Talk:Jewish Voice for Peace

Neutral point of view

Articles are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view. That doesn't mean that this article shouldn't mention legitimate criticism of JVP -- it absolutely should. But I don't think that the text I removed did that.

• "JVP shunned by Jews" is a statement that cannot be supported by facts. All Jews? No, because it has plenty of Jewish members. Some Jews? Maybe. Get a reference, and write a sentence that your reference can support.
• The paragraph that was allegedly supported by the JTA article was a misrepresentation of what the JTA article says.
• The sentence about "Israel at the Ballpark" was from an article about dozens of pro-Israel groups -- including Meretz USA! -- who aren't considered kosher enough for the right-wing groups that control the leadership of American Jewish organizations. Including it under the heading "JVP shunned by Jews" is dishonest.

I hope you get my point. I support JVP, and I make no apologies for it, but discussing criticism of the group belongs in the article. Just keep a neutral point of view. Malik Shabazz 02:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As written by Shabazz, the article is simply a PR peace portraying JVP as the organization wishes others to see them.

JVP is regarded as outside the pale by the mainstream American Jewish Community - the Federation, which is a big-tent organization - has taken the extremely unusual step of disinviting this group because it does not support the Jewish State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence-based (talk • contribs) 09:02, February 4, 2007

First, I didn't write this article, as a glance at its history would show. Second, I again recommend that you read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. In the meantime, I've asked an impartial third-party to review your additions to this article. Malik Shabazz 18:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey JVP,

As a man born of Middle Eastern parents, I'd like to say I support your cause and your wish for a final and everlasting peace between Israel and Palestine. I hope this can be achieved soon. Tonezz 03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This entire article about JVP is negative in tone and substance and serves to de-legitimize the group because of the heightened emotions (and loudness) surrounding this issue. That is unfair and the entire piece should be reviewed afresh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drp90210 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The entire article is biased. Posting the views of critics against JVP in the introduction is pretty telling. In the 'reception' only views of zionists are presented. This page should be edited or at least marked as being biased. Besserwisser32 (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The article overwhelmingly focuses on criticisms of JVP without giving equal weight to its supporters. For example, the Reception section is almost entirely negative, and even cherry-picks criticisms from sources that are themselves more even-handed in their discussion of JVP. The article needs to be significantly revised to reflect the supporters and detractors of the organization. -Ishtirak (talk)

Third opinion

While the added section is indeed very POV, the major problem with this article is that it does not assert the notability of this organization. Without non-trivial reliable source coverage of the organization itself, this article is likely to be nominated for deletion. However, in the meantime, the POV problems certainly should be corrected-criticism of the organization should be sourced, most of it now is just weaseling. Seraphimblade 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Provide citations for these allegations

I've deleted these allegations from the article, pending reasonable citations:

• Many Jews feel that JVP crossed a bright line and became an anti-Israel organization when it issued a call for selective divestment from Israel. www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_628.shtml And when it opposed the war in Lebanon, “Demand that Israel stop its invasions of Gaza and Lebanon,” http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/jvfp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4443, http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/jvfp/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=323 -- (a) The references do not indicate the existence of a bright line. (b) The references do not indicate that any Jews feel that JVP is anti-Israel.
• The group is not treated as part of the mainstream Jewish community.

On Jan. 28, 2007, more than 50 Jewish organizations convened a conference of Jewish progressives active in a range of progressive political causes, especially in the peace movement, for the purpose of discussing the rise in anti-Semitism. Jewish voice for Peace was "not invited to co-sponsor the conference. " http://jta.org/page_print_story.asp?intarticleid=17507&intcategoryid=4 -- (a) The reference does not indicate that JVP is not treated as part of the mainstream Jewish community. (b) The reference does not describe a "a conference of Jewish progressives."

• Jewish criticism of Jewish Voice for Peace is caused by the tendency of members of the group to advocate for and empathize exclusively with Arab and anti-Israel concerns and perspectives. As JVP member Hilda Bernstein Silverman has written,

"I am empathizing more and more with “the other side.”...

"I attend the magnificent Workmen’s Circle commemoration of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. People are singing their hearts out, but the words are, under the circumstances, quite jarring. There are songs of pride about Jewish honor being upheld by fighters armed only with stones and rifles against the Nazi tanks. I start to cry. I cry through the entire second act. One of my friends in the chorus later confesses only half facetiously that she got through the experience by pretending she is a Palestinian.

"Days later I read of Palestinian pride that in the ferocious battle of the Jenin refugee camp a 13 year old boy threw stones at Israeli soldiers after he had run out of ammunition. Stories of such heroism are circulating widely among this devastated but still-proud people..."

http://vopj.org/conflict3.htm -- (a) The reference does not identify Silverman as a JVP member. (b) Even if it did, there is no indication that she speaks on behalf of the group. (c) The reference does not indicate the existence of Jewish criticism of JVP, let alone its putative cause.

• And it is criticized because it retails unverified, defamatory accusations that tend to demonize the Israe Defense Force, “"The Israeli army is demolishing Palestinian houses with people still inside them, and using older people as human shields in front of their tanks," said Rosenwasser, who lives in Oakland. "Bodies are being left to rot in the streets.” http://www.taparts.org/ActionsDetail.cfm?ActionID=19 -- (a) The reference does not indicate the existence of Jewish criticism of JVP, let alone its putative cause. (b) The use of words such as "defamatory" and "demonize" violate NPOV.
• http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/009138.shtml -- (a) Posts on blogs are not "reliable sources" per Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I left a few criticisms that were sourced. I encourage you to (a) find better sources if you want to put the preceding allegations back in the article and (b) edit the portion of the article you added to improve its readability. Malik Shabazz 21:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish anti-occupation groups

I see that [[Category:Jewish anti-occupation groups]] was removed from the article. I also noticed that the category seems to have disappeared. Can somebody fill me in on what happened? Thanks!—Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jayjg removed this article from the category, and then deleted the category. Given the reason provided, it would seem Jayjg has no objection to someone else recreating the category (though it might be worth checking around to see if there's already a similar category). —Ashley Y 08:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have recreated it. —Ashley Y 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll restore it to some of the groups that had it previously.—Malik Shabazz | Talk 06:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

If I understand correctly from the article, criticism of JVP consists of:

• "airing dirty laundry", a phrase that suggests that much of what they have to say might actually be true;
• guilt by association, since they once attended something that was attended by some other group that may or may not be anti-Semitic;
• allegations about one particular member (Plitnick) that can't be confirmed.

Is that correct? —Ashley Y 09:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The activities in question are either a betrayal of the Jewish people, or upholding Jewish principles of peace and justice, depending on whether you take the perspective of the critics or the JVP, respectively.

Some people regard a denounciation by FrontPageMag.com as an honor, like being on Nixon's enemies list. In regard to your specific questions:

• "airing dirty laundry"—this is a Jewish term of art which describes any public discussion of anything that the speaker believes reflects negatively on Jews or Israel. (If true, it damages Israel's image even more.)

• "guilt by association"—More precisely, the logic of this argument is that (a) all Palestinians and their supporters, including the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, are anti-Semitic and want nothing less than the destruction of Israel, and all of their conciliatory offers and actions are lies and deceptions, and (b) anyone who concedes any of their facts or arguments (regardless of its truth) or associates with them is a supporter of the Palestinians and of the destruction of Israel.

Another criticism of JVP is that they are condemned by "the mainstream Jewish community". This is another Jewish term of art. It refers to whomever the speaker believes represents the Jewish community, usually the minority of Jews affiliated with formal synagogue organizations, Jewish fundraising organizations, wealthy Jewish contributors, and Jewish lobbying organizations. It does not mean "the Jewish establishment", which would also include influential leaders of Jewish Americans, like Tony Kushner, George Soros, and Noam Chomsky. In polls, majorities of American Jews disagree with policies asserted by "the mainstream Jewish community". Nbauman 21:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Another criticism:

• The ADL didn't invite them to a conference.

I'm sure that's damning if any of them are... —Ashley Y 05:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you've correctly identified most of the criticism.

I would like to beef up the section with JVP's activities/accomplishments. Their website has a section about JVP in the news, but it's mostly a collection of op-ed columns. It's very light on articles about things that JVP has done.

So, please contribute to the section on activities, or add a section with acclaim to balance the section with criticism.—Malik Shabazz | Talk 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just added short quote form Liat Weingart detailing JVP activities.

Nonsense. Mainstream is no more difficult to define than other political terms. For example, when an official of the Chicago Board of Rabbis takes a position, that position is mainstream because the Chicago board of Rabbis includes independent, reconstructionist reform, conservative and orthodox rabbis - everyone except the far right wing.

Furthermore, to classify Noam Chomsky as a major Jewish leader is absurd. He is a leading American intellectual, certainly. But Jewish? Only in re sense of having been born of Jewihs parents. He has abstained from any participation in any aspect of Jewishlife or culture for his entire adult life. To classify such a man as Jewish is an act of pure racial essentialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.34 (talk) 15:34, March 4, 2007

I agree that Chomsky isn't a "Jewish leader" in any meaningful sense of the phrase (unless one means "a leader who is Jewish"). I would even argue that he's not a leader at all. But he is a Jew. Like it or not, "having been born of [Jewish] parents" is what makes one a Jew. He takes positions contrary to those of most other Jews, but that doesn't make him—or any Jew with similar views—any less Jewish.

On a related note, I think this section of the article is rapidly becoming a quotefarm. I don't think it's appropriate to include every negative thing said about JVP by every Jew in America. If editors want to add more criticism in the future, I think they should consider deleting existing items to make room for the new items. There are only so many ways to make the same point: JVP and its viewpoints are not welcomed by many Jewish groups.—Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Ira Youdovin / "JVP is beyond the pale"

I deleted the following paragraph, which was inserted by Evidence-based:

According to Rabbi Ira Youdovin, executive vice president of the Chicago Board of Rabbis, writing in the left of center newspaper the Forward, "Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports divestment and is currently circulating a petition urging Congress to heed Carter’s words, is certainly beyond the pale." http://www.forward.com/articles/the-progressive-jewish-question/

Before I removed it, I read the Forward article to see what this quote means, because I wanted to fix this paragraph rather than delete it. Unfortunately, the article is just as unclear. Unless there's some context, a vague phrase like "certainly beyond the pale" doesn't mean anything.

I moved the paragraph here so it can be easily copied and pasted back if Evidence-based or any other editor can make more sense out of this, but I read Rabbi Youdovin's column twice, and I still don't understand his specific criticism of JVP, except that he doesn't like that they support divestment and are circulating a petition urging Congress to heed Carter’s words.—Malik Shabazz | Talk 05:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what Youdovin means. Many Jews, even in the Jewish peace movement, draw the line at advocating divestment. They believe that divestment is "beyond the pale", or in this context, beyond the permissible boundaries of debate. There's a radio program on WBAI called "Beyond the Pale: the progresive Jewish radio hour," whose title plays on that phrase, in a double-entendre. ("Beyond the pale" literally refers to the pale, a region of I think Russia in which Jews were required to live, so a Jew who left the ghetto and becomes secular, and often socialist, would also be going "beyond the pale" into the secular world.)

I don't agree with Youdovin, but I think his statement clarifies the position of those who believe as he does—he's trying to suppress the idea of divestment. I would put it back in. Nbauman 06:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually The Pale refers to the English in Ireland in the 15th century. —Ashley Y 07:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the expression "beyond the pale." My concern is what it means in this article. If Youdovin had said "By calling for divestment and supporting Carter, JVP has isolated itself from the Jewish mainstream," that would be one thing. He didn't. He phrased his comment in such a way that the reader either (a) is forced to read the remark in context to understand it or (b) has to be familiar with the internecine debate among American Jews concerning the best way to support Israel. I'm not sure how to keep the rabbi's criticism without putting words in his mouth.—Malik Shabazz | Talk 07:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Shabaaz,

Rabbi Youdovin's article is admittedly far from being a model of clear prose. However, two paragraphs up he makes clear that he is discussing "the line separating claumny from legitimate dissent."

This is a statement that gives the clear opinion of the mainstream Jewish community re: JVP.

I have replaced the paragraph with this:

In an article in the left of center newspaper the ForwardRabbi Ira Youdovin, executive vice president of the mainstream, multi-denominational Chicago Board of Rabbis, discusses "the line seperating calumny from legitimate dissent." While admitting that "the line is unclear and ever shifting," he does not consider that Jewish voice for Peace is not a debatable case. "Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports divestment and is currently circulating a petition urging Congress to heed Carter’s words, is certainly beyond the pale." http://www.forward.com/articles/the-progressive-jewish-question/

The Forward self-defines as left of center (it was the voice of the Jewish socialist party forward meant forward toward a Marxist future). It was anti-Zionist for a long time, and can still be described as non-Zionist Jewish paper that is very critical of Israeli policy.

The Chicago Board of Rabbis is a serious, mainstream organization. A specific statement from such an organization on the standing of JVP in the Jewish community is significant and worthy of inclusion in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.34 (talk) 15:44, March 4, 2007

I'm sorry that I missed the earlier sentence in which Youdovin described "the line." Thanks for pointing it out. With that in the paragraph, his statement about "beyond the pale" makes perfect sense. Without it, one of the editors would have to put words into his mouth about what specific "pale" he was referring to.—Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

United for Peace and justice

I have removed this paragraph:

Jewish Voice for Peace, which opposes the American war in Iraq, is one of a small number of organizations that have confronted United for Peace and Justice, the organizer of large anti-war rallies, on the issue of the anti-Israel bias of its speakers.

Problem is, the referenced article form the Forward does not say anything about 'confronting" United for Peace and Justice. It says: "Before the march, Silverman, of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, helped organize an informal breakfast of bagels and coffee in a Washington park that she estimated was attended by 150 Jewish protesters. Some attendees—including members of Jewish Voice for Peace and the Labor Zionist youth group Habonim Dror—left together to join up with the Buddhist marchers."

I don't know whether JVP has "confronted" U for P&J or not. The thing is, all the article says is that the JVP gorup marched in the UPJ march in a marching Group with Buddhists.

And this http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3454 page lists JVP cosponsoring a Jan 27, 2007 march with UPJ.

It may be that JVP has indeed "confronted United for Peace and Justice, the organizer of large anti-war rallies, on the issue of the anti-Israel bias of its speakers." Only, it shouldn't be in the Wiki article unless there is a source to document it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.34 (talk) 20:07, March 4, 2007

You're right.—Malik Shabazz | Talk 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Position of Jewish Voice for Peace within the Jewish Community

I decided to separate this from Criticism in the interest of clarity.

I think that it is logical to separate criticism of the organization and its activites, form discussion within the Jewish community of whether or not JVP is a legitimately Jewish organization.

So far, this section only has commentary from those who believe that JVP is "outside the pale" of the Jewish community.

It would be useful for someone to find and post a defense of the "Jewishness' of the organization form a Jewish newspaper, or Jewish organization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.35.34 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

This is an article about Jewish Voice for Peace. It is not an article about self-appointed Jewish snipers and their criticism of JVP. There is no need for anybody to establish the Jewishness of JVP.—Malik Shabazz | Talk 03:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed New first Paragraph

In order to provide a better contextualized description of this organization, I propose the following introductory paragraph which addresses the issues of the organization's goals, character, and relationship to the conflict and to the American Jewish community:

JVP is an organization of US Jews that advocates for a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict based on human rights and international law. JVP works to change US Policy on the conflict, particularly to suspend US military aid to Israel until the end of Israel’s occupation of the territories it conquered in 1967. JVP does not propose any particular solution to the conflict, but supports any just solution agreed upon by the parties. JVP’s stance on Israeli policies has earned it criticism from many Jewish organizations and leaders, but it represents the thinking of a substantial portion of American Jews and is part of a tradition of Jewish dissent about Israel. alex tolstoy 20:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

alex tolstoy, thanks for discussing it in talk first before you change it.

My problem with that language is that it's less specific than the current language. Everybody claims that they "advocates for a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict based on human rights and international law." If I read an entry, I want to find out in the lead the difference between JVP and all the other Jewish peace organizations.

The part about suspending military aid certainly belongs in the article -- there aren't too many Jewish peace organizations that take that position. I think it belongs in the body of the entry, and in the introduction as well.

However, it's hard to include context in view of Wikipedia's strong WP:NPOV policy. In practice, you have to find somebody to quote. Nbauman (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision

SelfEvidentTruths, while the cleanup and organization was useful, I don't know about the introduction. It's too generic. The old introduction was more specific.

It says

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is one of the largest Jewish peace organizations in the U.S. dedicated to promoting a US foreign policy in the Middle East based on democracy, human rights, and respect for international law.

Wouldn't every Jewish organization claim to be doing that?

With chapters across the U.S., JVP engages in grassroots advocacy and educational efforts, publishes policy papers and press releases, and hosts public speaking events.

Doesn't that describe every national Jewish organization?

The old intro says:

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is an American Jewish advocacy organization that opposes some of the current Israeli government's policies, such as the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier and military excursions into Gaza and the West Bank, and supports Israeli refuseniks. Unlike many other organizations concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jewish Voice for Peace "endorses neither a one-state solution, nor a two-state solution."

Don't you think that describes them better, and distinguishes them from all the other Jewish organizations? Nbauman (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If all Jewish organizations make these claims, why should JVP have to be the one to distinguish itself? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

JVP doesn't have to do anything. We are distinguishing JVP from the other organizations. It's giving our readers better information to tell them exactly what the JVP stands for. A generic statement like the one we have doesn't tell them anything. It is to JVP's credit that they take specific stands. Nbauman (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all in the article. I can't imgagine that with sections such as

• 2.1 Distinguishing criticism of Israel from antisemitism
• 2.2 Support for Israeli refuseniks
• 2.3 Selected divestment
• 2.4 Opposition to AIPAC
• 2.5 Muzzlewatch
• 2.6 Opposition to Israeli settlements in West Bank

that anyone is going to confuse JVP with the ZOA. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the issues is whether that should be in the summary. In WP, the introduction should summarize the article. If the summary of the JVP article could serve equally well as the summary of the ZOA article, is that a good summary? Nbauman (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand, and I'm not trying to be contentious. My sense is that, eg, "one of the largest American Jewish peace organizations dedicated to promoting an American foreign policy in the Middle East based on democracy, human rights, and respect for international law" pretty much narrows the field, and is fairly specific, and the details (2.1, 2.2...) follow right after. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First, wouldn't the ZOA claim that they, too are "dedicated to promoting an American foreign policy in the Middle East based on democracy, human rights, and respect for international law"? Wouldn't the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations? Wouldn't AIPAC? Is there anyJewish organization that claims to be opposed to democracy? Or human rights? Or international law?

Second, what's the WP:RS to support the statement that they are "one of the largest" such organizations? I don't think they're very large, I don't think the size matters, and I think "one of the largest" is so vague as to violate WP:WEASEL. Nbauman (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember, we're talking about the category of "Jewish Peace Organizations," a group doesnt have to be very large to be one of the largest within this subset. The other groups you've named are much larger but are not "Jewish peace groups;" they are communal organizations, Zionist advocacy organizations, lobbying organizations, etc. I agree a source or two on their relative size would be good; perhaps the editor who made the changes could supply one? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nbauman here. Every Jewish organization in the U.S. concerned with Israel probably would describe itself as "dedicated to promoting a US foreign policy in the Middle East based on democracy, human rights, and respect for international law"; the devil is in the details.

What differentiates JVP from AIPAC, ZOA, and most other American Jewish organizations is that it opposes Israeli government policies concerning the Palestinians. Based on my experience, it is also somewhat unique in its openness toward the possibility of a binational state.—Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give Boodlesthecat a chance to give a good reply to this, and if he doesn't, I'm going to revert it to the original introduction. Nbauman (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article.

I just wanted to congratulate the editors for producing a good neutral article on a potentially difficult topic. This is a page to be proud of. --Duncan (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

FP as a source

There is little to indicate that FP is not a WP:RS, perhaps editors should take this to the appropriate noticeboard rather than edit war about it on the article. CENSEI (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing except Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Is FrontPageMag.com a reliable source? and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4#FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily. Face it, Front Page Magazine isn't a reliable source.—Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There are additional sources now. Enjoy! CENSEI (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but none of those are reliable sources.—Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Take it up at RS noticeboard if you don't agree, CENSEI.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell me (and Bali, its always good to see you in any pile on) is commentary magazine a reliable source?

On this topic? Not generally... It's a magazine of "opinion" with a rather strong point of view and limited editorial control. But what you got? I'm bored. Let's review it here if you'd like.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is not prohibition on opinion magazines, especially ones as noteworthy as Commentary, on any subject other than BLP's. CENSEI (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that opinion journals are reliable sources? Have you even read WP:RS?

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

Instead of edit-warring, why don't you take a little while to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.—Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And thats exactly what was done ... wasnt it? CENSEI (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now you're trying to use blog posts as reliable sources. Damn, you're thick.—Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Blog posts from TPM, Think Progress, The Atlantic and The New Republic are used regularly, even on BLP's. Care to explain the difference? CENSEI (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking about other articles, I'm talking about this one. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Beside, blog posts are almost never reliable sources. If you actually read WP:V and WP:RS you would know that.—Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read it, and so too have a number of other people, and we all seem to agree that blogs like Contentions, NY Times blogs, TPM, The Atlantic (etcetera) meet all criterial for a reliable source. CENSEI (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I had never heard of FrontPage until now. Went to their website. It's laughable how anybody can conceive this is a reliable source. Grsz¹¹ 03:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And Commentary Magazine? CENSEI (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

CENSEI is a game player plain and simple. Unfortunately, when the heat comes on he's "smart" enough to back off for a few days and avoids sanction. He sees wikipedia as a battlefield and he spends all his time trying to get other editors into working their way(s) into a block. He's generally to be ignored or dealt with head on. Neither is that productive.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No games here but administrative sanctions appear to be the only tool that I can use to calm down editors like Malik, who can revert at will knowing that he has the support of other editors who also share his dislike of me. CENSEI (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to AIPAC

This sentence violates WP:NPOV. "wean U.S. policy away from AIPAC’s grip towards an even-handed position"? Edited. Also, and I am open to suggestions on this, is it customary to link to promotional YouTube videos? I removed the link pending comments from other editors. Drmikeh49 (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

nice edit. Soosim (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

BDS

Added quote by JVP executive director that JVP feels it is a part of global BDS movement, even though they seem to actively endorse only certian BDS activities. Important to clarify as far as underlying goals of both groups (JVP and BDS movement).

Drmikeh49 (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

jvp opinion and stance on free gaza movement

malik - why would you revert something that is not controversial? please explain. and please explain why you chose to revert and use the edit summary instead of the talk page, which is ocmmon courtesy here at wikipedia. thanks. Soosim (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph has virtually nothing to do with the Free Gaza Movement. It's a coatrack attack on Greta Berlin. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Nation article

The following italicized segments were portions I removed due to specific problems they had:

1.

MuzzleWatch said, for example, that Hasbara Fellowships, a program started in “conjunction with Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” was recruiting paid employees and unpaid volunteers to edit Wikipedia articles to "make sure Israel is presented fairly and accurately."

I removed this for a few reasons. Yes, the first is that the link is dead, which does not in and of itself require it to be deleted. I am not really sure what this sentence does for the article. It is not an example MuzzleWatch's actions, object, or purpose (as the section would first suggest)--rather, it appears to be reporting of some unverifiable event in a newsletter, without giving MuzzleWatch's own comments about it. That a group is trying to "make sure Israel is presented fairly and accurately" (emphasis added) is not an example of what the section infers it might be: that JVP's criticism has been unfairly silenced. Given that the link is dead, that it is not an example, and it is reporting unverified and irrelevant information about another group that has nothing to with JVP, it is best left out. See WP:WPNOTRS#Quotations, which also relates to the following.

2.

In 2004, Jewish Voice for Peace was denied permission to set up a booth at "Israel at the Ballpark," described by one writer as "the Bay Area's biggest Jewish community event of the year." The event's sponsors told the organization that it "didn't sufficiently support Israel."

This one is more problematic. It is hearsay in its most basic form. The source (an opinion piece in The Nation) is both (a) questionable and (b) potentially biased. In addition, while opinion pieces can be used to illustrate an author's opinion, they should not be used to illustrate facts. See WP:RSOPINION. Here is how the relevant part of the Nation article reads:

When Jewish Voice for Peace applied for a booth at the Bay Area's biggest Jewish community event of the year, Israel in the Ballpark, its application was rejected; the local Jewish Community Relations Council told JVP's program director, Liat Weingart, that JVP didn't sufficiently support Israel.

For starters, the use of quotation marks in our article is not appropriate. It is not an exact quote from the person. Second, that fact alone is a problem. It is hearsay, and completely unverifiable. See WP:NOTRS#Quotations. It is an alleged statement by someone at the Jewish Community Relations Council who supposedly told Liat Weingart, who then told this writer at the Nation. (In fact, the chain may even be longer.) And there is no record of what was actually said and who said it. Even if this were Weingart's claim--it would be just that: Weingart's claim. But it's not. It's Kaplan's. This is a tertiary source at best, and should not be used. See WP:WPNOTRS.

Thank you for your good-faith edits. Precision123 (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

about the ballpark: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/06/11/22012.php and http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/06/08/21902.php - maybe? Soosim (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I will let other editors chime in. I question the reliability of this source. I also wonder if one is needed to make this point. Wikipedia:NRVE#Events. What does it say? That they protested? It may be that the article does not really require it. Precision123 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

JVP is not a Jewish organization per se

I edited the description of JVP, deleting the statement that it is a Jewish organization. According to JVP's website Q: Do I have to be Jewish to join JVP? A: No. At JVP, we are inspired by Jewish values and traditions that call for peace and justice. At the same time, we welcome both Jews and allies who advocate for an end to the Israeli occupation and oppose anti-Jewish hatred, anti-Arab racism, and Islamophobia. Drmikeh49 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that edit got reverted awfully quick. Would the person who edited it care to comment? Anyone else have an opinion? If JVP says that one doesn't have to be Jewish to join, how is it a Jewish organization? Drmikeh49 (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It describes itself[1] and it is described by reliable sources (e.g. [2][3]) as a Jewish organization. Even ADL, an organization that regards it as "anti-Israel" and says that it "uses its Jewish identity to shield the anti-Israel movement from allegations of anti-Semitism and provide it with a greater degree of legitimacy and credibility" describes it as a Jewish organization.[4][5] Wikipedia describes Israel as a Jewish state because that is how it describes itself and that is how reliable sources describe it. If someone changed that description using the argument that a person does not have to be Jewish to be an Israeli citizen, there is a sizable minority of citizens that are not Jewish etc, it would be reverted because it is inconsistent with policy (see WP:V and original research). Let me ask you some questions. Do you have an undeclared conflict of interest with respect to this organization that could arise from, for example, being an activist in a group that actively opposes the organization or having come into conflict with the organization ? Is advancing outside interests more important to you than advancing the aims of Wikipedia and are your edits likely to be inconsistent with the constraints imposed by WP:NOTADVOCATE because of your personal views ? If so, I strongly urge you to work on other articles where your personal views won't be relevant. There are millions of articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll accept your reference to their self-description in other parts of their website as being valid. But I would make several points: 1. Wikipedia does NOT describe Israel as "a Jewish state". Read the article. It says (at this moment of course): "In its Basic Laws Israel defines itself as a Jewish and Democratic State; it is the world's only Jewish-majority state.[7]". If you agree that changing the description of Israel is appropriate, then of course go ahead and edit it. The better phrasing for JVP would be to state that "it defines itself as a Jewish organization that is also open to non-Jews". This reflects the fact, rather than an opinion. 2. And if my posts are inconsistent with WP:Source, etc. then go ahead and revert them with an explanation. I'm reposting the information on NGO Monitor because there is now a separate media source (besides Israel National News which is not considered RS)that can be used as a citation. If you believe my posts are advocacy rather than neutral, or opinion rather than fact, then discuss your concerns here. I attempt to post them in language congruent with WP:NPOV. If you believe I'm not successful at that, then please point out the wording that you have a problem with. And no, I don't fall under any of the specific categories of WP:COI. I apparently haven't edited as many articles on this general subject as you have, so I might suggest that you also only work on articles where your personal views won't be relevant, but I'll stick with WP:GoodFaith. Drmikeh49 (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

RS coverage

Some (though a minority) of the material here needs RS coverage, to the extent it lacks it and is simply in effect a regurgitation of the JVP's own website, and may not be notable as it lacks coverage from RSs. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a good, broad-ranging article in The Forward:

http://forward.com/articles/217528/embracing-israel-boycott-jewish-voice-for-peace-in/

Embracing Israel Boycott, Jewish Voice For Peace Insists on Its Jewish Identity

Group Now Has More Facebook Followers Than AIPAC and J Street

By Evan Serpick

March 28, 2015

(JVP's membership is growing, with young Jews who want to oppose Israel's policies rather than abandon their Jewish identity. JVP's board voted to support BDS, including a full boycott of Israel, after years of supporting a boycott limited to the territories. JVP supports a right of return for Arabs and their descendents who left in 1948, most of whom are stateless, and number 5.2 million. Even Meretz argues that full implementation of the UN resolution would leave Jews a minority in Israel and the end of Zionism. JVP president Rebecca Vilkomerson said that the issue must be confronted, and Israel can't deny the rights of Palestinians, although JVP doesn't explain how it could happen. As Israel turns right, with last year's war in Gaza, and Netanyanu's disavowal of the two-state solution and his warning about Arabs voting, JVP's membership grows, with young people who find the response of other Jewish groups, including J Street, inadequate. JVP has 65 chapters, 9,000 dues-paying members, with >$2 million yearly donations, and >204,000 Facebook followers, more than AIPAC or J Street. Despite their alienation from the Jewish community, members feel a need to protest as Jews. Critics condemn them as exploiting their Jewishness, but many members come from backgrounds of serious Jewish engagement. Prof. Steven M. Cohen, Hebrew Union College, says that “JVP doesn’t show concern for the security of the State of Israel and doesn’t care if there is a Jewish State of Israel or not.” Nevertheless, “We should not exclude JVP from conversations.” Abraham Foxman, national director of ADL, comments.) --Nbauman (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2015

In the introduction, the last paragraph contains a lot of implied criticisms of JVP, but there are no sources provided. Also, the groups/people that are mentioned (NGO Monitor, Anti-Defamation League, and Jon Haber) are not identified as pro-Israel/right-wing. This makes it read as if these are neutral sources when in fact they are not.This section: "Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Jon Haber described JVP as an organization that "exists largely to declare anyone accused of anti-Jewish bias 'not guilty' (with a Jewish accent)." In 2010, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) identified JVP as one of the top 10 anti-Israel groups in the United States. The NGO Monitor's chief programs officer said JVP supports or has partnered with groups which label Israel a racist apartheid state, support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and, in some cases, support violence against Israelis." should either be removed or should be changed to: "Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Jon Haber, an opponent of divesting from Israel, described JVP as an organization that "exists largely to declare anyone accused of anti-Jewish bias 'not guilty' (with a Jewish accent)." In 2010, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a pro-Israel organization, identified JVP as one of the top 10 anti-Israel groups in the United States. The right-wing NGO Monitor's chief programs officer said JVP supports or has partnered with groups which label Israel a racist apartheid state, support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and, in some cases, support violence against Israelis." In addition, sources should be provided for the statements by the groups. Sourcewatcher (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The article's lead (opening section) is a brief summary of the whole article, and its contents are fully sourced elsewhere. The criticism of JVP is sourced in the "Reception" section of the article. Rather than argue over how to describe the ADL, NGO Monitor, and Jon Haber, and potentially poison the water, the article provides links to their Wikipedia articles. I think you'll find this is standard practice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the lead is a summary of the article and the sources are in a later section, but in articles of other organizations (like the AIPAC article, which deals with similar issues from another side), the criticisms are sourced both in the Reception section and in the lead. Also, the criticisms of JVP included in the lead don't seem to be framed as criticisms and the Reception section seems to be severely lacking in examples of positive reception. If this is because the authors of the article couldn't find examples of positive reception, I would be happy to look for some and provide links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcewatcher (talk • contribs) 19:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If you can find reliably sourced articles about JVP that mention positive reception, please post links to them and I'll make sure they get added to the article. Please familiarize yourself with our guideline concerning WP:Identifying reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Since JVP is a relatively young organization, there are not very many news reports that mention anything about their reception, positive or negative, but here are a few examples of positive reception of the organization in reliable sources. Nadia Hijab on The Nation magazine's website says that JVP is "a key player in what is now a fast-growing US movement for Palestinian human rights and equality between Palestinians and Israelis" (http://www.thenation.com/article/202233/jewish-voice-peace-conference-what-solidarity-looks), in an opinion piece for Aljazeera America, Mark Levine calls JVP "a grass-roots organization that advocates for a lasting peace that recognizes the security and self-determination of both Israelis and Palestinians" (http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/10/jewish-american-openhillelstudentorganizationisraeloccupation.html), and Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies has praised JVP a number of times and in this interview with The Real News Network says "They're amazing. They do fantastic work." (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11114). Also, on a different note, I'm wondering if JVP's support for the Presbyterian Church's divestment from groups involved in the Occupation should be mentioned in the article since their group seems to be mentioned in most of the articles covering that story and it's one of their most publicized actions (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/us/presbyterians-debating-israeli-occupation-vote-to-divest-holdings.html?_r=0) Sourcewatcher (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sourcewatcher. I'll digest those sources over the next few days and make sure they're added to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, Sourcewatcher, twenty years is not "relatively young" for an advocacy organization, especially for one whose executive director is a frequent contributor to the Los Angeles Times AND places full-page adds in the Los Angeles Times. I'm not sure what search engine you're using, but if you Google, you'll find a lot of published criticism because JVP is considered a fringe group, even in the diverse Jewish world. KamelTebaast 16:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast, I think you're confusing "leftist group" for "fringe group." JVP is highly regarded by the vast majority of the Jewish Left and American Left. You don't have to agree with them, but many respected sources have praised the group and its work. That's why I suggested that we add the sources I linked to to the Reception section. Sourcewatcher (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC) editor nor allowed to edit here per WP:ARBPIA3

Thank you, Sourcewatcher, but I'm well aware of the distinction between Left and fringe. Several member organizations within the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations are liberal, but several member organizations have branded JVP as "fanatical" and "anti-Zionist", which is well outside of the mainstream and therefore would be considered fringe. KamelTebaast 21:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Kamel Tebaast, you're right that there are plenty of liberals and liberal Jews that are critical of JVP, but I never claimed otherwise. There's a difference between liberalism and the left. Anti-Zionism is generally a view held by the majority of the Jewish Left and American Left. But anyway, we can argue about what the definition of "fringe" is forever. My point is that there are respected and credible sources that have praised JVP. The fact that a lot of these supporters are leftists doesn't make them any less relevant to the Reception of JVP.Sourcewatcher (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC) editor nor allowed to edit here per WP:ARBPIA3

Sourcewatcher, as much as I appreciate your thoughts, I am most surprised that Malik Shabazz did not inform you (in case I missed it), that you are forbidden to edit on this page in discussions related to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. I am even more baffled that editor Shabazz would request from an editor without the required 30 days and 500 edits on Wikipedia (here and here), information for inclusion into this article that falls under WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. As a note, most of JVP topics fall under that umbrella. However, you are certainly encouraged to discuss these topics directly with editors on their Talk pages. KamelTebaast 23:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast, you invited Sourcewatcher to contribute here by reopening a year-old discussion and pinging them. ARBPIA3 wasn't in existence in April 2015 when Sourcewatcher and I finished our conversation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast, I don't even really know what your goal is here since Malik Shabazz added some of the things I suggested like a year ago.Sourcewatcher (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC) editor nor allowed to edit here per WP:ARBPIA3

No goal. Just giving information. KamelTebaast 23:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality in Article Lead

Currently the second paragraph of the article lead contains three uncited criticisms of JVP, which seem like opinions represented rather dubiously as fact. To have quotes from three clearly pro-Israel sources at the beginning of an article on a group critical of Israel doesn't seem to fairly describe the group. I think these should either be removed, or moved to a separate section. Perhaps a "criticisms" section could be created with a more fair and well-sourced presentation of criticisms. Brighamhb (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brighamhb. The quotes are all sourced in the article's Reception section. That section is intended as an NPOV alternative to a "criticism" section (see WP:Criticism) and should be expanded with positive reception. I've been delinquent in not adding the sources cited in the preceding section on this page and will remedy that soon. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What Malik said. Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I added some of the sources to the article. There's much more here that belongs in the article, in my opinion, and I think this should also be added. I also think we need to balance some of the negativity of the lead. But it'll have to wait for another editor or another day. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2016

In this section, there is a typo, "Veoila". The correct spelling is Veolia. 71.138.132.118 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Eteethan(talk) 19:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I've also redirected Veoila to Veolia. Eteethan(talk) 19:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Extremely biased article

Most people with no opinion on JVP would read this article and acquire a negative view of the organisation.

All right-wing hit-pieces have been cited to paint JVP in a negative manner. There is almost no positive quote or article cited.

The article lead includes only criticisms of JVP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.4.65 (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that alt-right persons and zionists have hijacked the page as everyone agree on that the page is biased, yet it hasn't even been marked as a biased page nor have balancing edits been allowed to remain. Besserwisser32 (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Synthesis

An editor may not perform his own analysis of Black Lives Matters' positions, in order to introduce text not at all related to JVP, that say it has "more than different position paper" and contrast that with a statement from a quoted reliable source that says JVP supports BLM which describes Israeli treatment of Palestinians as genocide. That is [[WP:SYNTH]. Epson Salts (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh really? Where does the reliable source say JVP supports Black Lives Matters or its positions? I hope you read other sources better than you read this one, which clearly says "The platform, published Monday by a coalition of more than 50 groups called the Movement for Black Lives". And that "JVP's statement, published Friday, 'endorses the Movement for Black Lives platform in its entirety, without reservation.'" — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes really: 'Jewish Voice for Peace backs movement that accuses Israel of committing ‘genocide’ against the Palestinians', that's the sub-headline". In contrast, can you point out where in your 2 sources there is any mention of JVP? failing that, can you explain how adding such sources is not a violation of [{WP:SYNTH]]? Epson Salts (talk)

An article's subheadline that doesn't mention Black Lives Matters? That's rich! In any event, headlines and subheadlines are not reliable sources, they're garbage. Take the question to WP:RS/N if you'd like. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

the article is clearly about JVP and its support of BLM. I don't know what game you think you are playing , but your arguments are far from convincing. Also, please read WP:ONUS,and explain how your addition of sources that don't mention JVP at are not a violation of WP:SYNTH Epson Salts (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. The whole paragraph is about nothing and probably shouldn't be in the article, per WP:ONUS. Just because it's been printed in the newspaper doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If I am right, please undo your edit, which not only violates WP:SYNTH and WP:ONUS, but the 1RR restriction on this article as well. Then , in discussion among editors who comply with policy, we can decide if this section belongs or not. Epson Salts (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you not learn how to count as a child? It takes two reversions in a 24-hour period to violate 1RR. I made only one reversion to this page in the last 24 hours, so how could I have violated 1RR? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

i learned both how to count and read- you apparently did not learn manners. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Kamel Tebaast added this line to the article - "JVP endorsed the platform of The Black Lives Matter movement, which, among other things, accuses Israel of "genocide."" Your first revert removes the words "among other things, accuses Israel of " and replaces them with your own formulation. That the first revert. Then you did this - [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Voice_for_Peace&type=revision&diff=733472022&oldid=733471945 - a complete revert of my edit. Epson Salts (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, Epson Salts has you on two points: 1) Your first revert was clearly WP:SYNTH, specifically, the "30 policy briefs" is irrelevant to the one policy platform that JVP endorsed. 2) You made two reverts in a 24 hour period. Please self-revert your latest edit and I won't report you. KamelTebaast 15:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If either of you two geniuses would like to try your novel interpretation of 1RR at WP:ANEW or WP:AE, please be my guest. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If you think making 2 edits spaced 24 hours + 2 minutes is not a violation of the 1RR restriction, I might just go test that out in one of those place. You need to stop edit warring. You don't own this article. Epson Salts (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If you think ifamericansknew.org is a reliable source, feel free to revert my edit. Otherwise, report me or kindly shut the fuck up. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that is a reliable source, but there is no exception to 1RR that allows for removing unreliable sources. You need to start editing in accordance with policy - you don't own this page. Epson Salts (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a note on the word 'genocide' here, which seems to be causing confusion.

Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."]

Generally, the preferred term for what is going on is either ethnocide or sociocide. Genocide is often used to denote the latter processes, partly due to a loose reading of the above definition, partly because it is, unlike those technical neologisms, a more familiar term.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Pitnick article is yet another example of WP:SYNTH - it doesn't mention JVP , even once. On top of that, it is a non-reliable blog, by a non-notable person. and on top of that, you are making very selective use of it ignoring the parts where he says he's " disappointed in some left wing Jewish groups who seem unwilling to even point out that the term “genocide” is problematic, or even defend the use of that word.", which is arguably the closest it comes to being relevant for this article.Epson Salts (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not as clear-cut as you assert. While RS standards require us to generally go to the mainstream press, those that deal with little reported groups, influential in their own communities, rarely get mainstream attention, and this kicks in the problem we identify at WP:Systemic bias. Re synthesis (a) Mitchell Plitnick had a senior role in JVP, which I see you don't deny. It is normal when introducing a view, to identify the person, esp. if he/she hasn't yet a wiki bio. (b) You say he is not notable, and I expect the premise is -whoever has yet to get a wiki bio is nobody, and does not merit citation.- Well, he is the current vice president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. and formerly Director of the US Office of B'Tselem, both important bodies. His curriculum shows he is widely published in mainstream newspapers. (c) JVP was attacked broadly by many Jewish organizations, and the lastter got good press coverage (the JCP seems to be covered only when other groups criticize it) while (d) Plitnick, a former director, came out and took up on his blog the issue of 'genocide' which lies at the heart of the larger official community's outrage: so he was responding there to this controversy. These and several other reasons suggest to me this may warrant inclusion. A stronger source covering the uproar, certainly, is Wilson Dizard 'Anti-occupation activists stand with Black Lives Matter as Jewish orgs attack movement over Israel criticisms,' Mondoweiss 5 August 2016. An important point overlooked is that JVP's take here is influenced by an awareness that black Jews are not duly represented, and the feeling that there is a danger of 'white' moralizing over this whole issue, in order to tamp down the real issue, as occurred in almost identical terms just recently also in the massive attack of Hank Johnson for his use of the word 'termite' for settlements.Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It is very much clear cut: The Pitnick article doesn't mention JVP , even once - as such, any interpretation that you make, such as "he was responding there to this controversy." is original research. It may be plausible, but it is still original research . Epson Salts (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Epson Salts here. The article is not notable enough for inclusion. If JVP has an official response to this criticism, it can perhaps be included. This statement by the group Jews of Color Caucus, a group associated with JVP, could be used. This Forward article mentions it. However, the website says that The opinions expressed in individual posts belong to their authors and do not reflect the views of the entire caucus or of Jewish Voice for Peace. So I am not sure, but I believe it is an official statement, since the post specifically says so. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. That is an uninvolved 3rd party opinion, and, barring further input, means Plitnick (not the quasi spooneristic 'Pitnick') is ruled out.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: Please comment in this section about this text. Since this text was objected to since it was included, there is no consensus to include it for now. See WP:ONUS. Instead, I have given a couple of other alternate sources which could be included. I'll do it myself now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph about BLM moved to "reception" section

As the Forward article mentions, JVP had no role in writing the Movement for Black Lives platform; they supported it afterwards. I have therefore, moved the BLM paragraph from "positions" to "reception", since most of it is about response of the various other Jewish organizations about the use of the "genocide" word. Feel free to edit/revert/discuss etc. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi there,

This article is wildly out of date, full of controversial allegations, and lacking in basic information about this organization and its more recent work. How can I make sure that it gets updated?

For example: The "Activities" section has no category of activities after 2009. The organization has nearly tripled in size since that time and has a wide range of expanded areas of activity, much of which can be found on its website and in recent media coverage.

The organization has undergone several policy changed in those years, including its endorsement of the full Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions call, but the page still lists it as supporting only selective divestment.

The only place in the article that has updated information (since 2009) about the organization is the "Reception" section, which is largely critical.

This page is disgracefully inaccurate and out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 2604:2000:710f:2c00:6cd4:93d8:2d02:fd12 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2016

If you can specify exactly what text should be cut and what should be added (verbatim), in a sort of "Change X to Y" format, it would be easier to process this request. Please make sure to back up your text by citing reliable sources. Thanks — Andy W. (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Jewish and democratic

MShabazz I think its waxman words "its refusal to endorse a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and ... as a Jewish and democratic state" please read page 86 3-4 line. -Shrike (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I missed that. I was looking at the next sentence, which says almost the exact same thing, but it's in quotation marks and attributed to "a top official of the Jewish Federations of North America". I'll self-revert. Again, I'm sorry. I guess I needed to read the source more carefully. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Rasmeah Odeh

I have removed this insertion by E.M.Gregory. Firstly, it is not a "position" of JVP, so it doesn't belong in the "Positions" section. If you want to add it, you can add it to the "Reception" section. If you do, have a tiny bit of respect for WP:NPOV. It is not permissible to say "JVP celebrated a Palestinian terrorist" in Wikipedia's voice. You can say that Odeh was a keynote speaker at JVP and that she was convicted of the 1969 bombings in Israel. But give the whole story, including Odeh's response that she was tortured for a confession and that she was released as part of a prisoner swap. The latter parts have been widely covered in most of the same stories where Odeh is discussed. You can think whatever you want about Odeh, but if you want to propagandize, get a blog. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Inviting a keynote speaker is an endorsement and a celebration of that speaker.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Firstly, you have just broken WP:ARBPIA restriction of reinstating an edit without consensus. Secondly, you are free to argue about whether it's the "position" of JVP to "celebrate Palestinian terrorists", but don't assume that everyone will agree with you. Not to mention that the phrasing violates WP:NPOV on so many levels. So, if I were you, I would revert and get consensus first. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

They gave a standing ovation to an unrepentant, convicted terrorist (read: murderer).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The section belongs in the Positions section albeit with some tweaking to better comply with NPOV.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does it belong in the "Positions" section? Having a keynote speaker isn't a position. If the US Congress gives a standing ovation to Netanyahu, this doesn't mean that it "celebrates" everything Netanyahu ever said or did. What "position" of Odeh is JVP supposed to "celebrate" anyway? If the stuff belongs in the article at all, it is in the Receptions section: some people criticized JVP for hosting Odeh as a speaker. Express the last thought in a NPOV fashion in the appropriate section and I probably won't object. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish Voice for Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515233914/http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/11150461.html to http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/11150461.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Smear campaign

This article, like many Wikipedia articles, seems to function mainly as a megaphone for political opponents of the JVP. For instance, who is Dov Waxman, and why is so much article space devoted to his attacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:617F:C240:0:DC7A:4ED7:AB0C (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As Haaretz put it: "Dov Waxman is an associate professor of political science at Baruch College and at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) and co-director of the Middle East Center for Peace, Culture and Development at Northeastern University. He is the co-author of "Israel’s Palestinians: The Conflict Within" (Cambridge University Press, 2011) and the author of "The Pursuit of Peace and the Crisis of Israeli Identity: Defending / Defining the Nation" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006)."

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/dov-waxman-u-s-jews-part-of-the-problem-1.5286104

American Jews Are Part of the Israeli-Palestinian Problem

Despite U.S. Secretary of State Kerry's pleas, there's little chance the American Jewish community will pressure the Israeli government to enter negotiations.

Dov Waxman

Jun 25, 2013 2:18 PM

I haven't read his book, but the position attributed to him in his book about JVP not supporting a Jewish and democratic Israel sounds different from his position in other writings. I'd like the editor to give the exact quote that supports this. Does anyone have the book? Could they check the reference? --Nbauman (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-defamation league

The Anti-defamation league -despite its name- is a controversial advocate of Israeli policies. Placing its opinion about JVP in the lede is misleading and gives undue weight. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The ADL is the leading authority on anti-semitism in the US.Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Uh, and how is exactly is being against some Israel policies antisemetic? The league is controversial and is not a party that is expected to give out a balanced opinion about JVP, therfore undeserving to have its opinion highlighted in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The league is generally not controversial, and it specifically criticized a video ad campaign in 2017 that made use of motifs that were/are used widely in anti-Semitic propaganda.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

"left-wing"

I don't see the point in using that term to define this organization. That's often used as a canard. GXIndiana (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The organization describes itself as Anti-Zionists, I dont understand why it is being continually blocked from being mentioned in lead, while it is in first sentence of its mission.Tritomex (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree it has nothing to do with the organisation it doesn't make sense to me to call it left wing Red Gabriel (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2019

JVP has recently declared itself to be an anti-Zionist organization. I suggest changing the paragraph:

 In its [mission statement]" … Anti-Defamation League, November 18, 2014.</ref>

to

 In its [mission statement]"…Anti-Defamation League, November 18, 2014.</ref> In a reversal of earlier policy, in January 2019 JVP formally identified itself as an anti-Zionist organization.

There is also a reference to JVP's policy on Zionism in a later paragraph. I suggest the changing the paragraph:

 The ADL also took issue with JVP's mission statement … archivedate=November 25, 2010</ref>

to

  The ADL also took issue with JVP's mission statement … archivedate=November 25, 2010 |accessdate=August 17, 2016 }}</ref> (As noted above, JVP's policy on Zionism changed in January 2019).) Kiseitehilot (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticism, Anti-Zionism and accusations of Antisemitism being constantly removed, although a plenty of WP:RS mentions JVP ONLY regarding this issues. For sources, complaints see above and edit history.Tritomex (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead

An editor recently included "defenders" for JVP in the lead. This is classic case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The reception section does not include defenders for JVP, so why should the lead? It should also be pointed out that the Times of Israel article is not defending JVP for anything. They are just reporting on how JVP was trying to run an ad. And in the New York Times article, there is an editor's note which states that the NY Times did not know of the author's activities, and if they did know, they would have not let him write the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2022

Please add Category:Criticism of Judaism| to this page.

Here are links for evidence: https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2016/03/what-shall-we-do-with-haman/ https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/u-s-jews-complicit-in-violence-against-palestinians-people-of-color-1.5431275 https://forward.com/opinion/391783/jvps-anti-semitic-obsession-with-jewish-power/ https://medium.com/@acandidworld/the-antisemitism-of-the-so-called-jewish-voice-for-peace-12e42f595cbf https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/jewish-voice-for-peace https://twitter.com/acandidworld/status/889512911474917378 Zifrs69 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Far Left?

The organization can be characterized as left-wing, but by no means is the view that JVP is far-left universally shared among observers of the situation in Palestine/Israel. The two citations could easily be met with other citations that simply characterize this organization as “left” or “left-leaning”.

The current characterization, and subsequent text in the article, do not appear to support a neutral POV. Ðrdak (T) 21:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

At the bottom of the Reaction to October 2023 Hamas terrorist attack section, plead add the following:
On October 27, up to 1,000 protestors occupied Grand Central Terminal in New York City, organized by Jewish Voice for Peace, calling for a ceasefire and wearing t-shirts saying "Not in our name". On November 6, about 500 members of Jewish Voice for Peace–New York City took part in a sit-in at the Statue of Liberty to demand a ceasefire. Photographer Nan Goldin addressed the demonstration, saying, "As long as the people of Gaza are screaming, we need to yell louder, no matter who attempts to silence us."

References

2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:484F:A13B:29FB:BDDA (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Mostly done. I made a version of this edit with some small streamlining. Also, I did not include the "up to 1,000" from the Grand Central Terminal sentence -- the article sources this to an estimate by a single unnamed police officer. Perhaps there is an alternative source with another expression of the scope that we might use. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)