Talk:Labour Friends of Israel

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)[reply]

can u tell me what these articles r and whether they describe the organization using text cut-and-pasted direct from the official website? Jamaissur

To me the difficulty seems that there are so few reputable sources about LFI, eg even who is entitled to join, or if Tony Blair and Jack Straw really are members. The LFI website says so little, compared to the Conservative Friends of Israel, Jewish Labour Movement or Trade Union Friends of Israel websites which at least publicise meetings. Research on LFI seems quite difficult. I started this article from the little info on the LFI website, to hopefully initiate the discovery of reliable information. Rwendland 15:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Members?

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

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

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

What prove do you have that Spin Watch or Source Watch is unreliable. When link was added it clearly says "critical article by SpinWatch" and thus it should be included. This is not just a pro-lfi article, links must included articles critical of it. Linesman 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS. Critical articles by The Guardian or The Telegraph are perfectly acceptable. Remember, we are talking about living people here, so WP:BLP applies. Also, claiming my edits were "vandalism" is a violation of WP:CIVIL; please take policy seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

You need to be a member to have your trip "sponsored". It's a group trip which is entirly funded as with any other country specific parlimentary group. Linesman 23:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]