Talk:The Lobby

Disambiguation since the Al Jazeera sting operation documentary of the same name

Hi, as this is a UK related page, and the Al Jazeera documentary titled "The Lobby" became subject to an OFCOM investigation, disambiguation is recommended. Below, I share material which may be relied on;

• • In January 2017, Al Jazeera busted open a ring of Israeli influence-peddlers effecting UK student groups and political groups, and was immediately accused of antisemitism and unfair reporting. After investigating for more than eight months, the UK government Office of Communication (OFCOM cleared Al Jazeera of the allegations. Referred to as a "sting operation" and an "exposé", Israeli embassy staff in the UK were caught on hidden-camera and microphones talking about "taking down" members of Parliament, resulting in several resignations.

Cheers.126.209.12.35 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/thelobby/

This would be a good addition to the article?

131.111.184.102 (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Controversial nature of the Lobby, should there be a controversy section?

I’m proposing some edits to strengthen this article, in particular to help readers understand the various criticisms over time of the Lobby system. I propose to cite an independent review into the system commissioned by government in 2003. And to provide more authoritative links into the recent walkout, covered in the controversy section.

I’m not entirely sure about the controversy section. It occurs to me that a lot of what is interesting and important to readers about the Lobby system will inevitably focus on its controversial nature. The article lists member organisations and some members, which is fine. But if that were all, there would not be much interest in it. It is worth mentioning because the very nature of selective, unattributed briefings by government is hard for some to reconcile with open and transparent democracy. I’d be interested in the views of more experienced editors on whether having a section which details a particular newsworthy controversy might, by implication, suggest that in the main the Lobby is not controversial. Which I think would be misleading to readers.

If the controversy section remains, I can imagine it getting longer and longer. Which may unbalance the article.

I've done very little Wikipedia editing, so apologies in advance for mistakes and breaches of protocol.

Alt62 (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)