Talk:Labour Friends of Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Several of them do. But all article have a place for legitmate criticism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Members?

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

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)

Spinwatch is not a reliable source; please don't use it or include it. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)
Can you provide some evidence of that, please? Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Actually, you need to provide verification. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)

[edit] don't revert thoughtlessly, pls

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)
'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)


[edit] Deletion of even cited members

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)

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)

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)

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

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.