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) 20:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I can understand this perspective, but is there a specific source you are asking to include to reflect supporters? You also mention currently in the article 'cherry-picking' from sources that are more even handed. Which of the cited sources do you mean when you say that? JArthur1984 (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I recently removed a pair of quite weak and unencyclopedic examples from the "Reception" heading. For anyone else interested in this issue (on this page or another), I recommend the following quite useful essay on the trouble with overquoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Novem_Linguae/Essays/Problems_with_quotes.

It also deals with the issue of overquoting in "Reception" sections specifically. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I had no specific source in mind. 30 seconds of Googling "Jewish Voice for Peace" just now turned up a CNN article describing them as one of the "largest US Jewish groups calling for a just and peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," or a Reuters article describing them as "Jewish-led peace activists" - this seems at least as noteworthy as a quote currently in the Reception section, from a minor local newspaper, calling them "an organization that is neither a voice for peace nor Jewish." But I haven't added them as I think the issue of overquoting you mentioned needs to be addressed first. As for cherry-picking, again just taking an example from the bottom of the Reception section: there is a quote from a Haaretz article which is critical of JVP. The same article mostly allows the organization's executive director to respond directly to criticisms, and describes her as defying "any stereotype of the American-Jewish leftist as being assimilated, alienated from Judaism and ignorant of mainstream Israeli society." I just added a couple of awards the organization received to the Reception section - there are many other examples of positive reception that could be added in order to present a more balanced picture. -Ishtirak (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Part of the article is written in the first person perspective, using the pronoun ‘we’. This is clearly evidence that the section was written by a member of the organization. This should be changed to say that those are JVP’s stated positions and not presented as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:AA00:20C5:B4C3:BC29:7948:283B (talk) 22:01, 8 November 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)

That's fine. Thank you. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:FDFC:804:E796:E958 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

In the "Positions" section, please change the url of reference 11, which is followed by a "dead link" tag, to https://www.jta.org/archive/progressive-anti-semitism-s-f-meet-considers-phenomenon, which is live. (I know, I should get an account.) 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:FDFC:804:E796:E958 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for finding and raising the link. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Reception

This is a hit piece section. It will be dramatically reduced in size. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. This came up in November as well but did not get comprehensively addressed. There is a related issue of overquoting too. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the section grossly overrepresents JVP's critics, but I do feel that the information is relevant and worth having available. I'm thinking of organizing the information, cutting back some of the quotes and more inflammatory language, and moving it to a separate page for criticisms/controversies. A much shorter, more balanced reception section can wikilink to that page. Thoughts? NuanceQueen (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe separate "Criticism" articles are generally disfavored and considered a WP:povfork. But the idea of continuing to reduce quotations and such seems very wise. Although there have been some various efforts made to reduce quotations since November, there is more to do. I would encourage that if you are interested! JArthur1984 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@JArthur1984 Gotcha, thanks! I'm pretty new to this, so I don't have extended protection permissions yet, but I'll check back when I do and see if it still needs cleaning up. NuanceQueen (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have a heavily condensed version with some additional information on post-10/7 coverage in my Sandbox if someone with editing permissions wants to take a look at it. NuanceQueen (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies

Hello all-- confession: I haven't read the whole wiki article yet(!), and I'm sure I'll find more inaccuracies and misrepresentations, but I notice a major factual inaccuracy regarding who/when/where it was founded: it was *NOT* founded by Noam Chomsky or Tony Kushner! It was founded by Julia Caplan, Julie Iny, and Rachel Eisner in 1996 in Berkeley, CA. They were reacting to Israel's opening of an entrance to an archaeological tunnel near Haram al-Sharif in 1996, which touched off Palestinian protests that led to the death of 61 Palestinians and 15 Israeli soldiers. AH -- and I found a (rather crappy) source for this fact: https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-wake-of-war-leftist-self-hating-jews-find-a-voice/ It's also important to note that the original JVP was not anti-zionist. The original founders stopped being involved with the organization pretty soon after founding it, so I don't know how their politics would align with JVP in its current form. 71.183.157.124 (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There seem to be several other sources that support what you are saying. Also, for interest, "JVP formed in September, 1996 in response to the provocative opening by the Netanyahu government of an archaeological tunnel under Jerusalem's Temple Mount that led to confrontations in which 65 Palestinians and 14 Israelis were killed." And just to show that Wikipedia is not internally consistent, see Young, Jewish, and Left and search for Julia Caplan. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Something worth adding is that the IP initially commented (and later edited) "My grad-school colleague Lincoln Shlensky was one of JVP's co-founding members." I made some lookups on newspapers.com and found this 2001 article where Shlensky is mentioned as a co-founder. Might be worth adding? Either way, I think there's enough coverage to justify adding that JVP was founded by UC Berkeley students. B3251 (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I added the three based on this recent source, no idea about the other. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

JVP doesn't claim to be a "Jewish" advocacy organization

The first paragraph is deceptive in describing JVP as a "left-wing Jewish advocacy organization". As the hyperlink implies, "The Jewish left consists of Jews who identify with, or support, left-wing or left-liberal causes, consciously as Jews, either as individuals or through organizations." The keywords being "consciously as Jews". There is no requirement to have any ethnic or religious connection to Judaism to become a member of JVP.

From their website: "Do I have to be Jewish to join JVP?"

"No, you don’t. JVP is an organization that is inspired by Jewish values and traditions to work towards peace and justice. We are committed to building an inclusive Jewish community, that, like many of our families, welcomes Jews and allies who share our values and appreciate our traditions, who advocate for an end to Israeli human rights abuses, and who oppose anti-Jewish hatred, anti-Arab racism, and Islamophobia."

The organization is "inspired by Jewish values and traditions" and aims to build an "inclusive Jewish community", but I could not find anything on the website claiming that the majority of their members must identify as Jewish (let alone that any members at all must identify as Jewish) and nothing to indicate that the "we", or executive decision makers of JVP, identify as Jewish or need to. There is also no elaboration as to whether JVP has an opinion over religious aspects of Judaism, such as "Jewish dogmas" that have been embraced by Orthodox Jews. Any conflict in religious ideology would affect membership, separate to political ideology.

The absence of basic knowledge of Judaism was most recently demonstrated by a JVP protest Seder plate (a Passover tradition), that had Hebrew illegibly written left-to-right. It can be assumed at a minimum that the person that wrote the Hebrew phrases can't read Hebrew and has not had formal Jewish education. It would also be questionable as to whether there were any Hebrew readers among protesters involved in the Seder plate since one would assume this mistake would have been pointed out to avoid embarrassment.

If there was an organization called "Palestinian Voice for Peace" that called for Palestinians to leave the Middle East, for example, I don't think the organization would be called a "left-wing Palestinian advocacy organization" just because some early founders or current members happened to be of Palestinian origin. This would be especially dishonest if local chapters were run by Evangelicals or Israelis. Or their printed Arabic slogans were all illegibly written, from left-to-right. 2405:6E00:4DE:649:D4C5:EA2C:22F6:4B40 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

A personal view that an organization that calls itself Jewish Voice for Peace can't be described as a Jewish advocacy organization despite being described that way by reliable sources like Forward is not really relevant to how content decisions are made in Wikipedia. Content should be based on reliable sources. The argument is essentially an appeal to purity fallacy, which is not a legitimate way to make content decisions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I agree with your points. In fact, I believe even an astroturfing operation can still be considered an advocacy group according to the advocacy group article, and using the word "purportedly" with regards to its Jewish connection would be loaded language.

Interestingly, unlike in its article, The Forward simply refers to JVP as "an American anti-Zionist group" in its tag summary. I often wonder how common it is to find circular reporting (or "citogenesis") in seemingly reliable sources. Investigative journalism seems to be the exception rather than the rule. 2405:6E00:4DE:649:2DC6:F5E4:DCF9:F24 (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)