Talk:Jewish Voice for Labour

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:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

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.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jewish Voice for Labour article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Politics: Political parties

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Judaism

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Socialism

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]