems that there are so few reputable sources about LFI, eg even who is entitled to join, or if Tony Blair and Jack Straw really are members. The LFI website says so little, compared to the Conservative Friends of Israel, Jewish Labour Movement or Trade Union Friends of Israel websites which at least publicise meetings. Research on LFI seems quite difficult. I started this article from the little info on the LFI website, to hopefully initiate the discovery of reliable information. Rwendland 15:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a complete joke. Any comment which isn't a straight copy of their website is removed in 4 minutes. I emailed LFOI asking how MP's they had. About two months later they sent a polite but obtuse reply directing me to their list of officers... I repeated the same straight forward question, asking roughly how many MP's they have. No reply. But I am not allowed to put on this site any suggestion that they simply will not tell the world how many MP's they have. I'm called a 'conspiracy monger'. I'm not allowed to put 'secret' for something they clearly want to keep secret and aren't prepared to disclose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KBuck (talk • contribs) 09:09, 25 July 2006.

You are implying Original Research. Wikipedia has a policy of Wikipedia:No original research. Mtiedemann 09:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish... there is nothing 'interpretive' about what I put. Their keeping secret how many MP's they have is not just my 'original research'. You're telling me we can't use the word 'secret' for something they keep secret and I'm called a 'conspiracy monger' for putting this most basic fact about them on the entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KBuck (talk • contribs) 09:20, 25 July 2006.

As I said on edit history, 'secret' is a POV term that implies an agenda, whereas 'private' is less so. Unless there is a credible source that you can cite, it would be original research relying on your account of your email. I have left your current edit as it is a statement of fact that can be independently checked, although I still don't know what the point is. We don't put research difficulties on other articles. They are a private organisation. Mtiedemann 09:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the fact that they refuse to say how many MP's they have my 'research difficulty' is ridiculous. As I suggest... you... anybody can verify that they won't tell you by asking them. But instead of doing that... you insist this is something that relies on my account of my emails with them. Nonsense. It can be checked very easily. It is verifiable. But I'm not allowed to put this verifiable fact they won't say tell how many MP's they have.

This is a farse - after all the edits the page is a stub... the only contribution people have to make is to delete anything that EVEN REFERS to their (unknown) strength in parliament... and keep it as a stub which merely parrots (without saying so) paragraphs from THEIR website. And that's hardly objective either... just because they say they're XYZ doesn't mean they are exactly XYZ... it should at least be made clear where its from shouldn't it? No point in me changing anything though... it'll be reverted within 4 minutes.

You haven't been putting facts into the article; rather, you've been implying a conspiracy based on your own lack of knowledge about things that are, apparently, important to you. Rather than listing in the article all the things you don't know about Labour Friends of Israel, why don't you start adding some verifiable facts instead. Jayjg (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else who can't be bothered to email them like I did - to verify the fact - that they won't disclose their strength in Parliament. You don't want to do that... all you want to do is remove anything that isn't word for word lifted staight off their website.

How am I listing 'all the things' I don't know... I put one sentence - referring to the MOST IMPORTANT FACT ABOUT THEM... having bothered unlike any of you to verify it... and you jump to the conclusion I'm a conspiracist. Since when was one thing a list.

This article is a JOKE - Its two paragraphs and a list of executive members all taken directly from their website. Anything else gets deleted.

Why is it the "MOST IMPORTANT FACT ABOUT THEM"? Please quote some reliable sources regarding this issue. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members?

[edit]

Someone has entered a list of members. What is the source for this? Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of senior members are available here: http://www.lfi.org.uk/who_we_are , members who have attended visit to israel are available here : http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=345 . other sources are also available online. Linesman 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spinwatch is not a reliable source; please don't use it or include it. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What prove do you have that Spin Watch or Source Watch is unreliable. When link was added it clearly says "critical article by SpinWatch" and thus it should be included. This is not just a pro-lfi article, links must included articles critical of it. Linesman 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RS. Critical articles by The Guardian or The Telegraph are perfectly acceptable. Remember, we are talking about living people here, so WP:BLP applies. Also, claiming my edits were "vandalism" is a violation of WP:CIVIL; please take policy seriously. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does having a trip paid for by Labour Friends of Israel make you a member? I don't see how; can someone explain? Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be a member to have your trip "sponsored". It's a group trip which is entirly funded as with any other country specific parlimentary group. Linesman 23:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some evidence of that, please? Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is how palimentary groups work. Only Members that have shown commitment are given the opportunity to travel annually, as with labour friends of india [1] - those listed are all members. Only present office holders are listed. You can check the Register of members interest for this term[2] and list of present office holders, you'll find most if not all we're office holders. Linesman 23:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really prefer to be able to verify what you are saying. Can you provide some concrete evidence that you must be a member of a "Friends of" group to go on a trip sponsored by them? Or, alternatively, find some other evidence that the members you have listed are members of Labour Friends of Israel? Wikipedia is extremely concerned that it only publish accurate and verifiable information about living people. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to verify , Dodsonline.co.uk publishes the list of party groups mp's are members of e.g. Mike Gapes Gapes%20:%20Political%20Biography. You'll have to subscribe to obtain full access. Linesman 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regards towards dodsonline. If an MP's a member of a committee. click through that site to get free mp's link e.g [ http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee/foreign_affairs_committee_members.cfm] Linesman 23:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you need to provide verification. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot link to Dods bio pages since readers need subscription that's why i've linked to parlimentary publications. I hope to verify with other free sources in future. Linesman 00:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting list - though some are there for political reasons only. Jim Murphy was definitely not a Labour friend of Israel in his student days - his sympathies lay with the Palestinians - perhaps that has something to do with Eastwood constituency having the biggest number of Jewish voters of any Scottish constituency. Another sellout politico - really sad in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.98.111 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't revert thoughtlessly, pls

[edit]

i have improved the article, not spun it. 'viable' is a v. ugly word, for xmpl. jamaissur lemon or lime?

Please write comments in English so they can be comprehended; we've been through this before. Also, your editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of trying to tie alleged Jews to alleged crimes, or now to Communism, is highly disruptive. Please desist. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'disruptive' meaning 'you're heading for another block'. i edited this article to improve the prose and for no other reason. cf. my work on Control freak. jamaissur lemon or lime?
Your actions belie your words. You rearranged the order of the text for a very specific reason, obvious to anyone who reads the article. In addition, your work on "Control freak" consists entirely of original research, and the choice of topic was meant (unsurprisingly), to be a dig at me. Indeed, all of your other edits to Wikipedia are intended only as a cover for your sole interest; to smear Jews, or alleged Jews, in some way. That indeed is disruptive. Why don't you spend 6 months editing articles totally unrelated to Jews? For example, highlight Scots, or Greeks, or Albanians, and their alleged links to crimes. Then, once you've established good faith, we can talk about you resuming your main campaign of trying to link Jews to crime and communism. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion of even cited members

[edit]

The original List:


Ca you please tell me why even cited members names were delete. Non subscription sources are available online. In the case of James Purnell - [41] What more evidence do you want ! Linesman 12:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provided actually stated they were members of Labor Friends of Israel, including the source you gave for Purnell. When it comes to biographies of living people, your original research is not good enough. Now that you've provided a proper source for Purnell, I'll restore him. Either find sources for the others which directly state they are members of Labor Friends of Israel, or don't put them in. Wikipedia takes this very seriously. Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existance of this organisation is extremely worrying. We have to be impartial to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.--CharlesBronson18 13:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even more edits and its still a stub copied off their website. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a censorship.

Get used to it - anything that is vaguely political - and I don't just mean this page - is open to different interpretations. It's even worse when we decend in to the politcis of Israel and Palestine where both sides of the debate are so polarised and think their's is the only truth that matters.

And the one critical link didn't work, has had its text muted anyway so you wouldn't know where it was going, and I see above people have been trying to get rid of it. KBuck.

Went back to the original list, and am going through, entry by entry, checking and fixing each reference. More later. --John Nagle (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Now we have a properly cited list, with reliable sources for each entry. --John Nagle (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re Dircon page - the www.archive.org of 2003 www.lfi.org.uk [42] shows that the content pages were on www.lfi1.dircon.co.uk at that time. Rwendland (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I was concerned about citing a subdomain on a consumer ISP. I found Stephen Twigg in that post in a New Statesman article [43], and Kim Howells in a Guardian article.[44]. Tony Blair, though, does not not seem to have been a member. Any other fixes needed? --John Nagle (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion of how much money has been channeled into the Labour and Cooperative Party via LFoI ( and other organisations ? )

[edit]

I have just been watching the following Despatches documentary, not all about LFoI, and wondered whether anybody has tried to properly assess how much money had been received or arranged to be received by LFoI and for what purposes : it would appear that these 'Friends of Israel ' groups are being deliberately not incorporated so that they can avoid having to disclose their donors and donees, or indeed anything else : the LFoI won't even allow their own opinions to be publicly examined on their own website - a great vote for something other than open and democratic government for the UK ! AND NO ... this enquiry is not about Israel's political lobbying per se but about the accountability of our elected representatives in the UK - to us. The documentary also examines Conservative Friends of Israel - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZHrskzonH8 - and is of general political interest to those who care about good government both in the UK and also in Israel ( which I believe has similar problems anyway )DaiSaw (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Labour Friends of Israel. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Less pro-Israel than CFI??

[edit]

We claim this in the article citing an Guardian article by Ian Black from way back in 2009. I'm not sure that this belongs in the article or if the claim carries any serious weight, other than being the opinion of one journalist almost a decade ago.

It appears to be more about presentation. The Conservative Friends of Israel can afford to take for granted that the pro-Israel views of the MPs are likely shared by most of their party membership in generals, no matter how controversial Israel's actions (partly because English and Scottish Tories like to live out their nationalistic fantasies by proxy through Israel and then there is the Muslim thing).

With Labour it is an entirely different playing field altogether, although they have power among the MPs, they are absolutely despised by the party rank and file, especially the younger members of the Labour Party who are very pro-Palestine. So thea LFI cannot afford to be as openly and rabidly gung ho as the CFI are. The end goal is the same, their unquestionable loyalty to the State of Israel is hardly any less.... its just a matter of advertising and tailoring to audiences. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the source (Ian Black (journalist)) seems pretty robust. The way it is worded (“has been described as”) is neutral. The placing in a historical section shows it is a decade old. If other reliable sources give a perspective that balances this, no reason not to include that too. Anything beyond that might feel like WP:SYN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes needed

[edit]

Can't edit due to the extended protection but I feel that these changes are necessary:

  • There needs to be a mention of Joan Ryan defecting from the Labour Party and yet remaining in her role as chair of the LFI. [1]
  • The introduction is entirely unsupported by the source given: the article referenced makes no mention of borders, Palestine or a two-state solution. The phrase "with Israel recognised and secure within its borders" also seems particularly loaded given that Israeli settlements are continuously expanding into Palestinian territory; which borders are we talking about here?
  • "As of August 2018 it includes about 80 Labour MPs." needs a citation or at least a "citation needed" flag.

Sir jcd (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the page to refer to Joan Ryan as current chair still (since the seat is certainly not vacant), with a very hasty addition of the linked article as a reference, but as yet without formatting as is really required by Wikipedia. I'm personally unable to look into the other points as of yet. Benjitheijneb (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Emily Thornberry is not a member of Labour Friends of Israel, and is not listed here, could someone who knows how to edit remove that from her own article? The reference does not say she is a member. Nor does any other reliable source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Thornberry#Opposition_under_Jeremy_Corbyn_(2015%E2%80%93)

2A00:23C5:B383:B501:41D2:DA9A:76E7:3FAF (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the LFI website LFI Supporters in Parliament Jontel (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As requested above, I inserted a sentence noting that Joan Ryan, among others, who've resigned from the Labour Party remain members of LFI. We need that entry, because most people who read this article would understandably, and incorrectly, assume that to be a member of LFI you will also have to be a member of Labour.

I also made a minor change to the opening section. Just because LFI say they are in favour of a two-state solution, it doesn't mean they are working towards that objective. I changed it to state that LFI "say" they're in favour of a two-state solution. Mikesiva (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.lfi.org.uk/lfi-chair-joan-ryan-mp-resigns-from-the-labour-party/

Parliamentary Chair (Info Box)

[edit]

The info box needs updating to reflect that Steve McCabe is the current Chair. The correct info is in the body of the article, but the info box is still listing Ellman, who was replaced back in February. [45] DeltaSnowQueen (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jontel (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

are anti Corbyn MPs moderate ?

[edit]

"many moderate MPs rebelled against the leadership of the party" this seems to violate NPOV, what does moderate mean here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, other commentators would use other labels, depending on their own position. It is unnecessary to label them so I have removed it. Jontel (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

[edit]

change Director Jennifer Gerber to Michael Rubin 87.236.135.66 (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Party within a Party?

[edit]

Despite having real links to the Labour left, Momentum was/is often attacked as being a party within a Party. Now, while lacking such links to the Party, 'Labour Friends of Israel' are not called to account. For is this group reflecting growing calls within the Labour Party to support the UN ceasefire vote. Or does it consider that the IDF attacks on civilians are "self-defence"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.76 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy - no longer supports a 2 state solution but a one stare Greater Israel solution 92.233.82.113 (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully non-contentious change of category

[edit]

It seems to me that this article wouold be better placed in Category:Lobbying organisations in the United Kingdom, rather than as it currently is in Category:Lobbying in the United Kingdom. The organisations category seems by far the most suitable. I have already made this change to both Conservative Friends of Israel and Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel; could somebody who is able do the same for this article? As the topic title suggests, I'm only interested in more accurate/specific categorisation and don't wish to provoke controversy. 217.155.59.206 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2024

[edit]

Remove Jess Phillips's name from the list, as she has repeatedly stated she is not a member. [1] Jasnas66 (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: since she's listed as a member by the LFI,[46] I suggest seek consensus for its removal M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795105250828783697

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2024

[edit]

Please change the "citation needed"

Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, David Lammy is a supporter of Labour Friends of Israel[citation needed]>

to the citation added to the block:

Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, David Lammy is a supporter of Labour Friends of Israel[1]

This reference already exists on the page as reference 22 but couldn't be quoted inside the block. The source can be checked here: https://web.archive.org/web/20191018042647/https://www.lfi.org.uk/in-parliament/ Windsorchair (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ligaturama (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "LFI Supporters in Parliament". Labour Friends of Israel. 18 October 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Labour_Friends_of_Israel&oldid=1245288512"