Talk:Jewish Voice for Peace

{{edit extended-protected|Jewish Voice for Peace|answered=yes}}

Add the following text under the "Controversies" section or create a new section titled "Legal Issues" in the Wikipedia entry for Jewish Voice for Peace:

Proposed Addition:

PPP Fraud Settlement (2025)

In January 2025, Jewish Voice for Peace, Inc. agreed to pay $677,634 to resolve allegations brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the False Claims Act. The nonprofit applied for and received a $338,817 second-draw loan through the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which was designed to assist small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Justice determined that JVP was ineligible for the loan because its primary activities involved political and lobbying efforts, which are prohibited under PPP eligibility guidelines. JVP obtained forgiveness for the loan before the ineligibility was identified. The settlement resolved these allegations without an admission of liability by JVP.

Cited Source: U.S. Department of Justice Press Release - PPP Fraud Settlement (link https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/non-profit-jewish-voice-peace-inc-pay-677634-resolve-ppp-fraud-allegations) Gratefulperson0 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

: already added. Rainsage (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there should be a paragraph about the accusations of not being run by Jews.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jewish-voice-for-peace-is-neither/

https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/stop-sharing-jvp

https://thejudean.com/index.php/news/international/1126-jewish-voice-for-peace-exposed-by-errant-tweet-from-a-muslim-extremist?highlight=WyJqdnAiXQ== Blagai (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:I have to note how totally unsuitable these sources are, similar articles have been brought up several times but it seems every time they get re-written the vitriolic and outright propagandistic language becomes even more extreme. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::What is wrong with Times of Israel? It is biased but that is not a problem according to WP:BIAS. Also, it is an obvious fact the JVP is not "for peace": our own article says that they were in favor of the Gaza war back when Hamas was winning: {{tq|Following the attack, the organization showed support on social media for "the latest unprecedented wave of resistance" by Palestinians}}. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::ToI is not the source. It’s a blog hosted by ToI. A self published opinion source by someone non notable BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Second source also a blog. Can’t really work out what the third one is but it doesn’t look promising. If these accusations were noteworthy, they’d be reported somewhere reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah, I overlooked that. Thanks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::I've also found this article mentioning "JVP has never publicly disclosed the religious composition of its membership, and reports indicate that some of its chapters have been founded or led by non-Jews."

::https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-842110 Blagai (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Even despite the lack of a justification we probably should mention that Israeli/Zionist outlets are claiming they are not Jewish, since the claims are being made so loudly and widely. Not sure if the wilder claims of "Jew-hatred", antisemitism, terrorism, and extremism should be mentioned, but it could give context as to the tone of the criticism. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I think JP would be an RS for “JVP has never publicly disclosed the religious composition of its membership, and reports indicate that some of its chapters have been founded or led by non-Jews." But I don’t think more than that is due if there aren’t good sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::i agree that it would be undue to add this unless there are good sources. i'm not sure how to write about the JP article without using weasel words, since they didn't give any info about these "reports". i found this [https://religionnews.com/2024/09/17/former-leaders-of-jewish-voice-for-peace-detail-their-organizing-tactics-in-new-book/ interview with Religious News Service] with a former JVP leader that touches on the topic.

:::::Rainsage (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::If a few other sources can be found for notability then maybe just mention that they "claim JVP is not a Jewish organisation" or are "questioning the Jewishness of JVP" since there is quite an assortment of different claims made but they are mostly speculation based on isolated facts. I'm not sure what to do with the particular criticism of non-Jews being allowed to participate in JVP, I would say it is not worth mentioning unless there is some reliable report along the lines of the leadership not being mostly Jewish, or the Jewish leadership not being respected, since that would be significant. But due to the intense theopolitical interest around JVP I would suspect that a lot of effort has been put into finding anything that can be used to strengthen the claim that JVP is not Jewish, so I would assume that if evidence for a claim is not easily found in the articles then it either isn't worth mentioning or doesn't exist. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Jewish Voice for Peace|answered=yes}}

Last sentence of Funding section contains a typo, "und" to "and". Femtolmsted (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} LizardJr8 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

{{request edit|answered=yes}}

Disclosure: I am requesting the following edits to Wikipedia on behalf of Jewish Voice for Peace, a client of Camino Research, as part of a paid engagement. I have been compensated by Camino Research to make fact-based, independently verifiable contributions to improve Wikipedia articles related to Jewish Voice for Peace. All edits I’m requesting adhere to Wikipedia’s policies, including those regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing, and verifiability. I strive to ensure that any information I add is well-cited from reputable sources and enhances the overall accuracy and objectivity of the content.

If you have any concerns or questions about my contributions, please feel free to reach out to me through my user talk page.

Current text: "Its views are characterised as left-wing,[15][16][17][18] sometimes as far-left,[18][19][20][9] and one of the more professionalized groups of the pro-Palestinian left-wing."

Request: The label “far-left” is a subjective and often politicized characterization that can imply extremism. JVP describes itself as progressive, and most reliable sources characterize the organization as progressive or left-wing, but not far-left. To improve neutrality and accuracy, I propose the following edit:

Proposed edit: "Its views are characterized as left-wing, and it is regarded as one of the more professionalized groups of the Palestinian rights movement."

Citations: Remove citation [9] (New York Times Magazine), which refers to JVP Action, a separate entity.

Current text: "JVP received significant donations from philanthropic organizations affiliated with George Soros, the Kaphan Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund. According to NBC News, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund awarded JVP 'close to a half-million dollars' over a period of five years."

Request: This section would benefit from adding critical context about funding sources for JVP, considering that only 7% of its funding comes from philanthropic organizations. It should also correct the reference to “George Soros” to the actual funding entity. I propose the following edits:

Proposed edit: "93% of JVP’s budget comes from individual donations, with an average individual gift of approximately $60. According to JVP’s 2024 annual report, the organization had over 31,000 individual donors in FY 2024, with more than 7,800 recurring monthly commitments. JVP has also received support from philanthropic foundations including the Kaphan Foundation, the Open Society Foundations, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. According to NBC News, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund awarded JVP 'close to a half-million dollars' over a five-year period."

Citations:

- [JVP Annual Report 2024](https://report.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/)

- [JVP FAQ – Funding](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/faq/)

- [ProPublica JVP Nonprofit Profile](https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/900018359)

- [Charity Navigator – JVP](https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/900018359)

Current text: "… as of 2024 had grown to 23,000 members." and "In 2011, the group claimed to have 600 dues-paying members, which had risen to 9,000 by 2015[8] and more than 23,000 by 2024.[9]"

Request: Please update the membership number and add more context about their base of support to include members, supporters and social media followers, and strengthen citations.

Proposed edits:

- Replace "23,000 members" with "over 32,000 active dues-paying members."

- Replace "more than 23,000 by 2024" with "more than 32,000 by 2024."

- Add: "According to JVP's 2024 annual report, the organization has 100+ local organizing formations, 50 campus chapters, and received over 20,000 new members in 2024. Infographics on JVP’s website report a total of 765,403 members and supporters, 2.87 million digital actions taken, and 2.37 million social media followers."

Citations:

- [JVP Annual Report 2024](https://report.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/)

- [JVP Website - infographic](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/)

- [Moment Magazine, August 2024](https://momentmag.com/jewish-voice-peace/?srsltid=AfmBOopaawQkyYKasGRCLEnSo89IkhHE9Ftrz2b-A-NEThzs1L_7yUX3)

Thank you for considering these updates. Please let me know if any part of this request needs clarification or discussion.

CaminoResearcher1 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:This set of edits seem good and well founded to me. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::Edit request 1: {{done}} (not by me though) Lova Falk (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::Edit request 2: {{done}} I didn't know where to put your source Charity navigator. Lova Falk (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::Edit request 3: {{done}} (not by me though) Lova Falk (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I object to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Voice_for_Peace&diff=1284253337&oldid=1283637579 this series of edits] due to WP:SPS and WP:PROMO per WP:ABOUTSELF. We shouldn't be using their own self-reported data for this. Marquardtika (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Reporting your accounts' source of funding is neither promotional nor self-serving. Please give a rational reason for your objection. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with Cambial — foliar❧ . A non-profit advocacy organization such as JVP doesn't lie in their annual report. Lova Falk (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not saying that they lie. This is promotional and self-serving because they are trying to show that they are funded by lots of sweet little mom and pop donors rather than Big Bad Philanthropies. This was a COI edit request. The organization is trying to present themselves as being a grassroots funded organization rather than a Big Money organization. That's their public relations prerogative, but we need not do their work for them. Moreover, their annual report, and their self-published 990 is not a noteworthy source. If this is talked about elsewhere, great, that warrants inclusion (and we have independent sourcing and content already in the funding section). But there is no reason to cherrypick random bits of their self-published reports to help them bolster their rather obvious PR objective of framing themselves as a grassroots group. I'm honestly perplexed that so many other editors appear unphased that these edits are being suggested by a paid editor. We should certainly be more careful. Marquardtika (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Marquardtika I don't understand. If we have a section about funding - and that is a natural section for an organisation like this - why should we not write that more than 90% of their funding comes from individual donations? Unless you say that they are lying, but you don't say that, so then you also accept that they are funded by "lots of sweet little mom and pop donors rather than Big Bad Philanthropies". Why cannot we write that? I am not trying to fight you, I just honestly don't understand. I would like to find out, because I perform a lot of edit requests and I would like to understand better when not to edit what. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We should not say it because it has only been self-reported by them and it's a self-serving claim. See WP:ABOUTSELF. Marquardtika (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::"{{tq|their rather obvious PR objective of framing themselves as a grassroots group}}" – any basis for this? It's rather a stretch, and sounds like mere speculation. I find it strange that anyone would think that the POV of another 501c - with a different political alignment - to be worth inclusion in the top line of the section, but a simple report of funding "{{tq|self-serving}}". Cambial — foliar❧ 16:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The basis for this is that they are paying a public relations firm to edit this page. Marquardtika (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I have asked about this here: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Financial_self-reports_by_non-profit_advocacy_organization and will follow their advice. Lova Falk (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Edits are being requested, the source is irrelevant because it's our job to determine if they are appropriate for Wikipedia. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Everyone who has chimed in at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Financial_self-reports_by_non-profit_advocacy_organization agrees that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Voice_for_Peace&diff=1284430949&oldid=1284421696 this] content is unduly self-serving. Marquardtika (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::The funding breakdown of individual donors versus foundational support has actually been covered by reputable media: this Chronicle of Philanthropy article from May of 2024 mentions some similar numbers from last year, quoting their director of development: "In a typical year, around 85 percent of the organization’s roughly $4 million budget comes from individual donors whose average-sized contribution is $60, with the remainder coming from philanthropic groups, says Solomon." https://www.philanthropy.com/article/whos-really-funding-campus-protests

::Clarifying that the vast majority of funding comes from individual donors versus foundational support gives a fuller, more accurate picture of the organization's funding. CaminoResearcher1 (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::CaminoResearcher1, some of us, including me, have no access to that article. But from your quote, I ask you: Who is Solomon, and is Solomon affiliated with your organization? If yes, it still is not an independent source, if no, who does Solomon know? Lova Falk (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You can access an archived copy of the full article [https://archive.ph/14RB5 here]. Ari Solomon is described as "director of development at Jewish Voice for Peace." -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you Pemilligan! Lova Falk (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The Chronicle of Philanthropy quotes a staff member of JVP so it's still WP:ABOUTSELF. That can be ok when we WP:ATTRIBUTE, and I actually added "According to the organization, around 85 percent of JVP's funding comes from individual donations with a contribution average of $60." However, that content was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Voice_for_Peace&diff=1284430949&oldid=1284421696 removed] in the edit I am discussing, and was replaced with JVP's annual report and some in the weeds numbers that are giving big "JVP is trying too hard to show they have a lot of small dollar donors" energy. In your capacity as a disclosed COI editor, you would do well to move on from relatively meaningless quibbles like this and focus on frying bigger fish. It would be a sign of good faith that you're able to read the room around here and not just go to the ramparts for everything JVP wants. Marquardtika (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::We assume good faith, not assume questionable motives and ask for signs of good faith. Speaking of reading the room, melodramatic hyperbole imploring someone not to "{{tq|go to the ramparts}}" - in this case, writing a two-sentence reply - is not helpful. It remains the case that a framing taken from another non-profit, with its own bias and its own "seeking to disparage NGO's with which it disagrees" energy, is not an appropriate opening for a funding section. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Are you referring to the sentence "JVP has received support from philanthropic organizations..." sourced to the Chronicle of Philanthropy? What exactly is disparaging about that? Are you saying that the Chronicle of Philanthropy is biased and/or seeking to disparage JVP? Marquardtika (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes. One non-profit is not a neutral reliable source about another non-profit. Another non-profit's views are not more relevant content for an encyclopaedia than than an organisation's disclosure of its funding. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Marquardtika I think your edit adding "JVP's website says that the organization is funded by" is a good compromise. The text is there and the source is clearly mentioned. {{Like}} Lova Falk (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::: PS I took another step in my thinking about this. I assumed that large organizations such as JVP always were subject to independent audits, but now I realize that is not necessarily the case. As there are no independent audits of JVP's claim that 85% of their funding is from individuals, I no longer think that their website saying so is a reliable source of information. Lova Falk (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{request edit}}

Disclosure: I am requesting the following edits to Wikipedia on behalf of Jewish Voice for Peace, a client of Camino Research, as part of a paid engagement. I have been compensated by Camino Research to make fact-based, independently verifiable contributions to improve Wikipedia articles related to Jewish Voice for Peace. All edits I’m requesting adhere to Wikipedia’s policies, including those regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing, and verifiability. I strive to ensure that any information I add is well-cited from reputable sources and enhances the overall accuracy and objectivity of the content.

If you have any concerns or questions about my contributions, please feel free to reach out to me through my user talk page.

Current text: "JVP endorsed the Palestinian right of return in 2015, but did not offer details about how Israel would remain a Jewish homeland."

Request: By refining the wording to accurately reflect JVP’s programmatic focus, the statement will present a more neutral and precise representation of the organization’s stance. Including JVP’s affirmation of support for “a homeland for Jewish people,” as stated in the cited source, will provide a more complete and balanced context. Additionally, incorporating relevant insights from JVP’s then-Executive Director, as discussed in the citation, will enhance clarity.

Proposed edits:

Relocate for better context: Move this line out of the “Zionism” section and into the “BDS” section, as it specifically relates to JVP’s endorsement of BDS, which provides necessary context.

Remove biased language: “... but did not offer details about how Israel would remain a Jewish homeland.” This phrasing implies a responsibility that JVP does not claim, and it presents an opinion as a factual critique.

Provide accurate context and direct quotation: “JVP endorsed the Palestinian right of return in 2015 as part of its official endorsement of BDS and in accordance with international law. JVP and JVP Action Executive Director Stefanie Fox [https://tlaib.house.gov/posts/congresswoman-tlaib-introduces-house-resolution-commemorating-the-nakba said]: ‘In order to build a future rooted in justice and freedom for all, we must reckon with the destruction and permanent displacement Palestinians suffered in 1948 in the name of creating the State of Israel. Without addressing the Nakba and the ongoing attempts by the Israeli government to continue displacing Palestinians to this day, there cannot be a truly just and sustainable peace. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s historic resolution is a step toward the sacred work of tikkun olam – of repairing the world – so we can all be free.”

Citations:

• [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/faq/ JVP FAQ]: “Does JVP support the Palestinian Right of Return?”
• [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/faq/ JVP FAQ]: “Does JVP support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions”
• [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/faq/ JVP FAQ]: “Why does JVP support BDS”  
• [https://bdsmovement.net/news/jewish-voice-peace-statement-bds JVP’s statement on BDS].
• [https://tlaib.house.gov/posts/congresswoman-tlaib-introduces-house-resolution-commemorating-the-nakba Rep. Tlaib’s May 16, 2022 press release], which quotes JVP’s Stefanie Fox

Current text: "It supports an independent state for the Palestinians."

Request: By aligning the statement with JVP’s publicly stated position, this revision ensures greater accuracy and avoids misinterpretation. Using JVP’s own language — emphasizing support for a future where Palestinians and Jewish people live in safety with full equal rights — provides a more contextually faithful representation of its stance.

Proposed edit: Change “It supports an independent state for the Palestinians.” to “As a U.S.-based Jewish organization, JVP does not advocate for a specific political outcome for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead, JVP advocates for the end of the Israeli government’s violations of Palestinian human rights and envisions a future where Palestinian and Jewish people live in safety with full equal rights.”

Citations:

• Add citation for JVP’s official [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/faq/ FAQ] page — specifically the answer to, “Does JVP believe in a one or two state solution?”
• Remove the citation for the [https://forward.com/culture/471343/instagram-growth-pro-palestinian-jewish-groups-ifnotnow-jvp/ Forward] article (Citation #18), as it does not accurately support the claim and is out of date.

Current text: "JVP seeks to work within the Democratic Party to shift the party’s position to the left on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Request: By accurately distinguishing between JVP and JVP Action, this revision ensures clarity and factual accuracy. The February 2024 article in New York Times Magazine specifies that it is JVP Action, not JVP, that has a distinct political strategy. Clarifying this distinction prevents conflation of the two entities and ensures the statement correctly reflects their respective roles. Additionally, the current language stating that JVP Action “seeks to work within the Democratic Party” presents a partisan framing that does not fully capture the organization’s mission. JVP Action’s stated goals focus on making Palestinian rights a core part of the progressive agenda, winning progressive legislation, and electing progressive candidates.

Proposed edits:

• Create a new subsection:
• Add a subsection titled “Jewish Voice for Peace Action” to clearly differentiate JVP from its political action committee, JVP Action.
• Include context about JVP Action’s purpose, strategy and relationship to JVP.
• Clarify organizational distinctions:
• Replace “JVP seeks to work within the Democratic Party” with “JVP established a separate 501(c)(4) political advocacy organization, Jewish Voice for Peace Action, which seeks to make Palestinian rights a core part of the progressive agenda, to win progressive legislation and elect progressive candidates.”
• Improve sourcing and context:
• Edit: “According to JVP Action’s annual report, the organization’s mandate is to end U.S. military funding to Israel.”

Citations:

Include direct links to [https://www.jvpaction.org/ JVP Action’s website] and [https://report.jvpaction.org/ annual report] for further verification.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let me know if any part of this request requires clarification. ~~~~ CaminoResearcher1 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:1. I think that removal is necessary, it's basically asserting the premise that Israel needs to be an ethnostate. That quote is a bit long though, and that last sentence in particular is not relevant.

:2. This seems good. It could maybe mention that JVP acknowledges that the likelihood of a two-state solution is "vanishingly small", but that is a minor point.

:3. Clarifying the organizational distinction does seem important, I would agree with that edit. The "JVP Action section" would need to be fleshed out before I could comment, but at least mentioning it's existence is a good start. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

{{request edit}}

Disclosure: I am requesting the following edits to Wikipedia on behalf of Jewish Voice for Peace, a client of Camino Research, as part of a paid engagement. I have been compensated by Camino Research to make fact-based, independently verifiable contributions to improve Wikipedia articles related to Jewish Voice for Peace. All edits I’m requesting adhere to Wikipedia’s policies, including those regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing, and verifiability. I strive to ensure that any information I add is well-cited from reputable sources and enhances the overall accuracy and objectivity of the content.

If you have any concerns or questions about my contributions, please feel free to reach out to me through my user talk page.

Current text: "Following the attack, the organization ‘liked’ a post on social media which described the conflict as ‘the latest unprecedented wave of resistance’ by Palestinians. When questioned by the Forward, the organization removed its like from the post in question.[34][35]"

Request: To improve accuracy and neutrality, I recommend replacing the existing text with a direct quote from JVP’s official statement to ensure accuracy and transparency regarding the organization’s stance following the Oct. 7 attack. These refinements align with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view standard by incorporating all relevant context and avoiding misleading implications.

Proposed edit: Replace existing text with: “Following the attack, the organization issued a statement on Oct. 11 condemning the massacres committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians as ‘ horrific war crimes’ and affirming that ‘there is no justification in international law for the indiscriminate killing of civilians or the holding of civilian hostages.’ The statement also criticized the Israeli and American governments for ‘ weaponizing these deaths to fuel a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza.”

Citations:

• Add citations for JVP’s related statements from [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/10/07/statement23-10-07/ Oct. 7, 2023], [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/10/08/rabcab10-08/ Oct. 8, 2023] and [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/10/11/statement23-10-11/ Oct. 11, 2023].
• Add citation for [https://www.thenation.com/article/world/jews-gaza-response/ The Nation] article by JVP Executive Director Stefanie Fox.

Current text: "In August 2024, it was reported that George Washington University had suspended its JVP chapter along with other pro-Palestinian student groups. This suspension followed the projection of messages such as 'Glory to our martyrs' and 'Free Palestine from the river to the sea' on campus buildings by pro-Palestinian students in the fall of 2023. JVP had expressed support for the messages displayed during these protests.[42]"

Request: To enhance clarity and provide a more accurate representation of the events, revise the current text to specify the distinct reasons behind JVP’s 2024 suspension. This revision offers a clearer, more factual and well-sourced explanation of JVP’s suspension at George Washington University.

Proposed edit:

• Remove: “In August 2024, it was reported that George Washington University had suspended its JVP chapter along with other pro-Palestinian student groups. This suspension followed the projection of messages such as ‘Glory to our martyrs’ and ‘Free Palestine from the river to the sea’ on campus buildings by pro-Palestinian students in the fall of 2023. JVP had expressed support for the messages displayed during these protests.[42], as it conflates SJP’s 2023 suspension with JVP’s 2024 suspension related to a different event, and has unsubstantiated claims regarding JVP’s support for messages projected at a demonstration by SJP in 2023.”
• Edit: “In response to noise disruptions during an on-campus event in May of 2024, the university suspended JVP for the fall 2024 semester.”

Citations:

• Add the [https://gwhatchet.com/2025/02/10/gw-sanctioned-nine-student-groups-for-pro-palestinian-encampment-log-confirms/ GW Hatchet] as a citation.
• Add [https://students.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs6881/files/2025-01/Student%20Groups%20and%20Organizations%20with%20Conduct%20Violations%20%28Jan.%202025%29.pdf George Washington University] as a citation.

Current text: "After the IDF had killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon in September 2024, Instagram removed the JVP's posts for violating its guidelines by sharing posts in support of Nasrallah."

Request: By attributing the Instagram post to the University of Michigan’s Jewish Voice for Peace chapter and incorporating JVP’s statement on the incident, this revision ensures clarity and factual accuracy. Removing the irrelevant citation and ensuring that sources directly support the claims presented will enhance reliability. Additionally, clarifying that there is no verified evidence of Instagram removing the post for a content violation prevents misinformation. These refinements align with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view standard by ensuring verifiability and avoiding unverified or misleading attributions.

Proposed edit: “In September 2024, JVP’s University of Michigan chapter reposted an Instagram story from another account, which contained controversial text that did not align with JVP’s values. The post was subsequently removed from the platform. In a statement, JVP said ‘JVP disavows the story recently shared to Instagram by the JVP student chapter at University of Michigan as against our organization’s principles and politics.’”

Citations:

• Remove the [https://www.jns.org/report-highlights-jvps-extremist-ideology-terrorist-connections/ JNS] article citation due to bias and irrelevance.
• Add a [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/jvp-reaffirms-commitment-to-world-where-all-life-is-precious/ statement] from JVP to verify the authenticity of the account and post.
  Please let me know if I can provide further clarification or sourcing. ~~~~

CaminoResearcher1 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:1. I'm never sure whether stuff like this should be included or not, it has been widely mischaracterised elsewhere to great defamatory effect so despite it's lack of objective significance I feel like it is still worth mentioning just to give needed context to some common misinformation. Maybe we should clarify that many outlets incorrectly described this as "supporting the Oct 7 attacks". Either way I think JVP's issued statement should be added, possibly as the first line in the section.

:2. This needs some further investigation. From the current source it is unclear whether that JVP chapter supported those messages in particular, especially since they were displayed by a different group. I can't find where the JP article derived that statement from and if it has been mischaracterised since it is not even a quote, so I'm not sure whether it should be left in if that cannot be found. The suspension is certainly being incorrectly connected to the extreme statements of SJP and that at least needs to be disentangled.

:3. That edit is far too lawyerly and sanitized to be appropriate, but I would agree that the article does need the context of it being a particular chapter's statements that were disavowed by the wider JVP org. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:I added detail of the the multiple GWU suspensions and removed the claim that JVP supported the messages from the SJP group, because that was unclear despite the implication by the previous source, maybe we could find an actual quote for that or something more clear though? I don't think we should cut it all down to what was initially proposed since a fair bit happened with those protests. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{request edit}}

Disclosure: I am requesting the following edits to Wikipedia on behalf of Jewish Voice for Peace, a client of Camino Research, as part of a paid engagement. I have been compensated by Camino Research to make fact-based, independently verifiable contributions to improve Wikipedia articles related to Jewish Voice for Peace. All edits I’m requesting adhere to Wikipedia’s policies, including those regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing, and verifiability. I strive to ensure that any information I add is well-cited from reputable sources and enhances the overall accuracy and objectivity of the content.

If you have any concerns or questions about my contributions, please feel free to reach out to me through my user talk page.

Current text: "JVP joined marches and demonstrations condemning Israel in many cities, including Racine, Wisconsin, and Seattle."

Request: By distinguishing between JVP’s criticism of Israeli military actions and condemnation of Israel as a state, this revision ensures clarity and prevents misrepresentation. Clarifying that JVP’s statements specifically addressed civilian casualties during the 2008 military actions aligns the text with the cited Seattle PI source.

Proposed edit: Replace with “JVP joined marches and demonstrations in many cities condemning the Israeli military’s attacks on civilians, including Racine, Wisconsin and Seattle.”

2. PPP Settlement

Current text: “In January 2025, JVP was ordered to pay a penalty of $677,634 to the US government for stating in their application to receive a loan under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) in 2020 that they were not ‘primarily engaged in political or lobbying activities’ and not ‘organized for research’ on public policy after a new restriction was added disqualifying advocacy groups and think tanks from eligibility for the loan.”

Request: By incorporating JVP’s statement on the settlement, and also clarifying that it was a settlement agreement without an admission of liability, this revision ensures a more accurate and balanced representation. Providing this context prevents misinterpretation and aligns with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view standard by presenting a complete and nuanced account of the situation.

Proposed edits:

• Clarify settlement details and provide context:
• Edit: “In January 2025, Jewish Voice for Peace Action agreed to pay $677,634 to resolve allegations brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the False Claims Act. [https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/non-profit-jewish-voice-peace-inc-pay-677634-resolve-ppp-fraud-allegations The U.S. Department of Justice] noted that the settlement was not an admission of liability. The investigation originated from a complaint filed by The Zionist Advocacy Center (TZAC), whose director, David Abrams, has brought [https://forward.com/opinion/417058/opinion-the-surprising-new-battleground-in-the-war-against-palestinian/ numerous lawsuits] against Palestinian human rights advocates. According to a [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2025/01/17/lawfare-a-tool-of-far-right-repression/ statement] from JVP, the organization ‘determined that opposing a politically motivated investigation would cost more than the settlement itself.’ According to the [https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/non-profit-jewish-voice-peace-inc-pay-677634-resolve-ppp-fraud-allegations DOJ], JVP received a $338,817 Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan, later forgiven, but was deemed ineligible due to being ‘primarily engaged in political activities.’”
• Add: “JVP [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2025/01/17/lawfare-a-tool-of-far-right-repression/ stated] that contesting the ‘politically motivated investigation’ would have been more costly than settling. The organization maintained, ‘We did absolutely nothing wrong’ and disputed the characterization of its activities as primarily political. JVP emphasized that it adheres strictly to 501(c)(3) rules prohibiting partisan activities, stating, ‘JVP Action – a 501(c)(4) organization affiliated with JVP — is primarily engaged in policy advocacy precisely because JVP is not.’”

Citations:

• Include a citation from the [https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/non-profit-jewish-voice-peace-inc-pay-677634-resolve-ppp-fraud-allegations DOJ press release].
• Add a citation from [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2025/01/17/lawfare-a-tool-of-far-right-repression/ JVP’s public statement] on the settlement.
• Cite the [https://forward.com/opinion/417058/opinion-the-surprising-new-battleground-in-the-war-against-palestinian/ Forward] regarding David Abrams and the Zionist Advocacy Center’s history of lawsuits against Palestinian human rights advocates.

3. Standing in Jewish community

Current text: “JVP has become the bête noire of the organized Jewish community in the United States, which has largely excluded the organization.”

Request: Remove subjective, opinion-based language such as “bête noire,” to adhere to Wikipedia’s neutral point of view standard.

Proposed edit: Delete: “JVP has become the bête noire of the organized Jewish community in the United States, which has largely excluded the organization.”

4. Jewish community acceptance

Current text: “JVP has at times been denied participation or membership in broader Jewish community events or spaces.[66][67] While some Jewish leaders concede that the community is too quick to censor criticism of Israel, even the Jewish state's critics among the community are reluctant to welcome JVP into the fold.”

Request: By refining the language to avoid broad generalizations and ensuring that claims are directly supported by reliable sources, this revision enhances neutrality and factual accuracy. Clarifying that the cited 2011 [https://www.jta.org/2011/03/14/united-states/brandeis-hillel-excludes-a-controversial-group-on-israel-generating-debate Jewish Telegraphic Agency] article pertains specifically to debate at Brandeis University’s Hillel prevents misleading implications of broader consensus. Additionally, ensuring that the 2007 [https://web.archive.org/web/20070224113534/http://www.forward.com/articles/the-progressive-jewish-question/ Forward] article is accurately represented will strengthen verifiability. These changes align with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view standard by maintaining precision and avoiding opinion-based phrasing.

Proposed edit: Replace “While some Jewish leaders concede that the community is too quick to censor criticism of Israel, even the Jewish state’s critics among the community are reluctant to welcome JVP into the fold.” with “In 2011, Brandeis University’s Hillel controversially excluded JVP as a member, ‘based on positions and programming JVP has sponsored,’ sparking debate among Brandeis’ Jewish student groups.”

Citations:

• Remove citation [68], the 2007 [https://web.archive.org/web/20070224113534/http://www.forward.com/articles/the-progressive-jewish-question/ Forward] article, which is outdated and irrelevant.

Thank you for considering these updates. Please let me know if further clarification or sourcing would be helpful. ~~~~ CaminoResearcher1 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Disclosure: I am requesting the following edits to Wikipedia on behalf of Jewish Voice for Peace, a client of Camino Research, as part of a paid engagement. I have been compensated by Camino Research to make fact-based, independently verifiable contributions to improve Wikipedia articles related to Jewish Voice for Peace. All edits I’m requesting adhere to Wikipedia’s policies, including those regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing, and verifiability. I strive to ensure that any information I add is well-cited from reputable sources and enhances the overall accuracy and objectivity of the content.

If you have any concerns or questions about my contributions, please feel free to reach out to me through my user talk page.

1 - JVP members’ views

Current text: "Many of JVP's members consider the views of dovish liberal Jewish groups like J Street to be inadequate."

Request: By removing subjective and generalized language, this revision ensures a more fact-based and neutral representation. Since the statement is based on a single reporter’s observation from a 2015 event without comprehensive evidence or multiple sources, refining the language prevents overgeneralization of JVP’s membership views. These changes align with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view standard by avoiding bias and ensuring accuracy.

Proposed edit: Delete: “Many of JVP's members consider the views of dovish liberal Jewish groups like J Street to be inadequate.”

2 - Use of ADL as a source

Current text:

1. “The ADL, a vocal longtime critic of the organization, has argued that JVP unfairly places the onus of resolving the conflict on Israel.”
2. “In November 2023, the Anti-Defamation League classified anti-war protest events led by Jewish groups including Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow as ‘anti-Israel’, adding the protests to a database documenting rising antisemitism in the U.S. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt labelled the Jewish organizations ‘hate groups’ and equated anti-Zionism with antisemitism.”

Request: By ensuring that statements sourced from the ADL are presented with proper context and balanced perspectives, this revision enhances neutrality and credibility. Given Wikipedia’s designation of the ADL as a “generally unreliable" source on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, removing or supplementing its claims with additional reliable sources will improve accuracy. Including dissenting perspectives and relevant critiques of the ADL’s classification of JVP ensures a more comprehensive and neutral representation, aligning with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view standard.

Proposed edit:

• Remove opinion-based language: “The ADL, a vocal longtime critic of the organization, has argued that JVP unfairly places the onus of resolving the conflict on Israel.”
• Provide disclaimer and context: “In November 2023, the Anti-Defamation League classified anti-war protest events led by Jewish groups including Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow as ‘anti-Israel,’ adding the protests to a database documenting rising antisemitism in the U.S. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt labeled the Jewish organizations ‘hate groups’ and equated anti-Zionism with antisemitism. However, Wikipedia has designated the ADL as a "generally unreliable" source on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the ADL’s classification has been met with significant criticism, including dissent from ADL staff who questioned the labeling of Jewish organizations as ‘anti-Israel’ and ‘hate groups.’”

Thank you for considering these updates. Please let me know if further clarification or sourcing would be helpful. ~~~~ CaminoResearcher1 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @CaminoResearcher1, thank for your transparency here.

:Some initial thoughts to your most recent questions.

:1) The removal of any existing cited material could equally be seen as pushing a subjective take. The recommended approach would be to counter any present assertions with cited material that supports any contrary takes you feel should be validly represented in the article.

:2) While your take on the ADL and its source depreciation are noted, I would be generally hesitant (especially when making edits officially on behalf of an organization) to be making any edits that could be seen as removing criticism on the organization you are openly representing. In the case of the ADL, while sources directly attributed to the ADL on IP conflict matters have been depreciated, the statements in question are citing are news outlets covering the incident (furthermore, the paragraph you highlight is not using the ADL as a source, as you claim). That paragraph covers both the criticism recieved as well as the counter-critique in response, I would seek to refine coverage of the incident before attempting to remove it.

:No one seems to have reviewed your other requests as well, and will do my best to respond to those shortly. Cheers. Mistamystery (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::Mistamystery Yesterday, I worked on an older request, but then I discovered that most of it had already been done by another editor, who had not clearly written that they had performed the edit request, and had not changed the request to answered = yes. So (part of) these requests may or may not have already been done. Lova Falk (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:1) I agree with Mistamystery here.

:2) Referring to Wikipedia's designations and viewpoints is not appropriate, although it could be worth mentioning the dissent in the ADL because it is directly connected to the new designations, sourcing needed. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you both, @Mistamystery and @MasterTriangle12, for your feedback on this, I really appreciate it.

::To clarify, the information regarding dissent from ADL's own staff was already present in the existing text, that part is not being recommended by me, which is why I did not provide a source for it — the source listed in the existing text is a 2024 [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/jan/05/adl-pro-israel-advocacy-zionism-antisemitism Guardian] article. My recommendation was just rewording to include the disclaimer I suggested. The current text states:

::In November 2023, the Anti-Defamation League classified anti-war protest events led by Jewish groups including Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow as "anti-Israel", adding the protests to a database documenting rising antisemitism in the US. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt labelled the Jewish organizations "hate groups" and equated anti-Zionism with antisemitism.[39] This led to criticism of ADL, including from its own staff, one of whom quit in protest, stating: "Those were Jewish people who we [as the ADL] were defaming, so that felt extremely, extremely confusing, and frustrating to me. And it makes it harder to talk about that when any criticism of Israel, or anyone who criticizes Israel, just becomes a terrorist."[40]

::Thank you for clarifying that the editors do not reference Wikipedia's designations in the text, that is helpful to know.

::Can you both say more about how you prefer to treat opinions in the text? Is the preference to not have opinion language at all (which was my initial understanding of Wikipedia's policy — apologies if that is incorrect), or is it to provide counterpoint opinions?

::In this case, my original suggestion isn't to remove the first line because the ADL is a critic of JVP, it's because "JVP unfairly places the onus of resolving the conflict on Israel" is an opinion held by the ADL, not a fact that can be verified. The sentence could potentially be edited to something like "The ADL is a vocal longtime critic of the organization," which would remove the opinion clause.

::JVP's stated [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/resource/our-vision/ vision], according to their website, is "A world where all people — from Palestine/Israel to the U.S. — live in freedom, justice, equality, and dignity," and a [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/about/#faq commitment] to both Palestinian partners and Jewish communities, which does not support the ADL's claim that the org is putting the onus on Israel to resolve the conflict. In their [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/faq/ FAQ section] under "Does JVP believe in a one or two state solution," JVP states, "We’re a U.S.-based Jewish organization so we really don’t believe it is our place to tell Palestinians and Israelis what the best political outcome is toward a just, equitable, and sustainable peace."

::So if a counterpoint opinion is the preference, perhaps the edit looks something like:

::"The ADL, a vocal longtime critic of the organization, has argued that JVP unfairly places the onus of resolving the conflict on Israel.[69] However, in contrast, JVP has stated 'We’re a U.S.-based Jewish organization so we really don’t believe it is our place to tell Palestinians and Israelis what the best political outcome is toward a just, equitable, and sustainable peace.'" and add the [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/faq/ FAQ section] citation.

::Please let me know if additional sourcing is desired. Thank you!

::Also, to reiterate, I'm not making any edits to this article, I am only suggesting edits via the Talk Page to help improve the accuracy and neutrality of the information.

::~~~~ CaminoResearcher1 CaminoResearcher1 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

Description of suggested change: In the Reception section, the acronym "PFLP" should be clarified with a link to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The acronym is not used elsewhere in the article, so it is currently difficult for the reader to interpret.

Diff:

{{TextDiff|1=PFLP|2= Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine}} Izzy Grosof (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Yes, link was needed. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=}}

'''Description of suggested change:

While reading the article i found the following text under the founding section interesting:

''According to JVP, around 85% of the organization's funding comes from "tens of thousands of individual people [...] whose average-sized contribution is $60".[12]

''

After going to the source linked and the links in that source the sentence seemed implausible. A 2016 article from the same source states that

Jewish Voice for Peace has about 10,000 donors, roughly half of whom are considered major contributors (generally, those who give $500 or more in a year).

That would mean that in 2016 at least 2 500 000 USD came from only 5 000 donors.

Furthermore I saw in the talk section that the text was added on request of JVP, by proxy, and all sources to the claim are either from JVP themselves or from quotes made by JVP representatives.

While the funding structure might have changed since 2016 and a large number of small donations can decrease the amount of average-sized contribution, I do think it would be wise to have an independent source for this information before adding it to the page. Especially since it is an edit that has been requested by a proxy on behalf of the JVP.

With the current sourcing, and if the edit suggested above is made, the following text can also be removed:

According to NBC News, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund awarded JVP "close to a half-million dollars" over a five-year period.[14]

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is mentioned in the sentence above and source 12 gives a breakdown of the donations made by large investors. If the text about the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is kept if might be better to supplement it with text from source 12 quoted below.

including just over $60,000 from the Tides Foundation, $210,000 from the Kaphan Foundation, $75,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and $225,000 from Open Society Foundations

'''

Diff:

{{TextDiff|1=ORIGINAL_TEXT|2=CHANGED_TEXT}} 31.211.219.3 (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Charities do tend to start out with bigger donations when there is little public awareness of them, becoming a well known charity will attract smaller donations. It seems that in 2019-2021 only a third of the funding came from big donors according to [https://ngo-monitor.org/reports/jewish-voice-for-peaces-funding-network/ NGO monitor], and then with the more recent public awareness of JVP it is plausible that the proportion of small donations grew to 85%, but yeah that value does come from JVP themselves, which isn't great. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)