Talk:Ken Livingstone

Newts

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

NPOV?

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

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

Quoting Mark Steyn - aka the Godfather of sensationalist right-wing theories - is also pretty dubious, there must be more objective sources out there than him. Blankfrackis (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's being quoted in the "criticism" section, which I think is perfectly valid; a more objective source probably wouldn't be making criticism in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The logical extension of that principle is to include any criticism - even from borderline lunatics like David Icke (who no doubt sees Ken Livingstone as a shape shifting lizard). Mark Steyn represents a very marginal section of public opinion on the extreme right, there are more mainstream political commentators who have criticised Ken Livingstone's position on Palestine/Israel. The fact that the quote lies within the criticism section doesn't make it immune from NPOV standards. Blankfrackis (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Mark Steyn's last book, America Alone, was on the New York Times bestseller list, so I don't think he's as fringe a commentator as you might think. By what standard would you define someone as mainstream? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

By British political standards - as this is an article about a British politician. Mark Steyn's opinions are far to the right of British political standards. Many extreme left and right political commentators have sold a large number of books, that doesn't make their opinions any more credible - see Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, George Galloway and numerous other examples. I'm not approaching this from either a left-wing or right-wing perspective, I'm articulating the fact that Mark Steyn has an exceptionally low level of political credibility in the UK and that, in my opinion, using a quote of his devalues the article. Blankfrackis (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that criticism of politicians in WP has to fall within the mainstream of political thought in that country? I bet I could easily list 15 exceptions to this supposed rule, starting with an extreme case like, say, Kim Jong-Il. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

At no point did I ever suggest there was such a rule. What I am stating is that including critiques from a marginal section of public opinion has the potential to devalue the article - particularly when more mainstream political commentators have made similar points. Just as it would devalue the article if we added large sections based on the conspiracy theories of David Icke, the extreme-right opinions of the British National Party, the extreme left opinions of the New Communist Party of Britain and numerous other examples (all of these individuals/groups have criticised Ken Livingstone in the past).

The point I am making is not that "criticism of politicians in WP has to fall within the mainstream of political thought" it's that we should try and refrain from adding the opinions of every conspiratorial lunatic and fringe group and instead look for mainstream and credible sources where possible. In this case there are numerous sources which are more credible than Mark Steyn and using his quote just makes the article look "like it was written by a combination of Brian Coleman and The Daily Mail". If you seriously think it adds something to the article to use sources woefully lacking in credibility when numerous mainstream and credible sources exist, then I'll be interested to know how you've arrived at that conclusion. Blankfrackis (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I propose that we could replace it with an article by Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jul/27/july7.religion) who makes virtually the same argument. Given that he's left leaning, if anything, it would remove the ammunition for those who would criticise the article from a pro-palestinian/leftist perspective. He's also undoubtedly a "mainstream" commentator in the context of British politics. Any objections? Blankfrackis (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I don't know if I agree with your specific reasoning, but I'd agree that it's probably a better citation anyway because it's a whole article on the subject, instead of just being a throwaway remark in a discussion on an unrelated topic. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Grudgingly" hosted Hannukah celebration?

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

Poll tax riots

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

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

I'm not sure. Babajobu 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

No he didn't- he compared Tiannamen Square to the Peterloo massacre of 1819, where British Troops killed 11 people for protesting for the right to vote. Source: [1] (skip to about half way through.)81.104.175.188 21:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Chavez's snub

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

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

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

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

A few NPOVs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better photo

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

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

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

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

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

Abolition of the GLC

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

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

Most expensive bus fares?

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

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

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

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

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

2000 nomination attempt

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

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

Jesse Jackson

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

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

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

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

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

Article may be too long

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

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

• I don't see why the article is too long. Has anybody complained?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

- Well, in general terms,

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

And checking this article, "This page is 62 kilobytes long." - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Livingstone&action=edit

(Depending on what is "readable prose", article could even be twice the recommended guideline. Even if not, is almost certainly over or near the recommended limit.)

So, we obviously can't make an absolute rule on this, but "some readers may feel that this is too long".

-- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• An article is significantly longer than that (50KB), it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meeting with Sinn Fein in 1982

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

Controversy section

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

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

I personally think the "Controversy" section is fine - in fact, I don't think Philip, above, actually disagrees with its existence either, just with the inclusion of one specific controversy. Trying to integrate information from there into other sections is justified when it's part of a mayoral policy such as the congestion charge or the Routemaster phase-out; but putting "Remarks regarding the Reuben brothers" into "Racism policies" doesn't make sense - it wasn't part of any policy. Similarly, I don't know if the resignation of his racism advisor for corruption belongs there either - it's not directly policy-related either. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the Reuben/Racism issue. However, I'm not clear as a newcomer why the links are being fought over. I see for example that Korny you have just removed quite a number of links, some of which might be helpful in casting light on the integrity issue, such as the accusations and counter-accusations over Al-Qudawai. Can you explain this please as it seems on the face of it to be using links and references to be part of the perception of bias, is that right? Smorgasm (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The links thing is an entirely separate issue, and I don't think it's being fought over. Basically, external links should provide general information or commentary on the subject of the article - if there's any specific information that's in those removed links about the al-Qaradawi controversy that's not already in the article, that information should just be added to the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aim for article in post-2008 election period

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

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

Change the two bio articles. Anything else is pretty low priority imo. Any sentences of the form above were not really appropriate for wikipedia anyway, every addition is supposed to be framed in a timeless way. MickMacNee (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Priority aim" was a bit too much of a grandiose statement, upon reflection. However, whilst occurences of sentences which do have an inappropriate tense are probably few in this article, there will probably be a few around that need to be addressed. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Don't bother yourself. It's lame. It won't even matter in 2 days time. (Not to say it doesn't matter, it does, i.e. if there was an attack, who's in charge? But frankly, Wikipedia is useless in trying to deside these things, wikipedia has no clue as to the actual legal position, so why even try? It's not like the authorities will check wikipedia to find out who has to make a decision. MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that very shortly (or already? I don't know) it won't matter, but what does matter is that Wikipedia is factually correct. Sure the authorities don't check it (if you discount the CIA!) but the point of Wikipedia is to be factually correct for ANYONE that reads it. My thoughts on this is that perhaps it's like when someone gets voted in as US President later this year: George Bush will still be official President just into 2009, so the one voted in becomes "in" only when the others official term has ended. Maybe. Deamon138 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute with the Evening Standard

Ken Livingstone gave a rebuttal of these accusations at [2]. How should this be integrated into the article? Oh and there's this too: [3] Deamon138 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not socialist?

He calls himself a socialist here: [4]

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

This is obviously right and there are many other references that could be placed in the article, for example, from the excellent recent book "Ken". Smorgasm (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Labour Party is fundamentally a socialist party - based on socialist principles - and thus its members are socialists. Calling Ken Livingstone a socialist is like calling Sarah Palin a conservative. It's relatively obvious, so I don't think we need to include it in the lead section. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Considering the "not all Labour members are socialist" edit summary, I guess we can leave it in if socialism is something he personally identifies with. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 14:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on controversy section

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

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

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

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

Is he ?

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

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

Working for Chavez?

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

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

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

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