Talk:Momentum (organisation)

Untitled

Attribution note: most of the text of early revisions of this article were taken from the "Momentum" section of the article Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party leadership campaign, 2015. -- Impsswoon (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: what sources suggest to be Momentum's website currently seems to be weirdly broken, so I have not linked it here. -- Impsswoon (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Question: does anyone actually care what the International Committee of the Fourth International think about this? Do they qualify as being sufficiently notable for their opinion to be relevant here? -- Impsswoon (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Since it's been speculated that Momentum may be a Trotskyite umbrella group or front group attaching itself to the Labour Party, this is probably a rare case of the Fourth International's views actually being vaguely of interest Dtellett (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Far left?

A user [Miles_Creaghis] is multiple adding Far left as the status of the organization - twice removed - requires discussion - Govindaharihari (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the source I added describes Momentum as "far left" Miles Creagh (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

A User_talk:Miles_Creagh is multiple adding Far left as the status of the organization - twice removed - requires discussion - Govindaharihari (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating yourself. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

A biased , or limited sourcing is not neutral and required discussion - Govindaharihari (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain how the source is biased? Miles Creagh (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

A biased , or limited sourcing is not neutral and required discussion - you added this low quality link to support your change - ask for consensus on this talk page prior to reinserting such a claim Govindaharihari (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be repeating yourself. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yawn - Momentum is not Far left - stop wasting your time - its a left wing group - move on - there is no chance of inserting far left here Govindaharihari (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find your argumentation crude and unpersuasive. You assert that Momentum is not far-left. I have a source that says it is. You now need to explain why the source is "biased", "limited" and "not neutral". Can you manage that? Miles Creagh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"crude and unpersuasive" - lol, getting personal matie - Vast majority of wp:rs sources describe Momentum as Left wing Govindaharihari (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I refer to the quality of your arguments, which I find crude and unpersuasive, not to your person. And that's not the argument you were making above about the quality of the source I added for far-left. You opined that the source was "biased", but you seem incapable of explaining how. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Miles, Daily Express is a right-wing populist source aligned to UKIP. It's poor quality here because it's out of line with the vast majority of wp:rs sources and it is well-referenced that it is that way by design - i.e. that this source sets out to portray the political landscape through its own lens. Nothing wrong with doing that per se, but it makes it a (very) poor quality source in this case. Pjaymes (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Vast majority of wp:rs sources describe Momentum as Left wing Govindaharihari (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that the first time. Repetition doesn't improve the quality of your arguments, I fear. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Vast majority of wp:rs sources describe Momentum as Left wing - overcome it then Govindaharihari (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Govindaharihari - you removed "left-wing" from the lead - as you say, reliable sources describe it as left-wing. Here a couple more from The Guardian and TUSC Chairman quoted by the BBC describing it as left-wing. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Associated companies?

I see the Daily Mirror have named three limited companies they claim to be associated with Momentum:

• Jeremy For Labour Limited
• Momentum Campaign (Services) Limited
• New Hope For Labour (Data Holdings) Limited

Has anyone examined the links, if any, between these companies and the organisation? -- Markshale (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Jackie Walker

Could we have her exact words as they are not long and are being very misleadingly paraphrased in the UK media?

> Her comments about Holocaust Memorial Day led to

prefer something more specific and less likely to look biased like:

Her comment, ‘In terms of Holocaust day, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Holocaust day was open to all people who experienced holocaust?’, asked in reference to pre-second world war holocausts not being included, led to

If you look at the official website as she did you can see her point:

http://hmd.org.uk/

131.111.184.102 (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well she was wrong in what she said, so the nature of Holocaust Memorial Day would need explaining too, as well as her obvious failure to even consult the website. This section could easily dominate a relatively short article, and should not become a means of attacking Walker. It should be kept as short as possible at the moment as the issue may seem entirely ephemeral (see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E) in a few years time. Philip Cross (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Pre-20th Century holocausts such as the eradication of Tasmanian Aborigines, the near or complete destruction of various native north, south, central and Caribbean American peoples, the horror of the Belgian Congo and, the ones that Jackie Walker probably had in mind, the trans-Atlantic African slave trades aren't marked.
• Holocausts from the first half-of the 20th Century such as the Armenian Genocide, the the Greek genocide (which featured an event approaching a literal holocaust ... and featuring Greek-speakers to boot) and the Holodomor are not marked. Perhaps some would also consider the Bengal famine of 1943 as a holocaust.
• Not even all post-WWII holocausts are included (for instance, the 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom in Nigeria [also see this]).
• Reading this 'Telegraph' article, where non-Jewish Holocaust victims (using the widest sense of the word Holocaust) are consigned to a final-sentence afterthought, a reader could be excused for thinking that Holocaust Memorial Day was dedicated to remembering only Jewish victims of the Holocaust (note: I have no particular problem with the idea of a day devoted to Jewish victims only; if I have a problem, it's with the messy, inconsistent compromise which has been produced ... and, in that regard, I think it's instructive to read the remarks made by civil-servant Neil Frater, which are reported here).

    ←   ZScarpia   16:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as sourcing Jackie Walker's own words and thoughts are concerned, the Jews for Justice for Palestinians ([1]) and Free Speech on Israel ([2],[3]) sites are good (one point of interest in the articles published is the contradiction of the claims made by commentators such as Nick Cohen that Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam were the source for Walker's comments about Jewish financiers and (the Brazilian branch of) the African slave trade). See also The Electronic Intifada.     ←   ZScarpia   16:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The only relevant issue here is the connections between Walker, Momentum and the Labour Party, and a brief resume of why this has become an issue. This is not the place for anything else. Make a case over on the talk page of the Holocaust Memorial Day (UK) article if you wish. Philip Cross (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

An interview with Jackie Walker and footage of the meeting at which her remarks were made are featured in the second and third parts of Aljazeera's four-part series on the Israel lobby in the UK. An Aljazeera article written by Jackie Walker in which she discusses the controversy is here.     ←   ZScarpia   18:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Membership figures

These are lacking verification, especially independent verification. A press release from Momentum which does not appear on Momentum's own website does not look reliable. When such press releases are reported on by the press without proper source attribiution, and in the cotext of showing higher figures than rival political groups then this is dubious and has been tagged in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.23.158 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves for the policy under which this might or might not be allowed... AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Guide to deselect your MP

Two attempts have been made to list references to articles about a deselection guide which is basically nothing to do with momentum. A better case needs to be made for the inclusion of this material. The Times article on the subject is very careful never to even mention momentum, for us to jump in with the Huffington Post on this one would be a step too far. ℕ ℱ

Geographic distribution of members

This source has come out today from the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/26/momentum-heads-glasgow-first-scottish-training-event); Indicating that Momentum now has 42,000 members, also that the membership breaks down to 38,700 in England, 1,300 in Scotland and 2,000 in Wales. Is there a place in the article for the geographic distribution of the membership? Jonjonjohny (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

Plenty of criticism of Momentum yet this article reads like a Press Release. All compliant with RS. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-conference-momentum-world-transformed-critics-will-not-like-it-a7331036.html https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/02/labour-faces-subversion-momentum-far-left-roy-hattersley-watford-byelection https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12054911/Momentum-founder-admits-being-disturbed-by-members-behaviour-and-warns-against-personal-attacks.html https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/05/armchair-activists-or-mass-mobilisers-how-momentum-shaping-labour-s— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.229.97 (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Please added your signature to each post you add to talk pages by adding four tildes (~) at the end. I added yours here for now for future editors. It definitely needs some broadening. Jonjonjohny (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The article should certainly contain criticism to remain objective, but this one is particularly mad and unsourced: "Some negatively suggest it is a resurgence of the Militant tendency within the Labour party" Who says this, and on what evidence? Just for starters, Militant hasn't existed since 1991. Mockingfaces (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I tried to summarise the org in the lede in a balance way as I am the primary writer of this article. It would appreciated if other looked at the content and made fair adjustments. Jonjonjohny (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I suspect putting words like effective and successful in the lead is part of the problem. The lead particularly should sound neutral and set out aims and activities, organisation, history and scale. Look at other leads and avoid adjectives. If you must include praise, include references. Jontel (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Breaking of electoral law

Per WP:LEAD The lede reflects the body, so why remove the information? Random Redshirt (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Can this articles owners try discussing why they are deleting reliably sourced information please. Random Redshirt (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody can "own" an article. Furthermore, the notion that a moderate left-wing group within the social democratic Labour Party that favors progressivism and democratic socialism can somehow be far-left is purely laughable, where does that put the Communist Party of Britain or the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), both of whom are much more radical and are normally described as far-left? Neither of these two are similar to Momentum and are much more radical, unlike Momentum which no political expert would describe as radical! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I gave a reliable source which states they are hard left. And there are plenty of reliable sources which state the same. And why have you removed the content about breachs of electoral law? Random Redshirt (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Somebody added something else about those breaches to the article a bit earlier than you, so it isn't needed as it would be repetitive. Furthermore, most british media have been exposed countless times to be highly biased in a negative way towards Momentum and Jeremy Corbyn and tend to use terms like hard-left without even being able to define the term. Also, far-left and hard-left are two different concepts. Far-left is a legitimate position whereas hard left is a term mostly used to refer to movements outside of mainstream politics in a negative way! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wp:lede and wp:biased says you are wrong. Random Redshirt (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Tiberius is right in the fact that hard-left and far-left are not the same. You act as if these are synonyms, when they are not. That is where the WP:SYNTH rule I mentioned comes into effect. The source you provided clearly did not explicitly state the group as far-left. To quote the synth rule - '... Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. ...'.

In regards to the issue of the lead, yes it should summarise the main body of the article. However I don't think this is needed for an understanding or a summarising of what the group is, but if others have a view on this I'm open to hearing why it may be warranted for inclusion in the introduction. Helper201 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the article, not of the group's aims. And as this is the highest fine issued to a non-party campaign then it is ledeworthy. Random Redshirt (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism (hatred of Jews)

Currently, the mentions of controversies related to this are scattered over 3 or 4 separate sections. Maybe they should be gathered together in one section, which should also include the Momentum statement acknowledging Labour party antisemitism as a real problem[4]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been re-structuring the article quite considerably, I am working on making an antisemitism section Jonjonjohny (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Added to this article recently is the resignation of Joshua Garfield, a Jewish youth officer for a London Momentum branch, who stepped down from his position in April 2018 because of things other members in his branch said about antisemitism in Labour at one of the peaks of the Jewish establishment's attacks on Labour and Corbyn. He was happy to be involved with Momentum at a national level. I do not feel that a branch officer, one of over 1000 such roles in Momentum, stepping down from his role due to issues in his branch is sufficiently momentous for the article. It is covered in the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News, but they have a low bar for such stories. Does anyone else have a view? Jontel (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

Utterly extraordinary that there’s not a proper criticism section in the article. No doubt the fact that Momentum spend a great deal of their time on the internet has some bearing on this - one imagines them gatekeeping the article on a hourly basis.
...Nothing about the bullying tactics they use, and of course - hitherto - nothing about how they and Corbyn were so lame-sauce, nasty and stale in their Marxist, beardy hard-left fantasies that they simply sold the UK down the river in December 2019 due to their ineffectiveness in opposition. Hopefully at least the article (which currently reads like Momentum PR) will eventually be more objective and truthful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C482:7500:4826:E2AE:956E:E5D (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Point taken, although any such criticism needs to be properly sourced, of course. --TrottieTrue (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)