Talk:Independent Jewish Voices Canada

Founding

1. REDIRECT Independent Jewish Voices (Canada)

Note: The Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians continues to function as a federation of groups, academics and activists in Canada and internationally. The IJV(C) has grown out of the March 2007 ACJC-sponsored conference to become a different organization.

see :

           Jo Roberts article “Jewish-Canadian Activists Come Together for Peace”

           Would you clarify to your readers that the description of the 

Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians sponsored conference in Toronto March 2008 has missed a crucial aspect of the post-conference developments. The writer Jo Roberts was likely not informed that the post-conference Interim Steering Committee had a difference of opinion about how to treat anti-Jewish expressions when confronting the Israel State’s occupation and dispossession of the indigenous Palestinian population. As a result, the delegates of Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) left the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians - Alliance de Canadiens/nes juifs/ves consternés/es, while the ACJC continues to function on its own. Attached here is the recent international statement initiated by the ACJC which opposes the proposed attack on Iran. You may take note that the IJV(C) group of Montréal was one of the organiztional signers of the statement which included 20 organizations from 17 countries.

Abraham Weizfeld

Co-founder ACJC

Administrative Secretary ACJC

Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians

Alliance de Canadiens/nes juifs/ves consternés/es

A C J C

68, ave. Duluth E.

Montréal, Québec H2W 1G8 Canada

514.284.66.42

News/nouvelles &discussion List/e:

JUNITY-Canada-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Funding Agency : La Galerie Fokus

Info on tax-deductible donations

Eibieman (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Does anyone know when the ACJC was founded and when it changed from being an advocacy group to an umbrella group (was that at the March 2008 conference?). Seems that they have 18 affiliates already.

Also, are Naomi Klein or Avi Lewis members of ACJC or do they just share some of their views. Well, so does Stephen Lewis (Avi's dad), but he is a bit more conflicted between his Jewish roots and his belief that human rights (which he sees Israel as violating) trumps all other considerations [1].

Even though there is a lot of overlap - think that the CUPE dispute and the membership dispute should be treated as separate CJC related issues. There are some assertions that the CJC is only an umbrella organization for pro-Israel groups and that the ACJC was testing that hypothesis by trying to join. However, it could just be message board speculation so will leave it up to you guys how to put it.

I'm allergic to airfreshioner and disinfectants, so if I haven't gotten the wording exactly right, that is why, I can't any more - so I add the information and leave the fine tuning to those who still can. 07:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)24.77.37.48 (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Notability

I've tagged this article as making questionable claim to notability. As one editor stated, the group currently claims a membership of less than 0.03% of Canada's Jewish population. It doesn't have CJC recognition, very little media recognition, 260 google hits. Really, organizations like Jewish Youth Against the Occupation deserve articles. They have large followings and regularly receive media coverage. This group doesn't have either. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 22:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the ACJC still seeking CJC recognition? CJCurrie 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• They were turned down once. I'm not sure if their appeal has been heard yet. Even if they are later accepted, the CJC has hundreds of affiliated organizations, I highly doubt all of them would be deserving of an article. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the history of this article, as well as the relevant history of the several articles that link to it, it increasingly seems to me that the group's primary notability is in the apparent tenacity of its membership's pursuit of recognition by using Wikipedia as a platform for pontification. There are thousands of other groups, even synagogues, with astronomically more political clout than this group has, several dozen of which are in Canada. I previously characterized the group quite accurately in the article as "miniscule", which was probably overly generous of me. Not everyone bothers to do the math, and the removal of this clarification can easily result in the eggregiously mistaken impression that this group is more noteworthy than it actually is. As a result of the repeated removal, and mildly rude insinuation that the information is "inappropriate", the POV that the group really is notable is enshrined as fact. This is a direct violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Further violations of Wikiphilosophy include the fact that, while Wikipedia certainly isn't paper, it's also not an indiscriminate collection of information. Tomer^talk 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Readers may wish to review the afd before adding comments here. CJCurrie 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Reading through the AFD strongly supports everything I said above. Tomer^talk 00:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note, the word "minuscule" is inherently pov which is why I removed it. I totally understand, and agree with, what you're saying Tomer, but despite the article being NN (in our opinion), it still needs to conform to Wiki policies while it's still here. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 00:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  "Miniscule" is no more POV than "small". The group represents an insignificant/miniscule/small (in terms that are increasingly, but unjustifiably, generous) portion of the Canadian Jewish community. That's not POV, it's a statement of simple fact. POV would be if I'd also made the [correct, in my view] assertion in the article, that the group is actually irrelevant. Tomer^talk 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  Also, I'm not saying that the article itself is NN, rather that the group is, or at least insufficiently noteworthy to warrant an independent article. That's the crux of my view, in fact...that the most notable thing about the group (which CJCurrie in one of hir edsums describes as "cultural"--quite a stretch for a group that is clearly solely political in nature) is the article's existence! When a Wikipedia article is more noteworthy than the subject it covers, as is the case here, the situation needs serious review. The only way this group can possibly warrant inclusion in WP, at present, is as part of a larger discussion about fringe Jewish groups--a crucial element of which is an in-depth analysis of just how far outside the mainstream of the Jewish community they are. The best way to do this is by analyzing and scrutinizing of their expressed views and comparing those to the "mainstream", but that discourse, inasmuch as it can avoid WP:NOR, needs to take place within context--something an independent article cannot accomplish. At this juncture, the group's only claim to notability is that the CJC refuses to grant them membership. That's only a claim to notability, however, which appears to be deliberately being misrepresented as notability itself. Analogously [if somewhat extreme], if ח"ו I were to go completely bonkers tomorrow and start claiming to be the queen of Transylvania, that would make me bonkers, ב"ה it wouldn't make me the queen of Transylvania. Unless the ACJC starts sponsoring hizbullah bombings of Israeli embassies, or takes up arms against the border patrol, or בס"ד moves to and declares independence for the northern half of Novaya Zemlya, they're less notable than my nephew's PTA. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is being [ab]used as a promotional vehicle for the group, and for the foreseeable future will continue to be, since its membership consists of excellent wikilawyers and masters of subterfuge, adept at gaming the system. This is painfully obvious in the aforementioned AfD for this article. TIA, Tomer^talk 07:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  With respect, TShilo, I believe that you may be losing a sense of perspective here. CJCurrie 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to agree with CJ about that Shilo... That being said however, it doesn't seem like we have any real notability in this subject... -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• You may address me as Tomer. I'm not losing a sense of perspective...I freely admit it was a bit sensationalist--I even called my analogy "somewhat extreme". That doesn't delegitimize what I said, nor does the response in any way address the issue... Tomer^talk 23:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the content could be merged with a different page? CJCurrie 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• What about a adding a section to the History of the Jews in Canada article on organizations in general, giving each major organization a couple lines? -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That could work. Perhaps a page could also be created on left-wing Jewish activism in Canada (assuming that there isn't such a page already). CJCurrie 23:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

    That would be somewhat less disagreeable, but the group is already mentioned in History of the Jews in Canada, however, and the lack of mention of other groups of phenominally greater influence continues to make the ACJC appear far more important than it actually is. Making an entire section devoted to the ACJC would only exascerbate this imbalance. A far better place to cover the group, IMHO, would be in an article about Canadian Jewish politics (which should not be confused with political propensities of Canadian Jews), whither this entire article could be transposed, and expanded upon slightly, as I outlined above, covering the differences between the ACJC's views and those of groups that have significantly larger followings. The fact that this article exists, btw, and that articles on larger and more influential groups, holding to all sorts of viewpoints, especially those simplistically regarded as "right wing", is one of the greatest flaws of Wikipedia. Alright. Edit conflict. Chabuk, most of the above regards your suggestion. CJCurrie, your "Perhaps..." idea is one I could support much more wholeheartedly if you dropped the "also" from it. :-) The "also", IMHO, should precede the idea that an article should/could be simultaneously created to cover right-wing Jewish activism in Canada, both of which would be subpages of at least one of the two article ideas I mentioned above [in this post]. Anyhoo... For right now, it's naptime! Cheers, Tomer^talk 23:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The case against deletion

I have already indicated that I believe the information in the ACJC article should be retained on Wikipedia in one form or another. Now, I will indicate why I believe this particular article should be kept.

Note: These comments are not made in a spirit of hostility toward any other contributor. Debate is welcome, and encouraged.

1. Wikipedia is founded on the principle that minority voices should receive fair representation. The ACJC are a small group in terms of membership, and it is safe to say that they do not represent a majority viewpoint in the Canadian Jewish community. Notwithstanding this, they are actively engaged in debates of concern to the community, and their views have been cited in major community publications ([2], [3]). The group is not insignificant, and the publicity they have received outside of Wikipedia makes them sufficiently notable for inclusion.

2. The ACJC's relationship with the broader Canadian Jewish community is a matter of significance in and of itself. The Canadian Jewish Congress's recent rejection of the ACJC's application, and the ACJC's appeal, have drawn attention to conflicting interpretations of the CJC's mandate. ACJC spokesperson Michael Mandel argues that his group has a prima facie right to affiliate with the CJC, and has stated that the CJC cannot claim to speak for Canada's Jewish community if it excludes the ACJC viewpoint. The CJC took a different position when it first rejected their application (see: Montreal Gazette, 29 October 2006, A2 or Edmonton Journal, 29 October 2006, A11), although it may reconsider when it considers the appeal. The result of this debate could have serious repercussions for other groups wishing to affiliate with the CJC in the future.

3. Wikipedia already has articles on organizations comparible to the ACJC, such as the Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews Against the Occupation. From the other side, we also have articles on the Jewish Defense Organization (a JDL spinoff) and Jewish Task Force, a Kahanist organization whose leader is barred from entering Israel. I cannot imagine that these groups are numerically large, or command strong community support, but this hasn't stopped us from preparing fairly detailed articles on them. (One could also mention the Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance, which may be larger than the ACJC but can hardly be described as more notable.) Precendent, in other words, favours inclusion.

CJCurrie 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Add: The ACJC was mentioned by the Canadian Arab Federation in a letter in today's Globe and Mail. CJCurrie 03:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but at the most basic level, when the organization admits to having just over 100 members, and all they seem to do is write the odd press release, there is no claim to notability. They don't claim to be, nor are they, the largest (or only) Jewish organization which espouses the values which it does, and keeping them simply to hear the "minority voice" is, in my opinion, exactly the opposite of what an encyclopedia is. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  As I've said previously, and CJCurrie has just arguedcommented so eloquently, the existence of this article violates the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Tomer^talk 00:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• The policy of "undue weight" has to do with the content of articles, not their existence. I can't find anything in the policy that would apply to this article. CJCurrie 00:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  Its existence then violates only the spirit of the policy. Prominent mention of the group in History of the Jews in Canada, in the absence of mention of the group's relative irrelevance, still violates both. Tomer^talk 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  Its existence has nothing to do with the policy. I agree that a *prominent* reference to the ACJC on History of the Jews in Canada would be inappropriate, but a passing reference seems fine (of course, this has nothing to do with the present discussion). CJCurrie 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to delete this, Wikipedia has a number of articles on groups that are smaller and less significant. It seems well sourced and since the group has been mentioned in the mainstream media I think it's valid to have an article. Hashomer 04:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

All of this jibberjabber about deletion is a strawman, made first by CJCurrie, and now propped up by you. My protest against the article has nothing to do with a drive to delete it. My interest is in trying to stimulate the writing of articles on the many Canadian Jewish groups, political and cultural, that are of far greater relevance to the Canadian Jewish community as well as to the world at large. Were my interest otherwise, I would never have brought up WP:BIAS. I would suggest that the two of you could be much more constructive by researching and writing about groups with whom you don't happen to agree, rather than writing longwinded argumentscomments about why this article shouldn't be deleted...especially in light of the fact that noöne involved in this discussion is arguing in favor of deletion. Cheers, Tomer^talk 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If no one is arguing in favor of deletion then the tag is inappropriate and should be replaced with something that doesn't say "If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion, as per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion." The argument that there should be more articles on the Jewish community that's fine but it doesn't have much to do with the notability of this article. Since no one is arguing for deletion I will remove the tag, particularly as the "non-notability" question has apparently already been dealt with in an earlier vote on deletion. Hashomer 02:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Views on the Holocaust and Jewish Representation in society

The section is based on an article published in the National Post, which meets Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source. The article in the Post quotes the pamphlet (i.e. this is not a commentary). If additional evidence comes to light that indicates the the IJV did not approve of this pamphlet, this can be added to this section. However, this does not change the fact that this article was published in the National Post.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Okay. I will wait until tomorrow (or until the new information you claim to have knowledge of is publicly available) before taking further action. The fact that the Post reported this (even incorrectly) is still notable. However, if the Post subsequently published a retraction (or a similar statement), than this can be added to this section.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

The article in question was not written by IJV as you wrongly suggested. It is this article by Paul Craig Roberts. It's also misleading to say it was "distributed" to the UCC - it was one of many items on a table. Anyway, the fact that the article/pamphlet was neither written nor published by IJV, despite your false claim, makes a reference to it here rather dubious. 64.229.171.211 (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your missing my point. The fact that the National Post, a nationally published Newspaper in Canada, stated these allegations (even if incorrect) is notable.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

You sexed it up by claiming falsely that the article was written by IJV. Writing an article and having it on a table are very different things. Without authorship or publication it doesn't mean very much. 64.229.171.211 (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The quotes have been taken out of context to make it appear the article engages in Holocaust denial when actually it asserts the Holocaust occurred but argues on free speech grounds that views to the contrary shouldn't be illegal. The last paragraph of the article reads "Why is the Holocaust a subject that is off limits to examination? How could a case buttressed by hard facts possibly be endangered by kooks and anti-semitics? Surely the case doesn’t need to be protected by thought control." But the Post used the first sentence while omitting the other two which made it clear that Roberts is not denying the Holocaust. 64.229.171.211 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If the IJV doesn't approve of the pamphlet, why was it on their table? The Post article stated "the other table is maintained by Independent Jewish Voices; it offers to United Church members a pamphlet" which implies (although it does not explicity state) the the IJV either supports the information in the pamphlet or is at least indifferent. If the IJV allowed this pamphlet to be distributed on its table without reading it first, they are free to say this - but this can (and will) be noted in Wikipedia (similar instances are documented throughout Wikipedia). And Yes - If it turns out that the National Post misrepresented the views of the IJV (or whoever really did write this pamphlet), then this can be included in the article as well. On a different note, what is your source for all of these claims? I have checked the websites of IJV Canada and the National Post and neither makes any reference to this.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

My source is the IJV website which you evidently didn't check closely enough. You claim in the section heading you wrote "Views on the Holocaust and Jewish Representation in society" that the Roberts article represents IJV's views but the Post article does not actually say that and the IJV explicitly denies it so the heading represents only your personal opinion. So given that 1) the article was not written by IJV contrary to your initial claim and 2) the article was not about the Holocaust but about the criminalization of free speech and 3) the article does not represent the views of IJV but was on the table in error - on what basis do you justify your proposed section besides the desire to smear an organization you dislike? 64.229.171.211 (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So you now agree with my previous suggested explanation: The article in the National Post implied (now we now incorrectly) that the IJV supported the pamphlet since it was on their table "offers" the pamphlet to members of the UCC. It is hardly unreasonable to assumed that material displayed on an organization's table is representative of their own views (unless a context is otherwise provided, which was not done). The IJV has explicitly denied it supported the pamphlet but this was only done after the fact. The IJV has admitted what I suggested earlier: That they didn't read the pamphlet before they allowed it on their table. I based my initial statements on the the National Post article, which implied that the article dealt with, at least paritally, the Holocaust. We now know that the National Post either deliberatly or unintentionally misconstrued the purpose of the pamphlet. However, since I am not psychic, I was unable to know this in advance. I have already stated that this section should be amended to state the the pamphlet was indeed on the IJV table and that they failed to actually read the pamphlet in advance. With regards to you accusation that I did not check the IJV website, my response is that I did check the website before I reinserted this section - the release disassociating itself from the pamphlet was not posted until later. Again, since I am not psychic, I could not have predicted this. Don't accuse me of acting in bad faith - I based my additions based on the information I had available at the time.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

The question is since the pamphlet wasn't what the Post suggested it was (ie not Holocaust denial) and since the IJV has disavowed it it any case what is the merit of making a section in the article about this? There's no story here. The elements that made you think it was a story are not there. 64.229.171.211 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, many of the elements are there. The IJV did allow this pamphlet on its table (apparently without reading it first) to distribute it to members of the UCC. They have since disavowed it, but this only occurred after the story cited was published in a national newspaper. You are correct that the pamphlet did not promote holocaust denial (as the National Post implied), but all of the other elements are there.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Not enough to be notable. And no all the elements are not there - not authorship nor endorsement of the article's contents. Saying they only disavowed it after the story was published is somewhat unfair since it's the story that brought the article's contents to the group's attention. 64.229.171.211 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Post made the assumption (not unreasonably) that the IJV endorses material that it offers for distribution at public events.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

WP:Edit War and WP:3RR

Stumbled across the article today, and based on the edit history over the last few days, I wanted to remind the editors working on this page to try to avoid an WP:Edit War. The edits of August 17th looks like they came close to or crossed the line of WP:3RR. Singularity42 (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

some IP has been adding antisemitism to this articleIrgoraJew (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

almost all the antisemitic edits come from this IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.49.230.143 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrgoraJew (talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

some one please delete this racist article, it is anti-israeli and almost naziIrgoraJew (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? I can't see anything which is remotely racist or nazi. I think you've been drinking someone's kool-aid, mate. 64.229.171.162 (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Revisions

I will be making a series of revisions as suggested by a member of IJV Vancouver. Here is the reasons he provided:

"

1. Incorrect information–the number of members keeps shifting and so can’t be listed with accuracy. IJV doesn’t have a coordinator other than Tyler Levitan. The IJV Basis of Unity was updated in 2012-­2013. The reference and citation to Melanie Phillips is quite incorrect: She is a British journalist and she was referring to Independent Jewish Voices (UK), which is not affiliated with IJV(Canada).
2. New information–2014 war against Gaza; Sodastream campaign and “Block the Boat” campaigns as practical applications of BDS; the JNF campaign; IJV's defense against Israel lobby attacks on the United Church; and the IJV call for the banning of Moshe Feiglin from Canada.
3. Redundancy, duplication of information–“any form of racism” occurs twice.
4. Typographical errors–need to close quotes after “BDS)”; no comma after “IJV coordinator”; “as calls a ‘fringe group.’”
5. Lack of clarity. [I am a retired English professor and my wife is a professional editor and we gave the existing article a stylistic revision] The Diana Ralph quotation in the section “Criticism of Stephen Harper” does not speak to the clause it is attached to.
6. Obsolete sections: Allegations against Israeli Government (which is based on one quote by Diana Ralph 6 1⁄2 years ago); IJV Criticism of the Canadian Jewish Congress (revised since the CJC ceased to exist in 2012).
7. The section on “Canadian Jewish Congress criticism of IJV” has been folded in to the section “IJV’s criticism of the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and Hillel.”

"

InverseHypercube (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction: it does seem like Melanie Phillips was referring to IJV Canada. InverseHypercube (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

B'nai Brith charges

Hello,

I rewrote the paragraph on the charges made by B'nai Brith that IJV was promoting Holocaust denial. The present wording makes it clearer what the article was about. The previous version seemed to suggest that IJV was linking directly to Holocaust denial material; however, it only linked to an article that was reposted with an editor's note that denied the Holocaust. Although I do think it was obviously unintentional, I have tried to write it in NPOV.

I have merged it with the section on the Diana Ralph scandal to avoid undue weight (see WP:UNDUE and WP:Recentism). It does not warrant its own section, given that it appears that only one independent news source (Canadian Jewish News) has reported on it.

InverseHypercube (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding the section, but I admit to being more confused—rather than less—after reading the new language and the Canadian Jewish News article. IJV knowingly but "thoughtlessly" linked to Veterans Today? When one links to an article titled "A truth most Jews don't want to know about anti-Semitism" by Alan Hart, who seems to have a screw loose, on a website such as Veterans Today, which... well, just read this... what the hell did they expect was going to happen? Unfortunately, the IJV website is down at the moment so I can't read their side of the story (except as reported in the Canadian Jewish News and Wikipedia), but I don't see how anybody with half a brain could swallow the explanation that this is due to a misplaced editor's note or a wrong draft. So why does our article say that without attribution, when the Canadian Jewish Newsdidn't report it as fact?

The fact is, IJV knowingly linked to an antisemitic article on an antisemitic, Holocaust-denying website. That an editor at said website may have edited said article to make it appear worse than the author intended hardly seems a defense. So why are we acting like it is?

According to the Canadian Jewish News, "IJV said that it had 'thoughtlessly linked to' the article ... by anti-Zionist journalist Alan Hart and published on Veterans Today". So why does our article say "The link was to a version of the article that had been reposted on the far-right website Veterans Today, with an editor's note that contested the numbers of Jews that were killed in the Holocaust." What rubbish! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The point is that, whatever you think of Alan Hart (I don't like him either), his original article[4] did not engage in Holocaust denial. The article was reposted on Veterans Today,[5] which added the Editor's Note denying the scale of the Holocaust. The article itself was not antisemitic (at least not in my opinion, but if it were considered to be antisemitic it would be for reasons other than Holocaust denial). I'm not sure what part of the current paragraph you're objecting to. InverseHypercube (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)