![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
How can citation '1' be seen as a relevant and impartial reference. Surely a better reference can be found for the view of the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.76.199 ( talk) 22:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC) just out of interest: how many articles rely on the official website of an organization to provide a full and accurate picture of the organization's aims and purposes? particularly when the organization is political. Jamaissur
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
i have improved the article, not spun it. 'viable' is a v. ugly word, for xmpl. jamaissur lemon or lime?
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)
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.
Get used to it - anything that is vaguely political - and I don't just mean this page - is open to different interpretations. It's even worse when we decend in to the politcis of Israel and Palestine where both sides of the debate are so polarised and think their's is the only truth that matters.
And the one critical link didn't work, has had its text muted anyway so you wouldn't know where it was going, and I see above people have been trying to get rid of it. KBuck.
I have just been watching the following Despatches documentary, not all about LFoI, and wondered whether anybody has tried to properly assess how much money had been received or arranged to be received by LFoI and for what purposes : it would appear that these 'Friends of Israel ' groups are being deliberately not incorporated so that they can avoid having to disclose their donors and donees, or indeed anything else : the LFoI won't even allow their own opinions to be publicly examined on their own website - a great vote for something other than open and democratic government for the UK ! AND NO ... this enquiry is not about Israel's political lobbying per se but about the accountability of our elected representatives in the UK - to us. The documentary also examines Conservative Friends of Israel - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZHrskzonH8 - and is of general political interest to those who care about good government both in the UK and also in Israel ( which I believe has similar problems anyway ) DaiSaw ( talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Labour Friends of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
We claim this in the article citing an Guardian article by Ian Black from way back in 2009. I'm not sure that this belongs in the article or if the claim carries any serious weight, other than being the opinion of one journalist almost a decade ago.
It appears to be more about presentation. The Conservative Friends of Israel can afford to take for granted that the pro-Israel views of the MPs are likely shared by most of their party membership in generals, no matter how controversial Israel's actions (partly because English and Scottish Tories like to live out their nationalistic fantasies by proxy through Israel and then there is the Muslim thing).
With Labour it is an entirely different playing field altogether, although they have power among the MPs, they are absolutely despised by the party rank and file, especially the younger members of the Labour Party who are very pro-Palestine. So thea LFI cannot afford to be as openly and rabidly gung ho as the CFI are. The end goal is the same, their unquestionable loyalty to the State of Israel is hardly any less.... its just a matter of advertising and tailoring to audiences. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 00:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Can't edit due to the extended protection but I feel that these changes are necessary:
Sir jcd ( talk) 13:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
As Emily Thornberry is not a member of Labour Friends of Israel, and is not listed here, could someone who knows how to edit remove that from her own article? The reference does not say she is a member. Nor does any other reliable source.
/info/en/?search=Emily_Thornberry#Opposition_under_Jeremy_Corbyn_(2015%E2%80%93)
2A00:23C5:B383:B501:41D2:DA9A:76E7:3FAF ( talk) 21:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
See the LFI website LFI Supporters in Parliament Jontel ( talk) 21:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
As requested above, I inserted a sentence noting that Joan Ryan, among others, who've resigned from the Labour Party remain members of LFI. We need that entry, because most people who read this article would understandably, and incorrectly, assume that to be a member of LFI you will also have to be a member of Labour.
I also made a minor change to the opening section. Just because LFI say they are in favour of a two-state solution, it doesn't mean they are working towards that objective. I changed it to state that LFI "say" they're in favour of a two-state solution. Mikesiva ( talk) 08:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The info box needs updating to reflect that Steve McCabe is the current Chair. The correct info is in the body of the article, but the info box is still listing Ellman, who was replaced back in February. [45] DeltaSnowQueen ( talk) 09:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"many moderate MPs rebelled against the leadership of the party" this seems to violate NPOV, what does moderate mean here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 ( talk) 13:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change Director Jennifer Gerber to Michael Rubin 87.236.135.66 ( talk) 10:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Despite having real links to the Labour left, Momentum was/is often attacked as being a party within a Party. Now, while lacking such links to the Party, 'Labour Friends of Israel' are not called to account. For is this group reflecting growing calls within the Labour Party to support the UN ceasefire vote. Or does it consider that the IDF attacks on civilians are "self-defence"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.76 ( talk) 19:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Inaccuracy - no longer supports a 2 state solution but a one stare Greater Israel solution 92.233.82.113 ( talk) 07:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article wouold be better placed in Category:Lobbying organisations in the United Kingdom, rather than as it currently is in Category:Lobbying in the United Kingdom. The organisations category seems by far the most suitable. I have already made this change to both Conservative Friends of Israel and Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel; could somebody who is able do the same for this article? As the topic title suggests, I'm only interested in more accurate/specific categorisation and don't wish to provoke controversy. 217.155.59.206 ( talk) 20:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Jess Phillips's name from the list, as she has repeatedly stated she is not a member. [1] Jasnas66 ( talk) 21:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the "citation needed"
to the citation added to the block:
This reference already exists on the page as reference 22 but couldn't be quoted inside the block. The source can be checked here: https://web.archive.org/web/20191018042647/https://www.lfi.org.uk/in-parliament/ Windsorchair ( talk) 14:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
How can citation '1' be seen as a relevant and impartial reference. Surely a better reference can be found for the view of the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.76.199 ( talk) 22:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC) just out of interest: how many articles rely on the official website of an organization to provide a full and accurate picture of the organization's aims and purposes? particularly when the organization is political. Jamaissur
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
i have improved the article, not spun it. 'viable' is a v. ugly word, for xmpl. jamaissur lemon or lime?
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)
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.
Get used to it - anything that is vaguely political - and I don't just mean this page - is open to different interpretations. It's even worse when we decend in to the politcis of Israel and Palestine where both sides of the debate are so polarised and think their's is the only truth that matters.
And the one critical link didn't work, has had its text muted anyway so you wouldn't know where it was going, and I see above people have been trying to get rid of it. KBuck.
I have just been watching the following Despatches documentary, not all about LFoI, and wondered whether anybody has tried to properly assess how much money had been received or arranged to be received by LFoI and for what purposes : it would appear that these 'Friends of Israel ' groups are being deliberately not incorporated so that they can avoid having to disclose their donors and donees, or indeed anything else : the LFoI won't even allow their own opinions to be publicly examined on their own website - a great vote for something other than open and democratic government for the UK ! AND NO ... this enquiry is not about Israel's political lobbying per se but about the accountability of our elected representatives in the UK - to us. The documentary also examines Conservative Friends of Israel - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZHrskzonH8 - and is of general political interest to those who care about good government both in the UK and also in Israel ( which I believe has similar problems anyway ) DaiSaw ( talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Labour Friends of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
We claim this in the article citing an Guardian article by Ian Black from way back in 2009. I'm not sure that this belongs in the article or if the claim carries any serious weight, other than being the opinion of one journalist almost a decade ago.
It appears to be more about presentation. The Conservative Friends of Israel can afford to take for granted that the pro-Israel views of the MPs are likely shared by most of their party membership in generals, no matter how controversial Israel's actions (partly because English and Scottish Tories like to live out their nationalistic fantasies by proxy through Israel and then there is the Muslim thing).
With Labour it is an entirely different playing field altogether, although they have power among the MPs, they are absolutely despised by the party rank and file, especially the younger members of the Labour Party who are very pro-Palestine. So thea LFI cannot afford to be as openly and rabidly gung ho as the CFI are. The end goal is the same, their unquestionable loyalty to the State of Israel is hardly any less.... its just a matter of advertising and tailoring to audiences. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 00:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Can't edit due to the extended protection but I feel that these changes are necessary:
Sir jcd ( talk) 13:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
As Emily Thornberry is not a member of Labour Friends of Israel, and is not listed here, could someone who knows how to edit remove that from her own article? The reference does not say she is a member. Nor does any other reliable source.
/info/en/?search=Emily_Thornberry#Opposition_under_Jeremy_Corbyn_(2015%E2%80%93)
2A00:23C5:B383:B501:41D2:DA9A:76E7:3FAF ( talk) 21:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
See the LFI website LFI Supporters in Parliament Jontel ( talk) 21:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
As requested above, I inserted a sentence noting that Joan Ryan, among others, who've resigned from the Labour Party remain members of LFI. We need that entry, because most people who read this article would understandably, and incorrectly, assume that to be a member of LFI you will also have to be a member of Labour.
I also made a minor change to the opening section. Just because LFI say they are in favour of a two-state solution, it doesn't mean they are working towards that objective. I changed it to state that LFI "say" they're in favour of a two-state solution. Mikesiva ( talk) 08:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The info box needs updating to reflect that Steve McCabe is the current Chair. The correct info is in the body of the article, but the info box is still listing Ellman, who was replaced back in February. [45] DeltaSnowQueen ( talk) 09:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"many moderate MPs rebelled against the leadership of the party" this seems to violate NPOV, what does moderate mean here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 ( talk) 13:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change Director Jennifer Gerber to Michael Rubin 87.236.135.66 ( talk) 10:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Despite having real links to the Labour left, Momentum was/is often attacked as being a party within a Party. Now, while lacking such links to the Party, 'Labour Friends of Israel' are not called to account. For is this group reflecting growing calls within the Labour Party to support the UN ceasefire vote. Or does it consider that the IDF attacks on civilians are "self-defence"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.76 ( talk) 19:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Inaccuracy - no longer supports a 2 state solution but a one stare Greater Israel solution 92.233.82.113 ( talk) 07:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article wouold be better placed in Category:Lobbying organisations in the United Kingdom, rather than as it currently is in Category:Lobbying in the United Kingdom. The organisations category seems by far the most suitable. I have already made this change to both Conservative Friends of Israel and Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel; could somebody who is able do the same for this article? As the topic title suggests, I'm only interested in more accurate/specific categorisation and don't wish to provoke controversy. 217.155.59.206 ( talk) 20:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Jess Phillips's name from the list, as she has repeatedly stated she is not a member. [1] Jasnas66 ( talk) 21:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the "citation needed"
to the citation added to the block:
This reference already exists on the page as reference 22 but couldn't be quoted inside the block. The source can be checked here: https://web.archive.org/web/20191018042647/https://www.lfi.org.uk/in-parliament/ Windsorchair ( talk) 14:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)