Talk:Ken Livingstone/Archive 2

remarks about ruben brothers
In regards to his apology at the London Jewish Forum here is a citation from the Jerusalem Post 12/09/2006 http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=44103 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.196.214 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

''Mayor Ken Livingstone has issued an apology for "causing offense" following clashes with the Jewish community in recent years, and said it was never a "calculated intention." Livingstone, speaking to Jewish leaders at the launch of the London Jewish Forum (LJF) at City Hall over the weekend, said, "Finally, if I've caused any offense to anyone in the past, I apologize, it was never my intention. It was never a calculated intention to cause offence, as Rabbi Pinter, a member of the LJF steering committee, said, 'He's not anti-Semitic, he's just very rude.'" The mayor repeated the apology and requested, "If I do it again, please pick up the phone and tell me rather than go to the Standards Board and cost thousands of pounds, as we are and we should be friends and we should be able to work together. So if we have a problem lets deal with it over the phone." Relations between the mayor and Jews deteriorated after several incidents, including Livingstone's justification of Palestinian suicide bombings.''--5.150.92.174 (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Iraq
I find it peculiar that Livingstone's vocal opposition to the invasion of Iraq isn't currently even mentioned in this article. (I'd be inclined to wager it probably was mentioned in the past, but edited out by persistent persons), but I can't be arsed to sift through the whole article history to prove that point.) 31.18.253.188 (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would the opinion of Mr. Livingstone - as a mayor - be relevant when talking about a foreign war?Paragraphbee (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What is a "foreign war" ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I meant a war fought outside of Great Britain - in this case, far away from all of Europe. Thus, the opinion of the mayor seems unimportant to the article itself. He had opinions on many subjects which are not in the article.Paragraphbee (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, the UK was a belligerent the Iraq war and he's a prominent UK politician, one of several who expressed anti-war views. The article should probably include something about it, as I'm sure it does for many US and UK politicians who vocally opposed or vocally supported the war.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * He isn't "just" a mayor, but a well known British politician, that I guess has great influence on the Labour party and was probably strongly against the invasion of Iraq. But oil is more important than politics. Jørgen88 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * He spoke as Mayor of London against the war in 2003. Seems to me this is as significant as much of the trivia that is in the Remarks about foreign policy part of the article.Mighty Antar (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes remarks
Might be handy to link to List of war apology statements issued by Japan somewhere in there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.131.47 (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Press TV
This was removed: "The network is is pro-Palestinian, anti-sanctions against Iran, and critical of Western foreign policy." The source is this. How is this synthesis regarding his criticism, and how would you rather this be expressed. Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  16:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  16:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence Ken Livingstone's involvement with the network was criticised because it is "pro-Palestinian, anti-sanctions against Iran, and critical of Western foreign policy"? Unless there is, it doesn't belong in the article. 2 lines of K  303  16:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not asserting that "Ken Livingstone's involvement with the network was criticised because it is ...". I am simply describing the station that KL worked for. How would you rather this be done to avoid confusion that the criticism was based upon this?


 * And there is the WP:SYN:
 * A) Ken Livingstone was involved with Press TV
 * B) Press TV has been criticised for various reasons apparently unrelated to Ken Livingstone
 * That does not equate to:
 * C) The sentence about Press TV criticism belongs in Ken Livingstone's article
 * 2 lines of K 303  16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  16:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  17:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The BBC's description of the channel is not relevant. It is not why he was criticized. It is a connection synthesized by you. Don't make any more edits like that and don't revert edits unless you have a good reason unless you want to end up at Arbitration Enforcement.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are the third person to state that I am trying to make a connection. I am not. I wish to describe the channel at which he worked. Am I to understand that you are stating that any description of Press TV, an obscure TV station is not relevant?
 * Read what I wrote again. It is perfectly clear.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to misinterpret your 'perfectly clear' comments as I have done in the past so I shall ask again, "Am I to understand that you are stating that any description of Press TV, an obscure TV station is not relevant?"
 * The article mention both Ken and the Chanel description so its not a synth.--Shrike (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A brief mention of Ken Livingstone, that doesn't even mention any criticism of him, makes it most definitely SYN. 2 lines of K  303  17:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok it shouldn't be in criticism section.The WP:RS mention their both so it totally acceptable to mention this description when his role in the Chanel is described in the wiki article.--Shrike (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong again per WP:SYN as I've explained more than once now. 2 lines of K  303  17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I explained it too that there in no WP:SYN as the article mention him.--Shrike (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. A brief mention of Ken Livingstone that doesn't conflate the generic criticism of the network with Ken's involvement in it is very much WP:SYN, as I already said. 2 lines of K  303  18:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This section is not in the Criticism section. The article discusses the station and cites KL as a presenter. Can you explain clearly why WP:SYN precludes any description of the channel, and how this problem may be avoided. I note that there has been repeated confusion about this issue. I am not saying that there is any connection, I have repeatedly stated this, and am therefore surprised at these red herrings:
 * "Where is the evidence Ken Livingstone's involvement with the network was criticised because it is "pro-Palestinian..." - 2 lines of K
 * "It is not why he was criticized. It is a connection synthesized by you" - Sean Hoyland

Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  18:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A description of the channel is not related to this article or even to KL's work for the channel. There is no reason whatsoever to include information just because you have synthesized it. There is zero chance that you will get consensus to include this so you might as well stop now.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. 2 lines of K  303  18:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't call it synth as it does appear in the article.I think the best solution is to use a relevant board like No_original_research/Noticeboard if you think its synth to ask the input of uninvolved editors.--Shrike (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can, and I have repeatedly. I know of that noticeboard, but since I have no need to gain any consensus I won't be using it any time soon. 2 lines of K  303  17:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 April 2012
In the public transport section the segment on bendy buses "To occasional bus travellers they erroneously appeared to be 'free buses' or a fare-dodgers paradise. However, daily, weekly, monthly or seasonal Oyster card holders were not required to "touch in" their Oysters. Only those using Pay as You Go. Those irregular travellers, seeing only themselves "touching in" and everyone else not, jumped to false conclusions about the clued-up (and honest) majority. Teams of enforcement officers accompanied by police were a regular feature on these routes and hence fare avoidance was not higher than the 1950s Routemasters they replaced.[citation needed]" is uncited and should be removed because it is baseless biased conjecture. It should be replaced with or accompanied by the fact that bendy buses were often called "free buses" and TFL who have no political affiliation estimate that the end of bendy buses would save over £7million in fare evasion. source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16091997).

Mikehopkins42 (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 April 2012
In the public transport section the segment on bendy buses "To occasional bus travellers they erroneously appeared to be 'free buses' or a fare-dodgers paradise. However, daily, weekly, monthly or seasonal Oyster card holders were not required to "touch in" their Oysters. Only those using Pay as You Go. Those irregular travellers, seeing only themselves "touching in" and everyone else not, jumped to false conclusions about the clued-up (and honest) majority. Teams of enforcement officers accompanied by police were a regular feature on these routes and hence fare avoidance was not higher than the 1950s Routemasters they replaced.[citation needed]" is uncited and should be removed because it is baseless biased conjecture. It should be replaced with or accompanied by the fact that bendy buses were often called "free buses" and TFL who have no political affiliation estimate that the end of bendy buses would save over £7million in fare evasion. source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16091997).

Mikehopkins42 (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Swinging from lamp-posts quote
I've restated the changes I made previously. "widely condemned" is based upon the BBC article provided as the source which quotes Simon Hughes, Steve Norris and the Evening Standard amongst others. Livingstone's criticism “the financial network of corruption” is vital in providing the context for the quote. The “bizarre“ contortions are because the quote was never published in context, only a paraphrase of the quote. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Which sources have made all these observations about the quote never being published in context? That does not, neither apparently does the print version, neither does that. You're making some bizarre construction by synthesising several stories to imply there's something sinister regarding the non-appearance of the quote. There's also no evidence of widely condemned as I've already pointed out, you don't get to add together the condemnation of several people to equal "widely condemned". You might also want to stop edit warring and get consensus for your disputed changes, since they've been reverted by two editors. 2 lines of K  303  07:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources quoted (you missed out an official at the Saudi embassy) are not extensive and the term "widely condemned" is best avoided. On the relevant policy page is the advice "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively" and "Criticism and praise" needs to be "presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". Philip Cross (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, "widely condemned" appears, as far as I can tell, to be a conjectural interpretation of a source, which is explicitly prohibited by WP:BLP. Also, per Blp, consensus is required before material is restored.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * After waking up slightly more, the problem with Norris is that he's not explicitly condemning the lamp-posts part of the speech, according to the BBC he's replying to the part about terrorism. As for the Evening Standard "condemnation" in the BBC article, where is it? Regarding the Evening Standard the BBC say "The mayor's alleged remarks about the Saudi royal family were quoted in full in the London Evening Standard." and "It reported him as saying", they don't actually say what the Evening Standard's stance on the speech was. 2 lines of K  303  08:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Struck one bit, obviously not as awake as I thought. 2 lines of K  303  08:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is that Livingstone didn't simply wake up one morning and say lets hang the Saudi Royal Family! My "bizarre" construction is to put what he said into the original context in which he said it. I find it bizarre that some editors would rather that wasn't the case. I'll obviously have to rewrite so that it can be intgrated into the article as clearly several editors keen to ensure the existing wodeful bias in the controversy section remains unchallenged. Mighty Antar (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A simpler explanation that is consistent with what people have said and done here is that they are acting in good faith to enforce mandatory policy in a BLP.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite right he didn't simply wake up one morning and say "lets hang the Saudi Royal Family" [sic], he's not called Red Ken for nothing you know? 2 lines of K  303  12:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems there has been another undiscussed attempt to add back the disputed wording, albeit with the removal of a single word, but which doesn't take into account the other problems with the wording. It seems I'll have to elaborate on those, but first some background. There is the interview, and there is a similar story on the interview. Both are written by Jackie Ashley, and both are dated 8 April 2004, in fact if the times are correct they were published within a minute of each other. Now onto the problems:

The amended wording (*what* Ken said that was controverial and *exactly who* criticised it is far more acceptable. If anyone wants to add rejected embellishments, I recommend they propose them here for discussion. 2 lines of K  303  11:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "The full interview in the Guardian didn't include this direct quote" - what follows that isn't in fact a direct quote at all. That part of the sentence is also an editor's own observation.
 * "but put Livingstone's comments in the following context "Soon, the bus is getting the full force of Mr Livingstone's trenchant views on the Middle East. Peace will never be achieved until " the west shows it is taking on board the injustice of what's happening to the Palestinians, and looks at the financial network of corruption between some of the oil sheikhdoms, the oil companies and the White House." When he starts talking about the Saudi royal family swinging from lamp-posts, his press people begin to make anguished gasping noises about how we mustn't miss our bus stop. Mr Livingstone knows they want him to belt up."" - this is a bizarre mish-mash of Ken's own comments and the words of Jackie Ashley, and it isn't evident to the reader exactly which is which without checking the source. Furthermore the Guardian did not "put Livingstone's comments in the following context", it crucially says "When he starts talking about the Saudi royal family swinging from lamp-posts" which seems to be to indicate he's moved on to another topic. The "put Livingstone's comments in the following context" is once again an editor's own observation on the source, and I disagree with that interpretation of it. It doesn't even make sense to start talking about a "bus", since although the original source makes clear where this interview took place our article didn't.
 * "The quote was published by The Guardian in a piece promoting the interview, which appeared on the newspapers website" - really? Well some might consider it strange that despite both stories being on the website, neither one contains a link to the other. So exactly how is it promoting the interview when it doesn't even mention the existence of the other story on it?

Wonder why there is no discussion of all the towers built during Ken Livingstone's time
I am an American architect and urban designer. I am a co-author of three books about architecture and urban design, with the third coming out this year. I have spent a significant amount of time in London as a student, as a tourist, and visiting friends and family who live in London. I am also in regular touch with architects and urban designers in England, primarily through the Congress for New Urbanism (where I am a Board member), the Institute for Classical Art & Architecture (where I was a Board member), and the Prince's Institute for Building Community, where I have lectured and have many colleagues and friends.

I am surprised that Ken Livingstone's controversies in the article do not include the number of high-rise towers built during Livingstone's time, significantly changing the London skyline. Is there an interest in adding that? I am not the person to write that, but I could introduce British colleagues who might have a lot to say on the topic.

This is of interest beyond in Britain and beyond, I believe. All of the major cities of the western world are being told that if they do not build these towers they will lose financial industry jobs to other cities. "Don't be like Paris, they lost 170,000 jobs to Lyon," was a line I heard in a New York City forum recently—and now Mayor Delanoe wants to follow Livingstone and Boris Johnson, introducing new towers by superstar architects to Paris. It seems ironic that Delanoe and Livinstone are Socialists, because these demands come from the financial world of global capitalism.

Here is a link to an article by British architect Robert Adam, who has recently written a book that touches on this subject: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/author/robert-adam/

Jmassengale (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In its current state, this article deals very poorly with Livingstone's terms as London Mayor, focusing far more on petty controversies than his actual policies. It shouldn't therefore be surprising that there are glaring ommissions in this area. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2013
In the article on Livingstone it say's Tony Benn was deputy leader of the labour party which he wasn't. So replace:

"The primary figurehead for this leftist trend was Tony Benn, who was elected deputy leader of Labour in September 1981, under new party leader Michael Foot. The head of the "Bennite left", Benn became "an inspiration and a prophet" to Livingstone; the two became the best known left-wingers in Labour."

with

"The primary figurehead for this leftist trend was Tony Benn, who narrowly missed being elected deputy leader of Labour in September 1981, under new party leader Michael Foot. The head of the "Bennite left", Benn became "an inspiration and a prophet" to Livingstone; the two became the best known left-wingers in Labour."

see wikpedia article on Tony Benn: In 1981, he stood against incumbent Denis Healey for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, disregarding the appeal from Michael Foot to either stand for the leadership or abstain from inflaming the party's divisions. Benn defended his decision with insistence that it was "not about personalities, but about policies." The contest was extremely closely fought, and Healey won by a margin of barely 1%. The decision of several moderate left-wing MPs, including Neil Kinnock, to abstain triggered the split of the Campaign Group from the Left of the Tribune Group.[36]

Dean williams holborn (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done GoingBatty (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

2 typos and some other stuff - nuthin urgent
Hampstead: 1977–1980 - "... in line with the different-sex age of consent consent.[76]"; repeated word

Mayor of London/First mayoral term: 2000–2004 - "Dobson, who it was alleged, had been pressured into running by the party leadership, ..."; extra comma (the second one)

Post-mayoral career: 2008–2012 - "Livingstone is now being touted as a key asset for Chávez in the upcoming November elections in the country.[220]"; outdated: 'is now being' -> was, strike 'upcoming', ... it was the 2008 regional elections (ie not presidential), so mebbe add '2008' and 'regional' before 'elections'

Greater London Council leadership/Becoming leader of the GLC: 1979–1981 - "Moving into a small flat at [street address] Maida Vale with his pet reptiles and amphibians..."; is the full street address appropriate for a private residence? i don't know the wiki policy on that but i thought i'd mention it. 203.213.90.41 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2013
In the "GLEB and nuclear disarmament" section (2.2.2), there is a typo / spelling mistake. The second paragraph of this section contains the word "wpublished", which should be changed to "published".

Planckle (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done with this edit. Thanks for pointing it out. Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Dropping out
We read 'At school he attained four O-levels in English Literature, English Language, Geography and Art, subjects he later described as "the easy ones". To stay on for sixth form, he had needed six O-levels, so dropped out of school to work.' No, he did not drop out, rather he didn't stay on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.163.134 (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair point. I've tried to rephrase it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion: Faze vs. Phase
Grasping English is a Foreign Language to both Americans and Brits, I'll point out that this line, in the section about his first mayoral term:


 * Livingstone's administration sought to faze out the Routemaster buses, the design for which dated to the 1950s, from London's streets.

is the wrong choice of "faze/phase". It should read:


 * Livingstone's administration sought to phase out the Routemaster buses, the design for which dated to the 1950s, from London's streets.

--OBloodyHell (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! Will ensure that this is corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.
Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true


 * Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.


 * Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion, and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.

It goes against consensus


 * This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.


 * More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".


 * On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced


 * If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion. There is at least one page that does have such a source: Ian McKellen. Because we have a reliable source that establishes that Ian McKellen considers atheism to be a religion, his infobox correctly says "Religion: Atheist". In all other cases, the assertion that atheism is a religion is an unsourced claim.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry


 * In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

'''It violates the principle of least astonishment.


 * Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.


 * When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.


 * In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is under centralised discussion at Template talk:Infobox person. Please continue the discussion there.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * While having the editors of this page join the centralized discussion is desirable, I am not comfortable with asking them to not discuss the issue here. The consensus in every centralized discussion so far has favored my position, and I don't want to be seen as forcing my opinion on the folks who have been editing and improving this page. I think this should be a decision made by those who have built this page up, not by an outsider like myself or Ghmyrtle who has never shown any previous interest in this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion about what constitutes a religion is only relevant on this page and this infobox if the contention is that Ken Livingstone believes Atheism is a religion. He clearly doesn't and I've amended the infobox accordingly. If you can find a source to support the view that he thinks it is his religion then please revert accordingly. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea that the words "Religion: none (atheist)" imply in some way that atheism is a religion appears to be held by only a minority of editors, and is under centralised discussion at Template talk:Infobox person.  Please contribute there so that we can reach a wider consensus.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The longstanding default position on this article - here - is to use the style "Religion: none (atheist)". Unfortunately,  has accused me of edit warring (here) - even though it is that editor who appears to be combatively insisting on their own wording, despite the fact there is an ongoing centralised discussion on the matter  here which has yet to come to a conclusion.  "Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views....." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edit warring is an easily verifiable fact. So far, two editors have undone your edits and nobody has supported them. Yet you chose to attempt to impose your version through multiple reverts instead of following Wikipedia's clear policy, documented in WP:TALKDONTREVERT and explained at length in WP:BRD. You would be the first to scream bloody murder if I pulled that stunt on one of the pages where the local consensus was in your favor. Now could you PLEASE stop discussing user conduct issues on article talk pages? You have been around long enough to know better. Take it to WP:ANI if you think you have a case, or drop it if you don't think you have a case. Your behavior is becoming disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as the editor who authored most of this article and brought it through its successful GAN, I think that "None" is a perfectly good thing to have in the Infobox, and see no need to specifically mention "Atheism" there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of his atheism I don't think it's accurate to put him in the atheism activist category as the article doesn't say that he advocates for atheism; just that that's his worldview. 86.45.226.161 (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Livingstone and LGBT rights
In the lead, Midnightblueowl  re-added "LGBT rights" to the sentence "Livingstone was heavily criticised in the mainstream media for supporting controversial issues like republicanism, LGBT rights,...". I had previously removed this, saying "not cited in lead - only mention (of LGBT rights) is (Livingstone's support for) lowering age of consent which was criticised by the "Hampstead & Highgate Express", not the "mainstream media"". Could you explain where it is cited that Livingstone was criticised by the mainstream media that Livingstone was criticised for his views on LGBT rights? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't have access to press archives to cite sources, but if memory serves I'm sure there is a vast amount to draw upon about Ken's support (via the GLC) for funding groups like the Gay Teenage Group during the 1980s and the press reaction to how this would promote homosexuality amongst the young. Mighty Antar (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Having been born after that era I will take your word for it, but I can't find any sources for this and if there are no sources for it, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia let alone in the lead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Perhaps you just haven't looked hard enough. Changing the World - GLC publication on Gay & Lesbian rights with a little bit of context Mighty Antar (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is a reliable source and there isn't anything there about the press reaction to Livingstone's views on LGBT rights specifically. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Mighty Antar is right. Not only did Livingstone's administration support the lowering of the age of consent for same-sex couples, but it also provided funding for a range of LGBT activist groups, such as Lesbian Line and the London Gay Teenage Group. When referring to the latter, the article then states that "The Conservatives and mainstream rightist press were largely critical of these measures, considering them symptomatic of what they derogatarily termed the "loony left"." All of this is currently mentioned within the article, and appropriately referenced, so I'm not sure why the mention of it in the lede is being questioned, to be honest, Absolutelypuremilk. It's all there if you read the article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2016
Please change "On his way home from a party in February 2005, Livingstone was accosted in the street by Oliver Finegold, a reporter for The Evening Standard." to "On his way home in February 2005 from a party, a reporter for The Evening Standard, Oliver Finegold, attempted to interview Livingstone."

A transcript of the conversation in which Mr Finegold was clearly courteous (at least at the start of the interview) can be found at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/feb/25/localgovernment.politicsandthemedia. At the time a recording of the conversation was available which the Adjudication Panel of the Standard Board for E&W used to refute Mr Livingstone's suggestion that Mr Finegold had "barked" questions at him http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/dec/14/localgovernment.politicsandthemedia. "Accosted" is a pejorative phase which in my view wholly misrepresents the actions and the culpability of Mr Finegold and is quite possibly slanderous.

The disputed accusations made by Mr Livingstone's lawyers that there was a missing 5 secs from the end of the tape during which Finegold had said "Fuck off" would have not related to the beginning of the incident which the term "accosted" clearly does.

I am not sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia to find out who changed the post to say "accosted" but it would seem like an deliberate act of vandalism and perhaps the contributor should be considered as a candidate for barring. The search results on Google clearly flag up that there is a Right to Forget Request censoring searches, so Wikipedia is likely to one of the last remaining sources of historical accuracy over this incident.

Daddyoftwo (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Accosted" is a neutral term, not pejorative as you claim. Also the sentence you propose makes is sound like Finegold was at the party, not Livingstone. Mezigue (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I hope I have resolved the problem here. This new version removes the problem word "accost", and does not imply Fiengold was at the party: "After Livingstone left a party in February 2005, Oliver Finegold, a reporter for the Evening Standard, attempted to ask Livingstone a question in the street." Philip Cross (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So, let’s get this right - saying “fuck off” at the end of the incident makes it alright, yes? This was an argument in the street that happened over nine years ago when Livingstone was practically ambushed in the street, on his way home from a party, and which was subsequently blown up out of all proportion by various bodies with vested interests. But you feel aggrieved by the single word “accosted” and think the editor who added it should be banned from Wikipedia?? Wow. Livingstone said this to The Daily Telegraph in 2011: "If somebody had said to me all this will go away if you just say sorry to Oliver Finegold, I would have said sorry to Oliver Finegold. But they didn't want an apology. They wanted me to be destroyed." Whoever could you be, I wonder, "Daddyoftwo". 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Stick to sources!  Paine   10:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspension from the Labour Party (2016) / Haavara Agreementt
I'm wondering if there is a way to put a link to the Haavara Agreement in this section. Clearly, this is what Livingstone was referring to in his statement "When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews" However he did not refer to the Haavra Agreement by name, so we don't want to be accussed of "original research" feline1 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this would constitute original research as it does seem fairly obvious that this is what Livingstone was referring to. I'd recommend adding the link into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We need a reliable source making this point for it to be admissible, while none of those cited do so. As an editor's interpretation, it counts as original research, and should not be included. Philip Cross (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It is discussed in The Indepenent today, would that do? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/there-is-an-orchestrated-campaign-by-supporters-of-israel-to-smear-its-critics-as-anti-semitic-ken-a7004841.html feline1 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Mentioned in passing more like: "The Haavara Agreement, signed by Nazi Germany in 1933 did, arrange for the voluntary emigration of German Jews to the Middle East, but temporarily effectively stripped many émigrés of their property. At the same time Nazi authorities persecuted Jews in Germany through other legal and violent means, adding an element of coercion to the policy." Not exactly philo-semitic, or a means of protecting Jews. Philip Cross (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well obviously, hence the controversy. Nonetheless, it is what he was referring to. There is surely a way for a hypertext-linked online encycopedia to explain that in a neutral, balanced way which is informative to readers? The Haavara Agreement article itself contains all the info anyone see it was not philosemetic.feline1 (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I did add the link but got reverted as original research mostly as I couldn't figure out a way to add a piped link and cite the reason for the link- it's mentioned directly here http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/04/28/livingstone-vindicated-there-was-a-nazi-zionist-agreement-and-hitler-did-support-it/ but that's probably not considered a reliable source ? but if the independent mentions it above I see no reason for it not to be linked, not that I'm keen on Hitler or Mr Livinsgstone, but adding the link seems informative. EdwardLane (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Timothy Snyder of Yale University has dismissed Livingstone's historical account, see here. Antony Beevor also rejected Livingstone's account on Channel 4 News yesterday. Hitler also opposed Zionism in Mein Kampf. Philip Cross (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Beevor, in the Michael Crick interview (just after the Facebook clip) said Livingstone's suggestion that Hitler was a a Zionist is "preposterous". Philip Cross (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I should have added that combining Livingstone's comments with those that appear to support his argument, but do not make a direct connection between the two, is a form of original research which is known as synthesis on Wikipedia, and is inadmissible. However reputable the writer may be is irrelevant. Philip Cross (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between synthesis and informative cross-referencing. Livingstone referred to some Nazi policy ("When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel"), which was real, and can be cross-referenced surely? He then stated an interpretation of that in his next sentence ("He was supporting Zionism before he went mad..."), which is an interpretation that caused huge controversy and has been refuted by numerous commentators - all of which can be referenced too. That seems to most neutral and informative way to go about it to me. The simplest way to do it would be to cite an example of a refutation from a notable commentator which explicity mentions the Haavra Agreement.--feline1 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Referencing the Haavara Agreement is, as User:Philip Cross says, a violation of WP:OR. I am not aware of a Nazi "policy... that Jews should be moved to Israel." There was a Nazi belief that Germsny should become Judenrein.  In the early years, they were persecuted with the goal of driving them out of Germany, but there was not, as far as I am aware, any particular Nazi idea of where they should go.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The Haavara Agreement does seem to be what Livingstone was mentioning, as has been picked up by a number of commentators. No, it was not philo-Semitic, nor was it Zionist (as mentioned in the articles), but this seems to be what Livingstone was referring to. At the very least, say that a number of commentators believe Livingstone is referring to Haavara in the article. As for the fact that these are all in passing – that's true, but we're just talking about a bit of wikilinking here, and the number of fairly reputable commentators who have referenced Haavara justifies its inclusion, IMO. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 23:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to me to be a fair consensus amoungst editors that something along the lines you suggest would be a useful and informative addition to the article. --feline1 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

A link, via The Guardian, to a partial recording of the interview with Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio London.    ←   ZScarpia  00:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The article states that the Lenni Brenner work that Livingstone said he would cite in his defence is the book Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. As far as I can tell, none of the sources currently used in the article actually states that. Perhaps the editor who added the relevant text to the article would like to check. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  00:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC) -- JASpencer supplied the following source in the Lenni Brenner article which confirms that the book being referred to was indeed Zionism in the Age of Dictators: The Guardian - Ben Quinn - Ken Livingstone cites Marxist book in defence of Israel comments, 29 April 2016.

Racism
This section needs expansion, coverage of Livingstone's long record of race-hatred of Jews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In its current form, your comment is in breach of the WP:BLP policy: either recast it or remove it yourself, otherwise I will delete it. I'd advise you to stop using the term race-hatred and replace it with one such as ethnic or racial hatred, too (I very much doubt that people such as Livingstone believe in concepts stemming from race-theory such as race, so to accuse them of race-hatred is a bit bizarre).  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  00:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is John Mann, M.P., calling Livingstone a "Hitler apologist."  Racism, race-hatred, racial hatred, racist, Hitler apologist: hatred has many names.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is using the 'race' construct? Since it's unlikely that it is Livingstone (crass as his comments were), that implies that it is you, which, to me, reflects badly on your apparent worldview.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  11:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, nor for yours. In re: Livingstone's racism, it is not me saying this it is John Mann, M.P., who just this week confronted Livingstone ans said, ""You're a lying racist."   This is a long-standing problem of Livingstone's, one that can and, I think, should be properly addressed in this article.  For example, in 2005 he was in hot water for an overtly racist attack on a journalist .  Antisemitism is, of course, a form of racism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I see it, we differ not only in our word choices but in out world views. But what I add to the page, I source.  And to take me to the Administrator's noticeboard and accuse me of not being a "decent human being" is inappropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn announces independent review into racism after Ken Livingstone row." . The question of whether Ken Livingstone's remarks about Jews are or are not racist (antisemitic) has been debated for many years is being loudly debated at present. (google it )  It has a place on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP requires care to be taken that any negative material about living people added on any page in Wikipedia, including this talkpage, is properly sourced, that the contents of the sources are accurately represented and that points of view (that is, statements that are explicitly written in the form of points of view or ones that are a matter of dispute in reliable sources) are presented as points of view and not facts. In this regard, some of your comments appear to breach the policy. You stated that John Mann called Livingstone a "lying racist". Nowhere in the body of the source is there anything justifying that statement; nor, as far as I can hear, does John Mann say anything resembling that in the video. If true, that means that your statement is an invention or a fairly wild interpretation. Even if false, the sourced opinions of one person do not justify you in stating as a fact rather than a point of view that Livingstone is a racist, given that other sources and Livingstone himself would disagree. You go on to state that Livingstone made a "racist attack" in 2005. Again, that is neither something that is stated in the source, nor something that, in any case, should be presented as a fact rather than a point of view. In your latest comment, you cite an article about an inquiry into racism in the Labour party. You should probably note that the review will be on racism in the Labour Party as a whole, not a personal review of Livingstone's attitudes. It's clear that accusations of antisemitism have been made against Ken Livingstone on a number of occasions and I have no objection to that being given a treatment in the article (in fact, I neither like nor admire Livingstone, so it rather pains me to appear to be defending him), but obviously it must adher to the policy and, given that Livingstone is a living person, the WP:BLP one in particular.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  12:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "You're a lying racist" is a direct quote form the article I link to. Please stop accusing me without at least reading the sources.  Google Mann + Livingstone + "lying racist" and you get hundreds of hits . Look, I know that YOUDONTLIKEIT that Livingstone said the racist things he has said.  But the sources are there, he has been spouting hateful antisemitic, racist things.  That's why this is a major scandal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see that the source you provided does say that Mann called Livingstone a lying racist. Note, though, what I wrote about the eventuality that that was so: "... the sourced opinions of one person do not justify you in stating as a fact rather than a point of view that Livingstone is a racist, given that other sources and Livingstone himself would disagree." By the way, please don't state your assumptions about how I feel about Livingstone's comments here.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  17:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As a demonstration that a point of view does exist that Livingstone is not antisemitic (or, at least, existed in 2006), see: The Guardian, Jeevan Vasagar, Livingstone not anti-semitic, judge tells hearing over mayor's diatribe, 05 October 2006.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  13:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course he has defenders.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, the point is, we are therefore dealing with points of view, which means that, for example, you can state that various people or organisations have called Livingstone a racist (or a variety of such), but you cannot state as a fact anywhere in Wikipedia that Livingstone is a racist.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  18:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Recentism
I've slapped a recentism tag onto the section of this article dealing with the recent suspension affair (which currently looks like this). Having three paragraphs (two of which are pretty lengthy) that are devoted to this one particular incident is simply disproportionate and in contravention of our policies on WP:Recentism. I think that most people would agree that Livingstone is something of a controversialist who has generated vast amounts of media outrage over the course of his career, including various accusations of anti-Semitism. Moreover, he has even been expelled from the Labour Party in the past, back in 2000, before he was invited to rejoin several years later. We don't lend anywhere near this level of attention to his other controversies or his prior expulsion, so why give so much coverage to this one particular incident? I think that this section needs to be dramatically cut down, ideally to the level of a fairly concise paragraph. I don't want to go ahead and do so if I am just going to find others edit warring to restore it so just hoped that I could get some consensus for such an action? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * *As you say, Livingstone's anti-Jewish racism has drawn significant attention over the years. I propose that the section be refocused on his longstanding anti-Jewish racism, culminating in suspension, since racism on the part of a leading politician is a very big deal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not intentionally misrepresent my comment, E. M. Gregory. I said that Livingstone has experienced "various accusations of anti-Semitism". That is quite different from your statement that "Livingstone's anti-Jewish racism has drawn significant attention over the years". Your edits here at this talk page are bordering on the libellous and are simply not constructive. Please remember that we have to tread with caution when dealing with biographies of living persons and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your particular opinions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think three paragraphs (or at least two) probably are warranted given that it's had far more attention than previous controversies and would appear to represent the end of Livingstone's mainstream political career (we can always trim later if he's reinstated within weeks). I don't think that the controversy can be properly represented without mentioning his remarks were in the context of defending a colleague against allegations of anti-Semitism, the Hitler comment wasn't the only one to raise eyebrows, there was a subsequent media circus involving John Mann, why Livingstone considers it to be an appropriate historical reference and won't apologise and the political debate that kicked off, and the sheer number of people calling for expulsion. His past expulsion was on pretty straightforward grounds (and there are nevertheless two extended paragraphs and a linked article on the mayoral election as context for how it happened) and his previous controversies didn't have comparable consequences for him . Since the rest of the article is unusually long, detailed and well structured for a British politician I don't think there's a due weight issue either. Dtellett (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't object to the inclusion of such vital information as what Livingstone said, why he said it, and the general response. However these paragraphs are full of superfluous additions such as "gave an interview to BBC Radio London", "after right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes unearthed", and "on BBC Two's Daily Politics programme, and a further argument in the street and the public areas inside a building, captured by ITV News cameras.[323] Livingstone took refuge in a disabled toilet in an attempt to hide from the media". Do we seriously need to know that Livingstone hid from reporters in a disabled toilet, or any toilet for that matter? This sort of stuff is trivia and is too minor in the context of this article to warrant inclusion. Really, these elements need to be expunged. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and made the prose edits that are necessary. Understandably, new information will be added to this section as the incident develops but we must be cautious to keep superfluous prose and trivia at bay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Separate article
I notice there's an equally lengthy section on this topic at Naz Shah's article, so both sections probably need to be trimmed. As there's been a lot of news coverage of the subject, and Corbyn has announced an investigation, it may be worth spinning it off into a separate article - something like Labour Party anti-Semitism controversy. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The section on Naz's article is appropriately focused on her so there's actually not much overlap. An article on the theme of "anti-Semitism in the Labour Party" is pretty much the definition of WP:COATRACK, and as far as the recent controversy goes there are two significant political figures each in trouble for their own reasons which are detailed in the bios, and a handful of non-notable councillors that have been suspended for separate comments because the media spotlight has been on them for the first time in years. In a few years time what happened to Ken and Naz will remain a notable part of their political careers, but I can't imagine people coming to Wikipedia looking for an article on who got suspended for anti Semitic remarks in the Labour party in the buildup to the May 2016 elections, still less to think it would be worth the effort of trying to keep NPOV and free from vandalism. Just because it's worthy of newspaper editorials and party soul-searching doesn't make it a standalone topic for an encyclopedia Dtellett (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:This is Paul, I agree that an article on the Labour Party anti-Semitism controversy from which short sections on this page and eslewhere can be linked makes sense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It probably deserves it's own internationally-protected separate homeland. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I was thinking that we'd probably wait to see what happens re the investigation, but agreed we'd need to semi-protect it from the start. Probably in time this will fade into the past, but then so have things like the Ed Balls document leak, which I'd personally forgotten about. This is Paul (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree that "Labour anti-Semitism controversy" should created as its own stand-alone article, mostly for the reasons has given. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 22:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Most likely the appropriate name for such an article will be something like Chakrabarti report or Chakrabarti review, though I stress again we should only do it at the conclusion of any investigation and when recommendations are published. At the very least it will need to be included in History of the Labour Party, since it is an event in the party's timeline. This is Paul (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with that point, I think as to whether the article should be split really depends on how much attention this report gets, consequences, etc. etc. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 00:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Any such article/section needs to include the word 'alleged:' 'alleged anti-Semitism in the Labour Party;' the allegations were clearly made by opponents from elsewhere in the political spectrum towards liberal party politicians who would clearly hope to aspire to something more sophisticated than the crude racism alleged. Editors therefore need to be aware of the possible or likely mischievous nature and motivation of the allegations concerned, as well as the inclusive nature of the group which contains victims of the Holocaust - once again, Jewish sensitivities have been used as a bellwether for a victim group which was and remains historically much wider than that.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever else Livingstone is, he is not now a "liberal politician". What you suggest will only be found in sources which are fringe, not reliable, and thus unsuitable for use in this article. There is no serious disagreement over the fatal flaws in Livingstone's claims, and no reliable definition of antisemitism excludes details of his outbursts. Proper sources do not follow the assumption of conspiracy theories which many of Livingstone's defenders seem to believe in. The invariably non-RS articles written to defend Livingstone avoid any definition of antisemitism whatsoever, which is a very telling omission. We don't need the tendentious views of Jackie Walker here which you appear to touch on at the end of your post. In case you are wondering you don't seem especially interested in discussing this article and propose attitudes which are way outside the mainstream. I thought you were trying to start irrelevant arguments here, which is why I reverted you on the grounds of WP:FORUM. Philip Cross (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is directed at and by a global English-speaking audience, for whom Livingstone's political standpoint/achievements are clearly liberal in nature - the anti-semitic/anti-Zionist conflationist smear campaign didn't succeed, and therefore doesn't undo that. 'Jackie Walker?' No, you're wrong, I'm staying cool and on-topic - I wish I could say the same for an outburst such as the inaccurate, POV and inflammatory 'no reliable definition of antisemitism excludes details of his outbursts.'--5.150.92.174 (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A "smear campaign", according to Livingstone (and his followers), as is mentioned. So what precisely is there to add? Philip Cross (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's all over! - you can come out, now! - Get over it!--5.150.92.174 (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016
On the wiki page about Ken Livingstone

Israeli Jews should be relocated

Should read Israel should be relocated

It's very controversial but factually the change would be more accurate.

Man Lee Bolton (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. --Brustopher (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal Life
Livingstone revealed the names of his older children and their mothers in his 2011 autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.33.108 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Normally on Wikipedia we don't insert the names of children unless necessary (e.g. if they are notable in their own right). However if you can find the relevant information (names of the mothers, page number, book title etc.) then we can insert it, or you could create an account and be able to insert it yourself in the way that you feel best. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The names of some of Livingstone's children also appeared in the Hosken biography, and as a result appeared in the version of this article that was awarded GA-status. Clearly, someone has removed those names at a subsequent point. That being said, I think that Absolutelypuremilk makes a good point that we don't tend to insert the names of children when it comes to living figures unless necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein on the Shah/Livingstone controversy
Some editors may find what Norman Finkelstein has to say about the Shah/Livingstone controversy interesting: openDemocracyUK - Jamie Stern-Weiner, Norman Finkelstein - The American Jewish scholar behind Labour’s ‘antisemitism’ scandal breaks his silence, 03 May 2016.. The article links to an image showing the Facebook post of Shah's which was central to the controversy's start. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  19:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Also: The Independent - Lizzie Dearden - Jewish author whose Israel 'relocation' map was shared by Naz Shah condemns 'obscene' Labour antisemitism row, 04 May 2016. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  11:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

An article by Jonathan Cook: Information Clearing House - Jonathan Cook - The True Anti-semites, Past and Present, 04 May 2016. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  09:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Both Norman Finkelstein and Jonathan Cook are way outside the mainstream, and indulge in conspiracy theories on this issue. Cook has has a record of being unable to accept that accusation of antisemitism might be legitimate. See his comments about Gilad Atzmon here. In fact, Atzmon's attitudes towards Jews was not in dispute long before Cook wrote the linked article in 2011. While the claims against Livingstone are disputed by high-profile figures like Diane Abbott, Livingstone's case is not aided by citing tendentious commentators. In any case, Abbott's comments at the weekend have been heavily criticised.


 * That there are certainly members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who strongly desire to remove Corbyn as Labour leader, and who may act to depose him, does not mean that claims about suspended, allegedly antisemitic, members of the party are wrong. Philip Cross (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I find this dismissal of Finkelstein's intervention disturbing. He is described by the British-Israeli interviewer as "The American Jewish scholar is one of the world’s leading experts on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the political legacy of the Nazi holocaust. Apart from his parents, every member of Finkelstein’s family, on both sides, was exterminated in the Nazi holocaust. His 2000 book The Holocaust Industry, which was serialised in the Guardian, became an international best-seller". And, as reported in the mainstream UK media, he partially defends Livingstone's comments politically and historically. Eversync (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The bigger question whether Finkelstein's heavily qualified defence would actually be worth incorporating into the article. I mean, he's pretty robust in defending the Naz Shah meme, which is pretty peripheral to this article, confirms that Ken probably was aware of the Haavara agreement though his version of history "wasn't precise enough and lacks nuance" which I think we've already covered and concedes that Ken quite possibly made the remarks to bait people, which is pretty much why he's been suspended...  Dtellett (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The Naz Shah issue is not 'peripheral to this article' - Livingstone's intervention was a direct and probably protective reponse to the quandary the younger politician found herself in. His 'version of history' doesn't have to be precise, it is for critics and doubters of his words to research the matter if in any doubt. Also your comment underestimates London's former mayor, who is well aware of the Haavara agreement. Your 'baiting' allegation is POV and inflammatory, so withdraw it please.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ken! The comment on "baiting people" comes directly from the Finkelstein interview, which was originally introduced in support of Ken and came up with a detailed explanation of how Finkelstein himself liked to bring up the worst moments in Zionist history in arguments because it really annoyed his opponents. I presume if there was another reason why [a crass misrepresentation] of the Haavara agreement might have been remotely relevant to the comments Shah apologised for, someone might have come up with it in Ken's defence by now... Dtellett (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. We are not Ken, and nor is Finkelstein, who is, on the other hand Jewish, and therefore, perhaps, in a better position than Ken Livingstone to bait his opponents without risking the 'antisemitism' tag. The Haavara Agreement is relevant to the comments about relocating Israel because both relate to the inevitable and perceived fascism, clearly justified by well-known historical events, of some Israeli Zionists. Those of you editing from provincial locations are much less likely to be aware of the abuses of Palestians than those of us within travelling distance of metropolitan Palestine Solidarity campaigns, which counteract the Western media silence on the matter.--188.39.71.98 (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Must admit that after hearing "metropolitan" used as a (pretty silly) pejorative description of political inclinations for the last couple of years it's amusing and unexpected to see it used as a boast of superior awareness. I will also concede that I was entirely unaware of Zionist human rights abuses taking place in London when I lived there, as was the one Palestinian with whom I was reasonably well-acquainted; perhaps she should not have left the city in the spring of 2010 in the apparently-mistaken belief that more interesting and poorly-reported-upon events were taking place elsewhere.
 * But still, we cannot cite Wikipedia articles to the personal hardships suffered by editors living in metropolitan areas, we need a reliable published source. I presume that if some source existed which explained why Ken's remarks made perfect sense in context it would have been produced by now, not least by Ken's defence team. The question posed, after all, was "[Shah] talked about what Hitler did being legal; and she talked about ‘the Jews rallying’, and she used the word ‘Jews’, not ‘Israelis’ or ‘Israel’. You didn’t find that to be antisemitic?" and the answer was to deny that the nature of such comments should be perceived as anti-Semitic with reference to the deportation policies of Hitler as "supporting Zionism"; it's rather easier to see how certain people might interpret this literally as defending the legality of Hitler's actions or more abstractly as an attempt to raise the offence stakes than to see why anyone might think this an appropriate line to take to absolve a colleague from accusations that her comments were abusive towards Jews. But since you have chosen to take exception to random historic comments made by editors rather than propose any changes, it would perhaps be excessively generous to assume you actually had any point to make.
 * As you correctly point out Livingstone is perhaps more vulnerable to accusations of anti-Semitism than Finkelstein: it is therefore particularly unfortunate he makes mistakes like suggesting that Jewish MPs "tend to distort things", calling Jewish reporters "concentration camp guards", and choosing to dedicate much of the last year to explaining about Zionists' "good working relationship" with Hitler. Perhaps your hope is by trolling these boards that you will also blunder into being accused of anti-Semitism so that you can feel a similarly-misplaced sense of injustice in solidarity with him. If so, I hate to disappoint Dtellett (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No.--188.39.71.98 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It has been explained above that Norman Finkelstein is far outside the mainstream, nor does his background, in fact, exclude him from accusations of antisemitism. The historians who dispute Livingstone's (and others) claims about the Haavara Agreement are clearly the mainstream and fringe opinions are not meant to be treated as equivalents in Wikipedia policy. Anyway, the abuse of Palestinians is later than the history which Livingstone scrambled. It is off topic really, but if you are referring above to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), that organisation is frequently accused of harbouring antisemites in its ranks. One of is patrons, Baroness Jenny Tonge, is especially notorious for her attitudes.Philip Cross (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence, there, is tediously didactic, unnecessary and perhaps misleading/irrelevant. As for the second, please substantiate 'are clearly the mainstream.' You state that the abuse of Palestinians is later than the Haavara Agreement - again, this is both unsubstantiated and unlikely, especially given the protagonists, and Arab-Jewish co-existence is a very long and varied story, in point of fact. Baroness Tonge 'notorious?' - POV/unsubstantiated/potentially defamatory, again.--188.39.71.98 (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is there no section on his alleged anti-Semitism?
This exposes his extreme far-left extremist anti-Semitism: http://www.timesofisrael.com/ken-livingstone-creation-of-israel-was-a-great-catastrophe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD0B:CA00:D9E8:3C75:47E6:F97B (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As per its long-established policies, Wikipedia does not include "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections in its biographical articles. The various controversies in which Livingstone has been accused of anti-Semitism (an accusation he has always denied) are already mentioned at the appropriate chronological junctures within the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it needs a specific "Criticism" section, but I didn't realise there was a specific policy about this. Could you possibly direct us to this Midnightblueowl please? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Here. The policy seems to be a little less firm on the issue than I recall, so either it has been changed in the past few years or my memory is playing tricks on me. However, we certainly don't include "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections in most BLPs, or in any GA and FA-rated articles about politicians that I am aware of. I personally think that having a whole section on this issue will take us well out of the bounds of proportionality and neutrality, and will pretty much be simply serving the interests of those with an axe to grind against Mr Livingstone. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, WP:CRITICISM is an essay rather than policy, though it does, of course, discuss policies and practices. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  12:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The unsigning (and currently blocked) section editor appears to conflate anti-semitism with anti-Zionism, accidentally or otherwise. This would be more excusable in a world which lacked the latter concept, but I've just checked Wiktionary, and it's in.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

imposed by company bosses
this cannot be correct - Chester Beatty not a company Brownturkey (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Alfred Chester Beatty article says: "He founded the Chester Beatty Institute which was later renamed the Institute of Cancer Research." Does this help at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

'Livingstone's statements were criticised by historians,[329][330] among them Roger Moorhouse, who said that they were historically inaccurate.[331]' Really?
The article is protected, so I've left it as it is, but unless I'm much mistaken, the links given lead largely to the efforts of journalists, not historians; so even if the assertion were correct, the supposed links are misleading. If, as you tell us, Wikipedia is not a forum, what motivates unreferenced insertions of this nature, and who wrote it?--5.150.92.174 (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a link to something published directly by Roger Moorhouse would be deemed WP:PRIMARY? So links to secondary sources, such as The Times of Israel and the BBC, which establish the notability of Moorhouse's views, don't seem that unreasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Along with his policy of direct domination of invaded neighbouring countries, Hitler clearly also tolerated and supported the existence of nations run along lines similar to his own Nazi Reich. This is a very simple and well-known historical fact, conceivably applicable to Jews in the early 1930's, an obvious fact which seems to bowl over each of these supposed 'experts' in their apparent haste for inclusion in the most unhistorical right-wing reaction to Livingstone's comments. Clearly the journos have been selective in their choice of historians.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Which historians would you alternatively choose in their place? You are welcome to suggest sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I too would be interested to see any reliable sources you might suggest for this article. Interested because I doubt they exist. Philip Cross (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For my part, I have no doubt whatsoever that they exist, and have sent out a round-robin. In the meantime, I suggest the temporary removal of input from POV reactionary historians from second-rate history departments, to protect Wikipedian neutrality.--188.39.71.98 (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "POV reactionary historians" sounds like POV to me. And which are on your list of "first-rate history departments" exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In so far as NPOV is a POV, yes.
 * Let's put it this way: quoting two or three minor attention-seeking historians hardly represents the consensual view of mainstream academic historians, which is the POV suggested by the article as it stands. Get one or two well-known historians from Russell Group (or equivalent) universities and then come back to me.--188.39.71.98 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way: why are these historians "attention seeking"? I'll get back you. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Writing books for profit seems more attention-seeking, for example, than heading up the History Department of some major academic institution. But when you look at the risks involved, it is conceivable that the latter members of the true mainstream keep their heads down when inflammatory historical controversy rears its occasional head.--188.39.71.98 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see those two activities are by any means mutually exclusive. But we seemed to have rather strayed here away from Mr Livingstone and his views on Hitler. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They aren't, but the bastions of academe are arguably more mainstream than the ephemeral historians you seem to prefer. This was a discussion re the POV of the article - I'll leave to posterity re your latest new allegation of 'straying.'--188.39.71.98 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How wonderfully generous of you. Your argument here currently seems to go something like this: "the serious academic historians, such as those heading departments at Russell Group universities, have said nothing about this. Therefore there is nothing worthwhile to be said. So any historian who has commented represents an unacceptably biased point of view that can't be quoted here." Is that right? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. I wonder are you acquainted with this editor? Perhaps he'd have a view here.
 * 'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.'
 * No, you misrepresent me, there, somewhat. My argument runs more like this: 'This is a very tendentious, inflammatory and political argument over history. It is not over yet. One or two historians have stepped into the fray, and nailed their colours to the mast, as it were, but it is worth noting that they are neither the majority of historians nor the most prominent.'
 * It also seems worth pointing out, at this point, what Ken Livingstone has achieved in terms of acquainting some of us with historical concepts such as the Haavara Agreement, in popularising, therefore, the study of modern history. And yet he is never dignified with the title of 'historian' by the mainstream, while, for some reason, the vilest Holocaust denier clearly often is.--188.39.71.98 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He is engaged in what Deborah Lipstdt has called "soft-core Holocaust denial" such that "Livingstone’s claims so lack any historical accuracy that one is loath to refute them" and so is certainly no historian himself. Philip Cross (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To quote is clearly not always to substantiate, and the quote cited is a cop-out, as is your side-stepping of the comparison with 'historian' David Irving.--188.39.71.98 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Irving is dignified with the epithet rather less often than he used to be. Still at least we can agree David Irving is vile. But I doubt your commendation of Livingstone is matched by anything which can be used here as a source for the article. Philip Cross (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Livingstone, unlike Irving, hasn't written a book, the politician's masterpiece being more the soundbite than the historical tome, so presumably the wages of his relative accuracy & humility = lack of recognition in the field?--5.150.92.174 (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ken Livingstone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/energy/climate-change/index.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080507235224/http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=12433 to http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=12433

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)