Talk:Jewish Voice for Labour

Jenny Manson

This article seems to focus a lot on Jenny Manson. Almost all the information comes from a speech she made which was posted on YouTube. (She did not do an interview with the Jewish Chronicle). In that speech she explains why she publicly announced her Jewish identity and explained that her mother was a Palestinian Jew who had fled pogroms in Ukraine and settled in Haifa in either the late 19th century or early 20th century. I don't see why this should be included, other than to make the point that JVL is a Jewish organisation (which is pretty much self-evident). However in the speech she does set out the two purposes of the JVL. This, admittedly, is worthy of inclusion. Garageland66 (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The initial source of this is irrelevant (the speech was made at some public forum - Youtube has a copy of it). The fact that the media has chosen to highlight this particular aspect of JVL shows that it is highly relevant for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I find it unfathomable that it could possibly be argued that the cherry-picked quotes taken from a speech by a secondary source (a partisan publication) are more valid and reliable than using the actual, original speech. Garageland66 (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle, the oldest printed Jewish newspaper in the world, is not a partisan publication - and if it is (as in Jewish partisan) - it is of the same alignment as the JVL. In any event - we prefer was secondary sources highlight about a subject as opposed to cherrypicking quotations off of a primary source. Even if we were to accept that the JC is opposed in some manner to the JVL, then the fact that the opponents of the JVL highlight this quote - makes it relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This page needs examining by rather more objective editors. I still included her statement about the JVL aim to "tackle allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party" in addition to the second aim to "work with other Jewish organisations... on behalf of Palestinian rights". Why has the second aim been removed? Wikipedia is supposed to be informative. These are her actual words and to use them will inform readers as to the aims and purpose of JVL. And to state that Manson has admitted she only "began to identify as a Jew in order to argue against the state of Israel" is irrelevant. She is Jewish and decided to go public about her identity. It is not an admission it's an explanation. I've reversed my edit. But I reserve the right to edit some of the slanted words in this paragraph. Garageland66 (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz I've revisited this again. I've left in the statement about Manson's reason for identifying as Jewish but I've added her stated second purpose of JVL. Is this agreed as a compromise? The second purpose is surely important. Garageland66 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree their mission stmt is DUE. In general - we should avoid sourcing off of a youtube video - I would try to match the JC's (or an additional source) language.Icewhiz (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is about an organisation, the personal views of members of the organisations (unless it's directly about the organisation) is appropriate on a "views" section in a BLP about the subject, not as WP:UNDUE in an article about the organisation itself. The article shouldn't be used as a WP:COATRACK to air its members' views.

Also, WP:BALASP of WP:UNDUE states "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Tanbircdq (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

@RolandR: - in regards to this revert, you restored information sourced to a non-critical biased WP:PRIMARY source. While The Guardian is a respected source, a letter to the editor by Jenny Manson to the Guardian's editor is not a RS for anything but Manson's own words. Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article reads like a press release. It has way too many quotes from interested parties and way too little actual third-party RS views. It also omits any mention of the many controversies this group and its members have been involved in. I will try to rectify some of these deficiencies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The article should be based on reliable 3rd party mainstream coverage - not interviews with group members and sympathizers, not releases by the group - but critical 3rd party coverage. JVL has mainly engendered controversy during its existence, and that should be covered. I most definitely agree with the lacking state of the current article which reads like a press release by the group. Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've asked for page protection due to the IP's vandalism. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Also agree that this article has had too many primary sources and opinion pieces and too few reliable secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be turned into an attack page with POV content in the Wikipedia voice either. Also, it should be about the organisation's activities not its members and Wiki requires reliable sources (not mainstream coverage, which has been mentioned on numerous other talk pages). RevertBob (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why you removed RS supported information, which at least two editors support. Newspapers are RS. You can check at RSN if you don't believe me. I will be restoring the information unless a policy based reason for its removal is supplied. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@RevertBob: I see you also removed the primary sources tag and just turned this back into a press release. As far as I can tell @Icewhiz: supports the edits as he reverted back to them, and so does @Bobfrombrockley: who thanked me for the edits. You are the only editor to object, and have yet to supply a policy based reason for your reverts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. We don't engage in WP:PROMO of WP:FRINGE groups that are noted as being on the wrong side of the divide of opposition to antisemitism. We definitely don't use primary sources from the organization itself, and we do use mainstream sources as a yardstick for appropriate POV balance. Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I would not have reverted the whole thing, as some of RevertBob's edits fixed referencing problems and updated the infobox etc. However, I strongly agree the article is overreliant on primary sources, excessive in promotional quotations, and needs to reflect the fact that the organisation is controversial. There is no immediate risk, simply by removing fringe sources and making quotations more concise, that the article will become an attack article. I will look carefully at RevertBob's edits and restore some of them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I spoke to soon, as RolandR has now reverted it back to RevertBob's version. In which case I will go through Mr Nice Guy's edits and restore at least some of them. The current state is totally un-encyclopedic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Icewhiz we shouldn't take any sides but try to be neutral that fact that you're suggesting otherwise highlights your impartiality when editing in the topic area.

Anyway back to the point, the problem is we can't put a negative (or positive) label in the Wikipedia voice, which is also contrary to the NPOV tag that's been placed on the page. RevertBob (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

a. "Controversial" is neither negative or positive. b. Of course we can use it in the encyclopedia's neutral voice if that's what the sources use. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I've gone through the two sets of recent edits and done the following: added some reliable secondary sources where claims were sourced to opinion pieces, deleted some opinion piece sources where we have primary and/or reliable secondary sources, deleted two quotations from non-noteworthy opinion pieces (Calderbank, Seymour) that had no secondary coverage. I hope all that would be consensual. I also added a sentence to the lede saying they had been described as controversial, which seems to me fully due as it is widely reported as such. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we have enough RS to say it's controversial in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, @RolandR: are you a member of this group? You should declare your COI if you are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I am a member of JVL. For this reason, I have kept my editing of the page to a minimum, and endeavoured to remain as objective as possible. Since my identity is not a secret, my possible CoI is known; it would be helpful if members or supporters of groups critical of or hostile to JVL also declared their interest, despite the cover of anonymity. RolandR (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:COIEDIT. You shouldn't be editing this article, and certainly not tag teaming like you did today. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

How is Richard Seymour (writer) non-noteworthy? The same paragraph also includes Stephen Pollard. For consistency and NPOV purposes either we include them both or neither, I'd much rather both are included. RevertBob (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, RevertBob, about consistency. Neither Pollard nor Seymour's views have had secondary coverage and both should be removed. I think Sedley immediately afterwards should probably also go, as the secondary coverage is just the Camden New Journal, which is a free local paper and therefore (although I think reliable) not a good gauge of noteworthyness. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Surely Stephen Sedley's article in the London Review of Books is notable in its own right, irrespective of whether this has been reported in other reliable sources? I agree about Seymour and Pollard - either both or neither. RolandR (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree Sedley is slightly more noteworthy in relation to this article as he spoke at the JVL launch, but the LRB article contains a brief aside on JVL only, so seems an odd choice of comment to include. His expertise is law, which is why he is noteworthy in the IHRA Working Definition article, and not on Labour politics. Seymour's case for noteworthyness is he has written a non-academic book on Corbyn, and Pollard's would be that he is a key figure in the mainstream Jewish public sphere and so a good proxy for the views of that mainstream on JVL. I think those are weak reasons for inclusion and would prefer to lose them both, but leave Sedley for now and see if anyone else has a view. How does that sound? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. I think the main work the article needs at this point is removing most if not all the primary sources, and adding some balance with stuff that's not super-duper-pro-JVL. This article still reads like a press release. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

That's fine but this shouldn't prejudice other notable relevant views being added, by using balance arguments. Sedley should be included as per RolandR's comments.

/

I'm not sure how the page reads like a press piece, or what that even means in terms of Wikipedia.

From what I see after the appropriate structural changes have been made to the page recently, the paragraphs in premise and organisation are: how the organisation was founded and established; how the organisation identifies, its membership criteria, endorsements and affiliations; how elected committee members state the organisations purposes are; and then other relevant views of the organisation.

The independent primary sources for statements are used appropriately according to Wiki policy by attributing it as the views of those it's been written by in the same way as other articles about organisations or BLPs state its premise, background or personal details etc. More information useful to the reader can be added which if it exists to help improve the page.

The history section follows a chronological factual account from RS of the organisations activities since it was established.

I'm not seeing anything that isn't neutral in the way the article is written or worded to justify the tags at the top of the page other than maybe that the organisation being considered controversial isn't noteworthy to be included in the lead given these claims are made by non-notable journalists but would be more appropriate for this to be placed in the body of the article where the organisation is being described in detail. Also, I understand that some editors may not like JVL but this isn't the place to push these POV views. RevertBob (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I hope I am reading the consensus correctly and am going to remove both Pollard and Seymour, but leave Sedley. What a press piece means in terms of Wikipedia, I think, is covered by WP:PRESSRELEASE. On the "controversial" thing, I think it is clear it is controversial in that all of the news coverage of it has covered controversy and because reports in mainstream reliable sources describe it as such. Personally, I think that's noteworthy enough to go in the lead, but for me it's not that big a deal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Have added other refs for "controversial", to show how widely mainstream RSs use it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel these edits veer the article in a WP:PROMO puff piece direction. This isn't information; it's self-congratulation. Is that just my take?

It's a quote in a Wikipedia's neutral voice from a secondary source by Len McCluskey, the most prominent figure within the labour movement, so seems to have a very good reason to include. I don't see how this is PROMO, especially given what's recently been added to the article[1] and lot of a comments here appear to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT I think. RevertBob (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It was less the McCluskey quote, which is nicely concise (and he is prominent) though I am not sure what it adds, more the (longer) Secker and Winborne-Idrissi quotes, which seem to me like self-congratulation which add little. What specifically do you think they add to the article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

They're elected roleholder's views of the organisation's purpose, which would seem fairly relevent to include. RevertBob (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I kind of get that point with the Wimborne-Idrissi quote, if she's stating the aims, but it doesn't seem to be the case with the Secker quote, where he's just basically saying good stuff about his organisation. It's only worth adding quotes that tell the reader something not there in our factual account. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

What JVL members say about the aims or the organization is of little value - lacking independence and being non-neutral and unreliable. We should stick to descriptions in RSes - which seem to describe this as a front intended to deflect and obsfucate Labour's antisemitism crisis with a so-called Jewish support group.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Description of JVL in RS

Per this news item (not an opinion) JVL is a "Jewish Voice for Labour is a fringe network of Jewish left-wing activists formed in 2017, in part, to oppose the introduction of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, to the party". We generally follow RSes in describing political advocacy groups.Icewhiz (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

That's only one source though. Do the weight of RSs say the same thing? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

1. JC - pro-Corbyn, fringe Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) group. [2], it draws its support from Labour members on the extreme fringes of the Jewish community, many of whom have a long history of opposition to the very existence of Israel and who support boycotts of Israel.[3]. " controversial, pro-Jeremy Corbyn Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) ....JVL, a fringe group accused of trying to downplay Labour's antisemitism crisis, ...[4].
2. CNN - the relatively new fringe group, Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL).[5]
3. Guardian - Jewish Voice for Labour, a pro-Corbyn and anti-Israel group[6] anti-Zionist Jewish Voice for Labour[7]
4. Tablet - group of left-wing Jews. Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) .... Most Jews will recognize this for what it is. The purpose of JVL is not to explore and debate complex questions or to represent the feelings of most Jews within the party; it is to muddy the waters.. [8]
5. Telegraph - pro-Corbyn group Jewish Voice for Labour[9]
6. NYT - the pro-Corbyn Jewish Voice for Labour group. [10]
7. The Nation - fiercely anti-Zionist (and pro-Corbyn) Jewish Voice for Labour [11]

Sample of labels. The more in-depth coverage of JVL seems to occur in the UK Jewish NEWSORGs (perhaps not surprising seeing this as an organization formed to represent a Jewish voice) - the rest mainly have short blurbs of random quotes (but those are the labels chosen above).Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Most of these sources simply state that JVL is left-wing and pro-Corbyn, which is not a contested or contentious description. The only ones to claim that it is "fringe" are the Jewish Chronicle (hardly surprising) and CNN. In fact, most reports of JVL either use a neutral term, or do not characterise the group at all. The most that we should say here is that it is left-wing and pro-Corbyn. RolandR (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Jewish News as well has "fringe" (that's the quote at the top). Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

As per User:NSH001, you can't state an opinion as if it were fact, especially not in the lead. The majority of these sources describes JVL as "pro-Corbyn" and "left-wing", which I think is already included on the page, and as User:RolandR states isn't disputed nor contentious. Only a few sources claim the organisation is "fringe" and there are more sources which describes the organisation neutrally or avoids any political descriptions. Therefore, we should be careful and only use the terms pro-Corbyn and left-wing to describe the organisation. RevertBob (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Bias

I think this reads as very biased. You have just mentioned "controversies" without actually explaining what any of them are. You mention Ken Livingston, Jackie Walker, Moshe Machover and Marc Wadsworth, without giving any detail about what they actually did.

You know, this page was probably written/edited by members, and you'll get away with it for a while, but sooner or later it's going to get edited.

You've kind of used a tactic of going into great details about positive things you think JVFL do, and then not going into any detail whatsoever about the negative actions (that have been widely criticised in the media)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.176.82.34 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of New York Times

This revert was performed on the basis of "Patently untrue, in contradiction to reliable sources cited elsewhere". The cited source was The New York Times which wrote in its own voice in Feb 2019 that "Jewish Voice for Labour, set up in 2017 by Mr. Corbyn to take on allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Per several discussions in RSN, th NYT is considered reliable - see for instance [12], [13], [14]. Other sources in our article are mainly JVL itself or statements by JVL members quoted in reliable sources (not that they appear necessarily contradictory to NYT - but that's a different matter) - which is fine for attributed statements on what JVL activists think of the JVL - but are surely not a reliable source on the same caliber as the NYT. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

e.g. "JVL is a fringe, pro-Jeremy Corbyn group that was set up last year in what many saw as an attempt to deflect criticism of the Labour leadership’s handling of the party's antisemitism crisis." [15], "The Jewish Voice For Labour group — set up as a pro-Corbyn front who have repeatedly attempted to downplay the issue of antisemtism within the party"[16] - hardly contradictory. Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult to prove a negative. But no source, other than this NYT article a couple of weeks ago, has ever claimed that Corbyn himself founded JVL. It is not clear where they got this from; they certainly didn't interview any JVL activist or cite any existing research. The claim is extraordinary and out of line with everything known or published about JVL and about Corbyn, and the NYT is a mistaken outlier. Much stronger evidence would be needed to include this claim in the article. RolandR (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hardly an extraordinary claim - "set up as a pro-Corbyn front" is reported elsewhere. The JVL, as a fringe group, hasn't gotten all that much media attention on itself (as opposed to various statements it makes and demonstrations next to events - which are briefly covered in various piece) - the NYT is generally considered an excellent source. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If this was generally known, I am sure it would have been mentioned in the UK and Israel publications that have mentioned JVL, particularly as they are generally hostile to it and Corbyn. The NYT reporter, who has a wide remit, must have either misunderstood or was writing very casually for an audience with limited interest in the detail. It is also very ambiguous: does it mean he thought of it? ordered it? financed it? was consulted? It was an obvious move by pro-left Jews and, as an independent voluntary body, did not need his involvement. So, the phrase simply raises questions at this point and is not notable, in my view. Jontel (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The NYT is considered a reliable source, and it characterizes this group as having been created to deflect accusations of labor party antisemitism. This section should be in the article and defenses like "The NYT reporter, who has a wide remit, must have either misunderstood or was writing very casually for an audience with limited interest in the detail." are really just defensive speculation. There needs to be a stronger argument to reject the use of a source like the NYT in this case, the removed statement provides important context on the group, its purposes, and its origins. SWL36 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't present opinions as facts in the Wiki-voice, least of all those of journalists. But the unfounded claim that the JVL was set by Corbyn at least questions the reliability of author of the NYT source but not NYT itself. RevertBob (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The writer has already corrected one mistake, calling Jonathan Goldstein the editor of the Jewish Chronicle rather than the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council. I expect that this is another one. She presumably interviewed someone who opined that Corbyn set JVL up and took it for an accepted public fact which, of course, it is not. The organization is certainly pro-Corbyn and opposes what it sees as unjustified allegations of antisemitism, but these are different things and covered in the article from multiple sources. The NYT article desn't add anything new except for this one unsupported point, which I think it is best to leave out until some evidence appears. Jontel (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The rather clear consensus at RSN is that the NYT is a RS for this subject matter, absent a policy based rationale... Thia goes in.Icewhiz (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

While the NYT is obviously an RS, even RSs make mistakes, and this seems like an error. No other RS has ever claimed Corbyn himself set up JVL and it is indeed an extraordinary claim. I think we should avoid that statement. The "in order to tackle allegations of antisemitism" has more sources, but this I'd avoid starting with that; if it is included, perhaps put it near the end of the section and say "it has been described as", because it is the opinion of Goldstein etc rather than its stated aim. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley:, other sources have said this was "set up as a pro-Corbyn front"[17]. Very few sources actually covered JVL (as opposed to quoting them) - it is unfounded to call this extraordinary. At preset Jewish Voice for Labour#Launch is sourced to letters penned by JVL members or quotations of JVL members (neither of which are reliable for anything but an attributed statement to JVL). If you are claiming this is extraordinary - please provide contradicting sources - independent reliable ones, that don't rely on the JVL itself. Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You are arguing against a strawman. The extraordinary claim is not that JVL was "set up as a pro-Corbyn front" (though this assessment is in itself highly POV, and must be ascribed to whoever makes this claim), but that it was "set up by Mr Corbyn". This is indeed extraordinary, counter to everything else ever written about Corbyn or JVL, not explained by the NYT, and factually untrue. The NYT made a mistake, and its false statement should not be included in the article. RolandR (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It is true that very few sources have covered JVL. But the Jewish Chronicle, whose uncorroborated opinion is presented as "other sources" has. 119 times. I suppose it is an independent reliable source though, to me, it comes across as a bit critical of JVL. Jontel (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

And the JC says "The Jewish Voice For Labour group — set up as a pro-Corbyn front who have repeatedly attempted to downplay the issue of antisemtism within the party" - more or less the same as NYT's "Jewish Voice for Labour, set up in 2017 by Mr. Corbyn to take on allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. So that's two independent RSes making more or less the same stmt (whether Corbyn himself approved/directed/influenced? Really a trivial detail, though obviously NYT is the strong source here). What other RSes do we have covering JVL in an independent fashion? Letters to the editor of the Guardian by Manson and other writings and quotes of JVL members are not independent and carry very little weight. Sources please - AFAICT - independent coverage of JVL all stress the same Cobyn/pro-Corbyn aspect of countering allegations against Corbyn and the party. So far - we're at 2-0 here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. The statement "set up as a pro-Corbyn front" is certainly not "more or less the same as" the statement "set up in 2017 by Mr. Corbyn". The second statement is untrue, and arguably a breach of BLP, since many people (not myself, I hasten to add) would consider this to be damaging to Corbyn's reputation. You simply cannot use the JC's characterisation of JVL as support for the erroneous claim in the NYT, since it does not repeat, nor even refer to, this claim. RolandR (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources please - independent sources (not interviews with JVL members) backing up these unsourced opinions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Logic and common sense are all that are required, not sources, to know that "set up by Corbyn" has a totally different meaning from "pro-Corbyn". You have cited one source making each of those claims, so that is 1-1 not 2-0. There are other sources for "pro-Corbyn",[18][19][20] but none of the other sources that mention JVL's launch name Corbyn as having in any way initiated it, despite naming people who were actually involved in the launch, such as Manson and Levene. Given the vast amount of coverage of JVL from the JC and Jewish News, if Corbyn had been involved they'd have mentioned it for sure. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Or JN and JC preferred not to state the obvious (leaving it at a "pro-Corbyn front"), at some perhaps local British legal peril, while the NYT did decide to spell it out. "pro-Corbyn front" does not contradict "pro-Corbyn front, setup by Corbyn". Claiming that Jewish News and The Jewish Chronicle are superior to The New York Times in terms of reliability is quite extraordinary. Icewhiz (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That is not the implication, at all. What Bob, Jontel and Roland are arguing in essence is that on-the-ground British Jewish sources with intense coverage of the minutiae of the topic fail to mention what a outside, American mainstream newspaper journalist states, in an article which also makes a mistake with regard to another person. This intrinsically means that, regardless of RS debates, we have an exceptonal claim mandating multiple quality sources if it is to be included. Unless I am mistaken, you have accepted, indeed, asked for that principle to be applied in other contexts. One's use of policy must be consistent.Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The NYT reporter in question - Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura - is based full time in London - round about where JVL is based. Icewhiz (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

She has a lot to cover though... 'where she covers an eclectic beat ranging from politics to social issues spanning Europe, the Middle East and Africa.' Jontel (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternative hypothesis: the Jewish sources are sympathetic to the fallacious view that support for Palestine is inherently antisemitic, and therefore have a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Several sources make it clear that they are supported by Labour leadership and closely aligned with Corbyn - so it seems fair to describe them as being a pro-Corbin group, but I do think that editors have a point that it saying he "started" the group seems a little stronger than that, and this single sentence in the Times is the only source I can find for that. Here are some descriptions I found in other reliable sources:

• Vox "Jewish Voice for Labour — a small organization that tends to deny Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism — told me."
• The Guardian a small pro-Corbyn party organisation that rejects the idea that Labour has an issue with antisemitism.
• BBC: was formed in 2017 and has consistently backed Mr Corbyn's leadership.
• Sky news the pro-Corbyn group, Jewish Voice for Labour

It seems like even fairly critical editorials (Harper's,FT) stop shorting of claiming Corbyn literally founded the group himself. Nblund ^talk 23:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: - however what is also lacking is independent WP:RSes addressing how they started at all - most such reporting to date has been attributed to JVL itself (either from JVL's website, writing by JVL members, or quotes of JVL members) - we're lacking independent RSes on that aspect all together. What we presently have at Jewish Voice for Labour#Launch is an interview with the founder (Manson) in JC, At letter to the editor of the Guardian by the founder, the founder on TalkRadio, TOI on the public launch event (nothing on how it got to the event), and two pieces in Morning Star (a communist newspaper) - a speech by a JVL co-founder from the event (reprinted), and a column by one of the JVL co-founders. With the exception of "JVL was officially launched on 24 September" (sourced to TOI) - not a single bit of info there is sourced to an independent RS. It this respect - the NYT report isn't exceptional vs. other reporting - as there simply isn't much independent reporting on the formation of JVL at all. Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose NYT is considered a reliable source because of the standards of journalism and editing. Here, for a significant point, no source and no detail is provided, which one would expect. It isn't clear to me what role the article suggests Corbyn has played. She has written done what someone told her, is all. I also wonder how meaningful this is. Set up is a vague term, when we are talking about a small voluntary network without an obvious legal entity. Doubtless, there were discusssions with him or people close to him. They are all in the same party. With a logo, name and basic website, setting up is something those involved could have done without external help. For these reasons, I suggest that it is better that this claim is omitted until something more concrete emerges, if it does. Jontel (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

On being a front, there is no reason to consider that the JVL are other than they appear i.e. pro-Corbyn Jewish Labour members. Again, the JC provides no source or details of who supposedly controls them and how this is done. Again, the JVL would naturally follow the public lead of their party leadership whom they support and have conversations with other prominent party members without this being a conspiracy. I do not regard the JC and NYT phrases as corroborative. I presume the NYT journo either copied it from the JC article, was told it by someone at the JC or was told it by someone who told the JC the same thing. Jontel (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: The author of that Harper's Article does appear to have been present at the launch. It's a very critical article, but the author still describes "a small group of Jews" starting it during a Labour Party conference in 2017. I don't doubt that Corbyn has made efforts to prop up JVL, but if the Times found evidence that Corbyn had personally created an Jewish sockpuppet in to defend himself from charges of Antisemitism, it would probably warrant more than a single sentence mention in the middle of the article. It is a surprising claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources. Nblund ^talk 15:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Harper's doesn't contradict the NYT - however - I must say that this Harper's find is much better (being independent coverage) than what we currently have in the launch section (which is essentially JVL's self description). Icewhiz (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree on the general need for more independent sourcing - they're controversial and the article doesn't really communicate why. I think there's enough here to support stating that they were created during a Labour conference in 2017 amidst allegations of antisemitism in the party, and they've positioned themselves as a pro-Corbyn alternative to JLM that has rejected allegations that the party has a problem with antisemitism. It might be worth citing some notable criticisms of the group (maybe this book?) to make it clear to readers why they are considered a controversial fringe organization. Nblund ^talk 17:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I repeat here what I noted at RSN:

• The original question is now moot. The NYT has finally (after 3 weeks!) published a correction:

  Correction: March 14, 2019

  An earlier version of this article misstated Jeremy Corbyn’s connection to Jewish Voice for Labour. It is not the case that Mr. Corbyn played a role in setting up the group.

  --NSH001 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I just note here that this is merely a statement of the blindingly obvious, and wonder why the NYT took so long to publish a correction? --NSH001 (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Because it was not until Icewhiz's original edit that anyone in JVL was aware of this mistaken claim, and in a position to seek a correction from the NYT. RolandR (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, JVL's members are more likely to read the Wikipedia entry on themselves than a New York Time piece featuring JVL quite a bit.Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Since JVL is, by definition, an organisation of people living in Britain, it is hardly surprising that they are not regular NYT readers. RolandR (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we've just witnessed a rare case of reverse citogensis? Nblund ^talk 05:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely. I will not publish the details here, but would be very happy to give chapter and verse to any genuine researcher. RolandR (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia would seem to be a melting pot or bridge between the NYT and those who might read Twitter sources (pro-Corbyn/Russia/Assad), Morning Star, and Electronic Intifada. Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Labour, JVL, Jon Lansman, Momentum and antisemitism

I think it would be useful to clarify the position between JVL and Momentum, as the antisemitism labels being flung about deserves some kind of reference / explaination in this entry. It confuses the hell out of me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.104.236 (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Jon Lansman worked on Jeremy Corbyn's successful Labour Party leadership campaign in 2015 and subsequently that year was one of the founders of pro-Corbyn organisation Momentum.

JVL was founded in 2017. Its aims, set out in a statement of principles, include a commitment "to strengthen the party in its opposition to all forms of racism, including antisemitism, to uphold the right of supporters of justice for Palestinians to engage in solidarity activities" and "to oppose attempts to widen the definition of antisemitism beyond its meaning of hostility towards, or discrimination against, Jews as Jews". Jenny Manson, an activist in Jews for Justice for Palestinians and a former Labour councillor, was elected as its first chair.

JVL should not be confused with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), one of whose explicit purposes is to support Israel. On change.org there is a petition which explains how Jeremy Newmark's leadership of the JLM provided the impetus to the creation of JVL as "a rival forum for Jewish members of the Labour Party ... which brings into question JLMs claim to be the authentic voice of Jewish members of the Labour Party, including the appropriateness of its right to deliver training about anti-semitism and by extension it's right to be affiliated." (WP won't accept links to the change.org site. See: change.org - John Bernard - Petition: Disaffiliate the Jewish Labour Movement from the Labour Party, 2017) The petition states: "Like JLM, JVL is also a self declared non anti-zionist organisation but nevertheless cleary states that it is not anti-semitic to criticise Israel." On Newmark's leadership off the JLM, it says:

"It is also notable that it was during Mr Newmark's leadership of JLM that allegations of anti-semitism surfaced within a Labour Party with no history of such racist attitudes. Indeed Mr Newmark threatened legal action against the party for not dealing promptly with some historical cases apparently, because, some would argue, finding members guilty of anti-semitism was more important than due process. The issue of anti-semitism and how to deal it was of course addressed by the Chakrabahti Report. In addition to apparently creating divisions within his own community, some would argue that Mr Newmark’s leadership of the JLM has been characterised by a needless ratcheting up of tension within the Labour Party vis a vis the Israel Palestine debate not least in terms of how members of JLM have conducted themselves on social media."

John Lansman criticised the JVL in 2018, saying: “the most influential antisemitism-deniers, unfortunately, are Jewish anti-Zionists” and JVL "is an organisation which is not just tiny but has no real connection with the Jewish community at all ... It doesn’t represent the Jewish community in a way that the Jewish Labour Movement clearly does represent the Labour wing of the Jewish community.” In a 2016 interview, Lansman said: ""Yes, of course the vast majority of British Jews are supportive of Israel as a Jewish state – and actually so is Jeremy – but they are far from supportive of all aspects of what is currently happening there", he said. "I think Jews in Britain want peace too. I think Jeremy's message of fairness for the Palestinians is not something that will be rejected by the Jewish community." Lansman is a critic of Ken Livingstone.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

need to add cat.

Category:Jewish organizations based in Europe YitzhakNat (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page is already a member of Category:Jewish organisations based in the United Kingdom, which would be a subcategory of the nonexistent category shown in your request. Per my reading of WP:SUBCAT, it is in the right place. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Logo

Could the logo in the infobox please be replaced by this version with a transparent background? Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be already done  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 20:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)