MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 21d) to Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 9. |
24.140.104.139 (talk) →Censorship: new section |
||
Line 210: | Line 210: | ||
== References == |
== References == |
||
== Censorship == |
|||
Why is this article constantly being censored by Zionist hawks? Isn't this supposed to be an even-handed analysis? Phony propagandists like Jayjg espouse their bullshit views (which are contrary to the views of the international community via the UN/Human Rights Groups, etc. etc.) are ruining Wikipedia and turning it into another arm of the Israel lobby. Any criticism is deemed a conspiracy theory. You are ruining everything this site is supposed to stand for. Fucking Nazis. |
Revision as of 16:30, 4 November 2008
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Addition to lead
The following sentence was just added to close out the lead, after I had removed a less detailed sentence yesterday:
- The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism—whether it is an example of,[2] cover for,[3] or overlaps with[4][5] antisemitism—is debated.[6][7][8]
The primary issue here gets back to the purpose of this article: is this an article to cover opposition to Zionism as variously understood, or is it an article solely on the concept of "anti-Zionism"? If these were distinguished, then possibly an article on "Anti-Zionism" should focus heavily on the controversy of the term. However, if it is simply a "criticism" article to match the article on Zionism, then this is less clear, as seen in the Zionism article itself which does not discuss criticism in its lead paragraphs. This gets to perhaps the underlying point, that it's difficult to see how Zionism should avoid any discussion of controversy, but then the article on Anti-Zionism, would immediately make central issue of a relationship between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the lead. This should presumably find some balance.
Aside from that, this sentence suggests only three options that all concede a relationship; it doesn't note any who contest the relationship, or who challenge claims to that effect (see the lead of New antisemitism, for example). However, I think the first issue should probably be resolved first. Mackan79 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- To begin with, the sentence replaced this unsourced statement, which had been in the article for many months:
Because anti-Zionism and antisemitism are at times associated, and as both terms can mean different things to different people, the relationship between the two is controversial.
- The new sentence is more accurate and properly sourced. Now, regarding your first objection, the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is one of its most salient controversies; please review WP:LEAD. Regarding your second objection, please note that you will have a hard time finding reliable sources that say that there is no connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Rather, they all say things like Zipperstein: "Such prejudice against Israel is not antisemitism, although undoubtedly the two can and at times do coexist" or European Jews for a Just Peace: "This is not to deny that there are circumstances in which criticisms of the state of Israel might indeed be antisemitic. But the presumption should not be that they are. This requires demonstration on a case by case basis." Jayjg (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- How odd. CJCurrie just deleted all the sources that say there is a link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, while leaving all the sources that dispute it. Even more oddly, he claimed in his edit summary that I hadn't included any "anti" links, which is quite obviously false.[1] Even more oddly, he hasn't commented here on the Talk: page. Ah well, I'm sure he'll remedy all of that soon enough. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly willing to restore the links to the end of the sentence, once the rather leading aside that you've added is removed. Your current wording makes it appear that the dispute only concerns how anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are inherently linked, and leaves out the rather important point that some have questioned an inherent linkage.
- Btw, you're currently in violation of the 3RR. CJCurrie (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Which sources indicate that there is no linkage? Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- You may have noticed he said "inherent linkage," Jayjg; this is the same point you quote Zipperstein making above. However, if you think the article should state in the lead that people only debate how anti-Zionism relates with antisemitism, this would seem a rather extraordinary position to support, considering the debates over all aspects of this issue are so well known. Mackan79 (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can't believe we're being required to prove a negative - particularly when the linkage being made is very disputed indeed. eg Finkelstein "Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history". The main perpetrators of such "mute" anti-Semitism are alleged to be "radical anti-Zionists" ... is a direct throwback to the darkest days of Stalinism, when those criticizing the Soviet regime were, by virtue of this fact alone, branded "objective" abettors of fascism, and dealt with accordingly.
- Needless to say, "Beyond Chutzpah" alone is loaded with such examples - if I knew exactly what we're being asked for, I'm sure I can find it. It seems extraordinary that, when at least six out of the first seven references appear to imply antisemitism of anti-Zionists, that such a prominent anti-Zionist as Finkelstein, with a well regarded book (cited a respectable 17 times) specifically on the topic of mis-use of antisemitism gets such a small and misleading mention and his book isn't mentioned atall. What's going on here? And there is no mention of accusations of Holocaust Denial - I'm sure many sources would consider these accusations, almost invariably false, the very most prominent feature of any and every debate about anti-Zionism. Why don't we link to any article we have on it, or don't we have such an article? PRtalk 10:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just to the last part, PR, I think it's better if you have material you'd like to add that you simply put together the material that you'd like to see. At least in my experience, that's much more time-efficient, and helps discussions stay on topic. Mackan79 (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I want to add the estimate made that there are 150,000 Orthodox anti-Zionists, and around a million "non-Zionist" Orthodox. (What %age this is of the Zionist Orthodox, I don't know). Unfortunately, I'm told that the source is "extremist" - and, even though I've been denied any evidence for this whatsoever, I cannot use it. (And there is a lot more I would like to add, all of it from sources unimpeachably knowledgeable and likely very reliable). PRtalk 11:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is that discussion on this page? I'm just thinking it's perhaps better placed in another section than here, in order to keep each section on track. Mackan79 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- This section concerns the insertion into the lead of a statement that hi-jacks the entire article with a narrative that attacks all anti-Zionists as antisemitic (as largely runs through the article).
- The truth of this assertion is not simply debatable - it's almost certainly false. As can more-or-less be "proved" just by the highly credible information I'd like to insert from people who would appear to be gentle and knowledgeable. Except that .... the source has been smeared as being so extreme that it's a blocking offense to use them as a reference. No evidence provided or available on request. PRtalk 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- PR, please stop soapboxing about why you're not allowed to use extremist, anonymous, personal websites as reliable sources. If you're unwilling to abide by WP:V then you need to find a project that doesn't have it as a policy. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, then perhaps you'll explain another mystery - the book of "extremists who cannot be referenced in articles" appears not to include the Neturei Karta. And yet, six of those people stood with Ahmadinejad at his "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust" - and I'm told that they celebrate the death of Israeli soldiers (cries of "extreme" anyone?) Why is that the apparently gentle people running the world-famous Jews Against Zionism web-site (claiming to be the "True Torah Jews") are more of a problem than the NK? PRtalk 12:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- PR, please stop soapboxing about why you're not allowed to use extremist, anonymous, personal websites as reliable sources. If you're unwilling to abide by WP:V then you need to find a project that doesn't have it as a policy. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is that discussion on this page? I'm just thinking it's perhaps better placed in another section than here, in order to keep each section on track. Mackan79 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I want to add the estimate made that there are 150,000 Orthodox anti-Zionists, and around a million "non-Zionist" Orthodox. (What %age this is of the Zionist Orthodox, I don't know). Unfortunately, I'm told that the source is "extremist" - and, even though I've been denied any evidence for this whatsoever, I cannot use it. (And there is a lot more I would like to add, all of it from sources unimpeachably knowledgeable and likely very reliable). PRtalk 11:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just to the last part, PR, I think it's better if you have material you'd like to add that you simply put together the material that you'd like to see. At least in my experience, that's much more time-efficient, and helps discussions stay on topic. Mackan79 (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- You may have noticed he said "inherent linkage," Jayjg; this is the same point you quote Zipperstein making above. However, if you think the article should state in the lead that people only debate how anti-Zionism relates with antisemitism, this would seem a rather extraordinary position to support, considering the debates over all aspects of this issue are so well known. Mackan79 (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Which sources indicate that there is no linkage? Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I hope that people will avoid simple reverts over this. In reply to Jayjg, the problem of course isn't whether these views exist, but whether it is a neutral way to frame the issue. For example, I think it's fairly clear that covering all critics of the first two arguments as simply contending there is "overlap" is to rather widely miss their position. I think a shorter version is one option; otherwise we would need a larger discussion of the issue, but I'm not convinced that would improve the lead. Mackan79 (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you think a WP article needs to frame an issue? "Framing" is, by its very nature, never neutral [2]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but please note that I had removed the text, not replaced it; or can you say that the text you have replaced removes the framing?[3] You'll see several specific points on this above, relating to the manner in which your text states that people only discuss the manner in which anti-Zionism and antisemitism relate, as if the primary disputes over this issue don't exist or are not relevant. Mackan79 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mackan79, my concern is that you have stated an intention to frame the discussion. I do not consider that statement of your intention to be a positive indicator. Please reconsider your editing goals. The intention of my own edit was to restore content which you removed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- A "positive indicator"? Malcolm, if you read WP:AGF, I think you'll see one important part is trying to make sense out of what people say rather than doing the opposite. I'm not sure how you looked at my comment and my edit and decided I was arguing for framing of any type, let alone the type you have in mind, but all the same, you've currently made two simple reverts to the page without any response to the issues raised here that I can see. If you think this material is appropriate, please do consider addressing those points. Mackan79 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mackan79, my concern is that you have stated an intention to frame the discussion. I do not consider that statement of your intention to be a positive indicator. Please reconsider your editing goals. The intention of my own edit was to restore content which you removed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mackan79, we are still at that strange impasse, where I accurately summarize the sources in the lede, and you complain that its not NPOV to do so, but fail to explain what would make it NPOV. Are there sources that insist there is never a relationship between antisemitism and anti-Zionism? Or, as seems to be the case, are there various sources that debate the relationship between the two, with some saying it is strong, others saying it is weak, but none saying it doesn't exist? Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Jay, I find it frustrating that you come back to the page reverting, after violating 3RR last time, and without any intervening attempt to discuss the issue, especially as you continue to ask the same question that has already been addressed while claiming that it hasn't. As I said immediately above, one problem with your text is that "covering all critics of the first two arguments as simply contending there is 'overlap' is to rather widely miss their position." You quote Steven Zipperstein, for instance, but rather than relying on his main argument, you rely on his caveat beginning "[t]his is not to deny...." Writing an encyclopedia article isn't about going "Ah ha! So you admit..."; it's about accurately and fairly representing the coverage of an issue. The material you have included very clearly fails in this regard, which again is why I removed it as violating WP:NPOV. If you disagree, I hope you can respond more specifically. Mackan79 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mackan79, I'm failing to see your point. Every source I see says there is some sort of relationship, but the nature of the relationship is hotly debated. Zipperstein notes this relationship, even as he disputes the claims of others that is inherently a form of antisemitism. That's not a "Ah ha! So you admit..." point. I'm willing to work with you to flesh out the con view, but there's no reason to remove the pro view, which, after all, is a significant one, and one that should be mentioned, per WP:LEDE. Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I just wish I had a quarter for every time you didn't see my point, Jay. As far as expanding the discussion, I'm pretty sure that would only work if the entire lead were expanded to the three or four paragraph standard. I've tried in the past, but haven't found myself able, largely because the whole concept seems to be so poorly defined. In any case I know you see my point, since we've discussed this before. If we're looking for an analogy, please consider G-Dett's below, which I think illustrates the problem... about equally to the text proposed here. Mackan79 (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mackan79, I'm failing to see your point. Every source I see says there is some sort of relationship, but the nature of the relationship is hotly debated. Zipperstein notes this relationship, even as he disputes the claims of others that is inherently a form of antisemitism. That's not a "Ah ha! So you admit..." point. I'm willing to work with you to flesh out the con view, but there's no reason to remove the pro view, which, after all, is a significant one, and one that should be mentioned, per WP:LEDE. Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Jay, the sentence you're edit-warring into the article is a grammatical mess, and its summary of the sources is tendentious and inaccurate. I'll hold off copy-editing your work til you've come around to accepting a neutral approach to the matter at hand. Suffice to say that what you're adding is analogous (both in terms of stylistic solecisms and substantive distortions) to saying that The relationship between opposition to affirmative action and racism – whether it is an example of, cover for, or overlaps with racism — is debated. When we have something that isn't utter crap on the table, I'll be happy to proofread it.--G-Dett (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Jay, I find it frustrating that you come back to the page reverting, after violating 3RR last time, and without any intervening attempt to discuss the issue, especially as you continue to ask the same question that has already been addressed while claiming that it hasn't. As I said immediately above, one problem with your text is that "covering all critics of the first two arguments as simply contending there is 'overlap' is to rather widely miss their position." You quote Steven Zipperstein, for instance, but rather than relying on his main argument, you rely on his caveat beginning "[t]his is not to deny...." Writing an encyclopedia article isn't about going "Ah ha! So you admit..."; it's about accurately and fairly representing the coverage of an issue. The material you have included very clearly fails in this regard, which again is why I removed it as violating WP:NPOV. If you disagree, I hope you can respond more specifically. Mackan79 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mackan79, we are still at that strange impasse, where I accurately summarize the sources in the lede, and you complain that its not NPOV to do so, but fail to explain what would make it NPOV. Are there sources that insist there is never a relationship between antisemitism and anti-Zionism? Or, as seems to be the case, are there various sources that debate the relationship between the two, with some saying it is strong, others saying it is weak, but none saying it doesn't exist? Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence is useless. Suggest changing it to something along the following lines: "The difference between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism is not clear. This has led to a trading of accusations between Zionists and anti-Zionists with some Zionists arguing that anti-Zionists are influenced by anti-semitism, and some anti-Zionists claiming that Zionists use accusations of antisemitism as a tool to stifle debate." Telaviv1 (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- A little wordy as such, but substantively an excellent summary, Telaviv1.--G-Dett (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder how you would make it less wordy? To me one issue is saying that it is "unclear," as the first comment on this point. This may be reasonable, but seems potentially to leave behind the reader who may not initially have considered a relationship (this is a general reference work, after all). Otherwise, the question is whether this does not get rather heavily into one aspect of the article, in what is otherwise a very short lead. I'd find this reasonable for a third or fourth paragraph, for instance, but that assumes a second or third that we don't currently have. This is also why I raised the point that this article has generally been treated as a general article on "opposition to Zionism," and not simply the issue of "anti-Zionism" as that term is used. Mackan79 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Malcolm, might I prevail upon you to stop adding an ungrammatical, tendentious, and misleading sentence to the lead?
- I wonder how you would make it less wordy? To me one issue is saying that it is "unclear," as the first comment on this point. This may be reasonable, but seems potentially to leave behind the reader who may not initially have considered a relationship (this is a general reference work, after all). Otherwise, the question is whether this does not get rather heavily into one aspect of the article, in what is otherwise a very short lead. I'd find this reasonable for a third or fourth paragraph, for instance, but that assumes a second or third that we don't currently have. This is also why I raised the point that this article has generally been treated as a general article on "opposition to Zionism," and not simply the issue of "anti-Zionism" as that term is used. Mackan79 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- G-Dett, I do not need your advice on how to edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mackan, how about something neutral and succinct like Allegations of a necessary link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism have generated ongoing controversy?--G-Dett (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- p.s. Mackan, you raise an excellent point re "anti-Zionism" vs. "opposition to Zionism." The phrase "anti-Zionist" has become something of a catch-all, applied to a whole range of totally distinct positions, ranging from fundamental opposition to the idea of a Jewish state to activist opposition to state apologetics for the occupation. To take an obvious example: Noam Chomsky is not opposed to Zionism, but his political writings are generally described as "anti-Zionist." He is hardly alone in this regard. Another, perhaps even more striking example would be the work of Benny Morris. He is certainly not opposed to Zionism – far from it. And yet his work is often described as "anti-Zionist," not because of readerly incompetence but because his work dismantles certain state myths about the founding of Israel – and the term's range of meanings has come to include that. --G-Dett (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)--G-Dett (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, that seems pretty similar to what CJCurrie reduced, and is fine with me. Actually, I would probably use "link" instead of "necessary connection"; I could see someone saying this would wrongly imply that a link is disputed, but in truth I don't think it would imply that or anything beyond what it should. I don't know if there could be other minor improvements. Mackan79 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mackan, how about something neutral and succinct like Allegations of a necessary link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism have generated ongoing controversy?--G-Dett (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm, you have now reverted three times without addressing any of the issues raised on this page. This is along with Jayjg who has now on subsequent occasions jumped immediately to exhausting all of his "three reverts" while also failing to engage the other editors on this talk page. I don't know your history with G-Dett, but that's known as WP:Revert waring, and is very unhelpful toward improving the page. Please consider a more collaborative approach on this page so that we can come up with something that addresses everyone's concerns. Mackan79 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have already explained that the problem with your version is that you removed content. Also, I made changes with every edit trying to improve the disputed sentence. All you have done is revert multiple times to the same useless version. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- The issue is that the content gives a choice of three positions all of which posit a link. To properly nuance the situation requires more than one sentence. Therefore the Lede should just draw people's attention to the issue and elave the reader to find the more detailed explanation in the body.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you think something extra is needed, add it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Malcolm, as several people have now explained, the material has been removed because it violates WP:NPOV and falsely suggests that the only discussion is about how anti-Zionism relates to antisemitism. I assume you understand that content needs to comply with Wikipedia's policies or it should be removed. As has also been discussed, the problem with simply adding material is that it would give excessive focus to this issue in the lead. You've now added it again with cosmetic changes that don't address these problems, and violating the three revert rule in the process, which as I recall would provide that your account be blocked. Please revert yourself, as it is impossible to collaborate with someone who edits in this way (I haven't followed the Israel-Palestine arbitration case enough to know whether it applies or you've been notified about it). Mackan79 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mackan79, what additional POVs regarding the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism do you feel must be added to make the paragraph NPOV? Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Jay, hasn't Mackan made clear, in the very post you're "responding" to, that the problem here has not to do with what needs to be added ("the problem with simply adding material is that it would give excessive focus to this issue in the lead") but rather what needs to be altered in the misleading sentence to make it NPOV?--G-Dett (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mackan79, what additional POVs regarding the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism do you feel must be added to make the paragraph NPOV? Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Malcolm, as several people have now explained, the material has been removed because it violates WP:NPOV and falsely suggests that the only discussion is about how anti-Zionism relates to antisemitism. I assume you understand that content needs to comply with Wikipedia's policies or it should be removed. As has also been discussed, the problem with simply adding material is that it would give excessive focus to this issue in the lead. You've now added it again with cosmetic changes that don't address these problems, and violating the three revert rule in the process, which as I recall would provide that your account be blocked. Please revert yourself, as it is impossible to collaborate with someone who edits in this way (I haven't followed the Israel-Palestine arbitration case enough to know whether it applies or you've been notified about it). Mackan79 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm, you're "re-edited" the misleading and ungrammatical sentence four times now. Here are your versions:
- The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism – and if is an example of, cover for, overlaps with – has been much debated.
- The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism – and if it is an example of antisemitism, a cover for antisemitism , or overlaps with antisemitism – has been much debated.
- It remains a much debated issue if anti-Zionism is an example of antisemitism, a cover for antisemitism, or just overlaps antisemitism.
- It is a much debated, and still unresolved issue, if anti-Zionism is an example of antisemitism, a cover for antisemitism, or just overlaps antisemitism.
My favorite here is #2, for the way it manages to repeat the word "antisemitism" four times. The tone gets looser and more colloquial as you go on (e.g. "or just overlaps antisemitism") and the writing asymptotically approaches grammatical correctness – but honestly, I do not see any substantive difference whatsoever between any of these iterations, and your tinkerings appear to be entirely unrelated to the objections that have been patiently elaborated on this talk page. May I ask what it is you're doing?--G-Dett (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Btw, has anyone else noticed that Malcolm is in violation of the 3RR? I've informed him that he should self-revert, or risk being reported. CJCurrie (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have been trying to improve a disputed sentence. All you have done is revert every change back to the same meaningless sentence: "The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is debated." Really? What is the nature of the debate? The version you keep reverting back to is meaningless without an explanation, and you keep removing the explanation. Then, to top it off, you accuse me of edit warring. Hutzpa. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe the single word, 'debated' is sufficient weight in the lede. Just passing thru. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, it frames the issue broadly and neutrally as any lead should. On a passing visit the versions above read as suggesting that the only debate is about to what extent every anti-Zionist position, or anti-Zionism as a whole, is rooted in or based on antisemitism. While of course you would indeed have your work cut out to find any reliable source that says anti-Zionism is never linked to antisemitism in individual cases, that's a very different point. --Nickhh (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Quite. If asked "Are there antisemitic anti-Zionists?" my answer would be "Yes, quite obviously." Similarly on "Do some anti-Zionists become anti-Semitic?", this is most obvious with Arab and Islamic anti-Zionism with all the Holocaust-denial etc., and "Do anti-Semites adopt anti-Zionism as a cover?" then, yes, a lot of Western right-wingers fall into that camp and the new AS theorists also see that wuth left-wingers. But the version being pushed talks about the -isms not the -ites and the -ists, and implying a choice where "overlap" of the -isms is the weakest possibility implies a necessary connection between the -isms.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm has now been blocked for 3rr violation. Do people want to use the 48-hour breather to try to find a more elegant version of Telaviv1's proposal? Or could Jay, who seems to agree with Malcolm on this, explain why this would not be satisfactory?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd stand by the current version, or some variation which simply acknowledges that there is a debate or dispute as to the nature of any linkage between the two, without going into any details. I know it's hyper-woolly, but I can't see how else you're going to get a neutral wording into the lead that isn't going to be incessantly fought over from every side. More specifically, I can see a couple of problems with TA's version - i) it says that the "difference between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism is not clear", when in principle and as a matter of simple definition of course it is very clear; and ii) as acknowledged it comes over as somewhat convoluted, with too much of a claim & counter-claim structure to it. The "he said, she said" stuff is better left to the body of the article in my view, with proper sourcing and attribution.--Nickhh (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
so Nick, what is the difference between antisemitism and antizionism? Telaviv1 (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- That question is rhetorical, isn't it? But, for a start, anti-nationalists oppose Zionism. Zionism is just one manifestation of romantic 19th-century nationalism that, ignoring the Middle-East for now, has also led to the whole problem of Balkanisation that still goes on today, led to Alsace-Lorraine changing hands between different nationalisms several times, provided a non-religious rationale for German antisemitism that eventually led to the Holocaust (in which not just c6M Jews died but also other "inferior" races such as Slavs and Roma." And umpteen modern dictators use nationalism as a screen for their crimes.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- The answer to this question is so self-evident, that it can only have been posed rhetorically. "Antisemitism" is the word commonly used for racism directed at Jews. There are arguments that it is a misleading term, and I have reservations about its use; but the meaning is clear. "Anti-Zionism" is opposition to the practice and ideology of the Zionist movement, as embodied in the state of Israel. There are of course nuances and variations within these, but the basic difference is surely undeniable. There are countless anti-Zionists who are not antisemitic. I count myself among these, and know many hundreds more; we have articles in Wikipedia about many of them, including Uri Davis, Mike Marqusee, Michel Warschawski, Edward Said and lots more. There are indeed antisemites who are not anti-Zionists; I would count, for instance, Arthur Balfour and John Hagee among these.
- And, unfortunately, there are also those who are both anti-Zionist and antisemitic -- people who have falsely generalised from their opposition to Israel's practices and Zionist ideology, to asctibe this to something in immanent in the genetics of Jews, or in what they see as an essential Jewish character. Prominent among these currently are Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir.
- Surely this indicates that there is no more linkage between antisemitism and anti-Zionism than there is between either of these and left-handedness or vegetarianism? A correlation is not a cause or explanation. RolandR (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry TA I decided not to answer that myself even though the question was addressed to me. As for the lead now, I'm kind of OK with it, but I can see someone legitimately asking for balance now so that it follows on with ".. however some anti-Zionists believe that unfounded allegations of anti-semitism are used to suppress anti-Zionist arguments" or whatever. That's what I meant when saying that as soon as you start pushing in some detail, someone else is going to come in and ask for some form of counter-point, and then someone else will want a counter to that point. Etc etc. Hence why just a vague reference to the issue might be better. We'll see I guess. --Nickhh (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Roland--you are omitting the class that is probably the most significant in terms of making this such a contentious issue--those who are fundamentally anti-semitic who have latched on to anti-Zionism as a justification for their essentially anti-Jewish views, in the same manner that many American racists--guided fundamentally by a hostility towards African Americans (or other persons of color) have used affirmative action, states rights, anti-immigration etc as a justification (even while there may be non-racists who hold to those views). It is this latching on to anti-Zionism by bonafide (and largely non-Jewish) antisemites that has taken what was once a debate within the Jewish community (Zionism vs a myriad of other Jewish world views) into the current raging mess that exists today. And of course it cuts both ways--the rabid anti-semites of Poland's late 1930's government adopted a pro-Zionist position based solely on their despising of Poland's Jews (as did any number of Jew haters and fascists throughout Europe, and a phenomenon not without it's American analogues). And this did not go undebated within Poland's lively Jewish political factional squabbles.
- So the issue is not for us to decide if there is a causal, correlative or explanatory relationship between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism, but how to present that relationship in a NPOV manner. Best of luck! :) Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Who are these fundamentally anti-semitic people who have latched on to anti-Zionism as a justification for their essentially anti-Jewish views? I can think of about one (a Israeli) in the whole of the Western World. This is not a rhetorical question, I think we need to be told. PRtalk 16:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you're asking about major pundits and analysts in the public arena, I agree with you that it's pretty hard to find ones that fit this description. On the other hand, antisemitic fringe figures like David Duke (and David Irving, if I'm not mistaken) certainly have latched on to anti-Zionism, and even pro-Palestinian talking points, though their resumés show no interest whatsoever in human rights or anti-colonialism more generally. And at the grassroots level, I think this is something pro-Palestinian activists encounter often enough – fringe cranks latching on to the cause for the wrong reasons. In Europe perhaps more than in America, but anyway.--G-Dett (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A list of names (other than Duke et al, per G-Dett) would be a bit opening a can of worms, BLP and otherwise. Suffice it to say the phenomenon appears to exist, how prevalent is of course subject to debate. And the phenomenon of anti-semitic scapegoating of Jews for political purposes under the guise of "anti-Zionism" has a long pedigree, and is well documented in the case of the anti-semitic purges in Poland, in 1968, not to mention hints of it in the 1956 version. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I mentioned the grassroots level as well as that of fringe commentators, but forgot to mention statesmen. I think it'd be pretty uncontroversial to say that Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Ahmadinejad, and others have latched on to anti-Zionism for reasons that have little to do with their strong support for human rights and self-determination. With groups like Hezbollah, with their weird mix of democratic populism and retrograde authoritarianism, I suppose things get more complicated. A can of worms, as Boodles says.--G-Dett (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A list of names (other than Duke et al, per G-Dett) would be a bit opening a can of worms, BLP and otherwise. Suffice it to say the phenomenon appears to exist, how prevalent is of course subject to debate. And the phenomenon of anti-semitic scapegoating of Jews for political purposes under the guise of "anti-Zionism" has a long pedigree, and is well documented in the case of the anti-semitic purges in Poland, in 1968, not to mention hints of it in the 1956 version. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you're asking about major pundits and analysts in the public arena, I agree with you that it's pretty hard to find ones that fit this description. On the other hand, antisemitic fringe figures like David Duke (and David Irving, if I'm not mistaken) certainly have latched on to anti-Zionism, and even pro-Palestinian talking points, though their resumés show no interest whatsoever in human rights or anti-colonialism more generally. And at the grassroots level, I think this is something pro-Palestinian activists encounter often enough – fringe cranks latching on to the cause for the wrong reasons. In Europe perhaps more than in America, but anyway.--G-Dett (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Who are these fundamentally anti-semitic people who have latched on to anti-Zionism as a justification for their essentially anti-Jewish views? I can think of about one (a Israeli) in the whole of the Western World. This is not a rhetorical question, I think we need to be told. PRtalk 16:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Arbitary Break
I don't so much disagree with the new sentence, as I wonder if it actually improves what is otherwise an extremely generalized lead paragraph. In order to be clearer now, we're still jumping over the whole point that anti-Zionism is sometimes associated with antisemitism, in order to address much more subtle issues regarding why that's the case (also therefore necessarily offering a very incomplete picture; no matter what position you take, the only reason isn't that anti-Zionists sometimes use antisemitic imagery). To me the important point in the lead is solely that anti-Zionism is sometimes associated with antisemitism; that's a big and important point. However, I'm skeptical that any attempt to capture the entire discussion in a sentence will actually be an improvement. Mackan79 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Its not a perfect sentence, but judging from the comments here I would say that people are more or less OK with it and we can move on to the next problem. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I find the sentence cumbersome, agree with Mackan than it's a bit deep in the weeds for the lede as it's currently written, and creates an UNDUE problem. For the life of me I can't figure out what was wrong with something simple and summative like "connections between anti-Zionism and antisemitism have been both alleged and disputed."--G-Dett (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Because that sentence is completely devoid of content. For those of us who consider that there is a connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism (even if it is occasional) it causes annoyance (and therefore sparks controversy). The current sentence provides a warning that anti-zionists need to be careful about the materials and arguments they use without offending the anti-Zionists who are sensitive about being called antisemites.
The problem was to find a sentence that was acceptable to both sides. Telaviv1 (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Telaviv1, proper consensus-building is not mere horse-trading between those who want the lead to include a succinct and neutral summary of a controversy and those who want the lead to "provide a warning" to one party in that controversy.
- I agree with you that anti-Zionists would do well to be careful about their materials etc. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual of political etiquette.
- The succinct and neutral summaries put forth by CJCurrie, Mackan, myself, and others have not been "devoid of content." They are less specific than what you've written, because it is in the nature of lede summaries to be less specific.
- At any rate, what you've written is more specific only with regard to the Zionist complaints about anti-Zionists. It is still "devoid of content" regarding the anti-Zionist counterclaim, that complaints of antisemitism are often ill-founded and serve to stifle debate.
- So you've got an NPOV problem. And yet if you flesh out the anti-Zionist position within the dispute, you'll have an UNDUE problem. This is one reason (not by any means the only) why Wikipedia leads stick to the sort of summary statements you wrongly describe as devoid of content.--G-Dett (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Instead of complaining try and put the addition you want into text. This is not horse-trading, it is reaching a consensus (as you say). I tried to be succinct and to express the problem. I don't think trying to reduce antisemitism should be offensive to anti-zionists (unless they are anti-semites) or POV (except to anitsemites) but even if you do find it offensive it was a by-product of the sentence not its principal aim. Telaviv1 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not offended by any of this; I'm just doing my (small) bit to help build an encyclopedia. What's required for that is a succinct and neutral lead. If you want to write a manual of political etiquette, I'd say go ahead and warn would-be anti-Zionists of the rhetorical and ideological pitfalls of AZ discourse. Nor do I want to "add" anything to what you wrote, for reasons I explained clearly in my post, which I think you should read again.--G-Dett (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the current version fails to improve the simple statement, and on the problem of undue weight. This is the entire article on opposition to Zionism, and yet we now have the second of two paragraphs devoted completely to the claimed connection to antisemitism. In my view there are many issues that should be given much more space before doing this. By way of comparison, we don't discuss any of the reasons people would be "anti-Zionist," but simply note the categories in which they fall. Our explanation here now does provide such reasoning, although reasoning that is misleading for ignoring the criticism of the argument, but also for ignoring the probably more significant argument that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic by nature of what it is (a different idea from "systemic" antisemitism). I also agree with G-Dett that the previous sentence provides important content; some seem to be presuming that everyone already knows anti-Zionism can be connected with antisemitism, but I don't think it's an accurate or right presumption to make. In terms of alerting the reader, I can agree partially, but that's also the primary benefit of the shorter sentence, that it alerts the reader without trying to do more than it really can.
Since Malcolm has asked me to further explain my objection to his changes, I believe they are inaccurate in suggesting a consensus that anti-Zionism is "frequently a disguised form of antisemitism; but it is, nevertheless, not always antisemitism." First, the cited sources do not show a consensus on this point. Second, in fact both of these points are disputed, first whether anti-Zionism is frequently a disguised form of antisemitism, and second whether anti-Zionism is nevertheless sometimes not antisemitism. Third, saying that one is a "form" of the other, or that it "is" the other, seems to me a rather oversimplified and unclear way of discussing the issue, which removes rather than adds meaning to the last version. These are why I replaced the previous version, even though I do not totally agree with it for the reasons immediately above. Mackan79 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is not strictly necessary to support statements in the introduction with sources, because the body of the article should expand upon, and support, everything in the introduction. I have to admit that may not yet the case for that particular change, so I will leave you preferred version of that sentence as is....for now. But the version you reverted to is not well written, and needs be made more intelligible. Please do something to improve it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding here. I'm not sure I can improve it, since as I said I'm not fond of either approach. To me the shorter sentence was very much better, for not attempting to get into these issues, but simply noting that they're there (incidentally I believe this was the assessment of most people who have commented). My view of all of these other approaches so far also remains that they're overly familiar with and overly drawn in to this issue, jumping into the controversy and somewhat beating up on the reader. If you'd like to keep trying, though, I guess the question is more whether you can prove me wrong by coming up with a summary that works. Mackan79 (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Baba Sali
The section on orthodox opposition cites the (Moroccan born Jewish leader) Baba Sali as an opponent of Zionism:
"The Baba Sali, called Rabbi Teitelbaum's VaYoel Moshe the "treatise of our generation".[22]"
The reference just cites "Sefet Tehilas Yoel" with no details. I could find to evidence that a book with this title exists in either English or Hebrew, nor is there anything to suggest that Sali was an anti-Zionist: quite the opposite, he emigrated to Israel, though he was disappointed by the lack of devotion there and subsequently moved to France for a decade or so before returning again to Israel, where he died. If no one objects in the next few days I will delete this line.
Telaviv1 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Defining Zionism
The definition of Zionism used in this article is fundamentally flawed, and needs to be re-written to make it clear that Zionism is a fundamental tenet of the Jewish religion, and that religious opposition, such as Satmar opposition, is opposition to the secular Jewish state, not to the goal of return to Zion. Something like this [4] would be better. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Socialist opposition
I have moved the whole subsection on "Socialist opposition" here to the talk page for discussion.
*Socialist opposition
::Some working class Jews in Europe and America supported socialist or communist political ideas. The largest Socialist Jewish organisation in Europe was the General Jewish Labor Union, also known as the Bund. The Bund called for Jewish national cultural autonomy within a socialist state.[1] Most European Jewish socialists rejected this latter view and became Socialist Zionists.
::In 1917 the Bund had 30,000 members in Russia, compared to 300,000 Zionist members. A internal 1922 Bolshevik census found less then 1,000 Jewish party members.[2]
::Some Middle Eastern Jewish Communists, following party doctrine, felt that Zionism would not only obstruct a common struggle for equality via asserting the primacy of ethnic affiliation above class affiliation, but would lead to the establishment of a separatist state privileging Jews at the expense of their fellow Arabs in Palestine.[citation needed].
There are, in my view, some problems with this material:
- There is no explanation how Jewish Socialist opposition to Zionism differs from any other Socialist opposition to it. I suspect there is no real difference.
- The first two paragraphs, (that I removed yesterday, but were reverted back into the article) do not say anything about Zionism at all. That is why I removed them.
- The last paragraph is unsourced.
Above all, if the views of Jewish Socialists is identical with the general Socialist opposition, the subsection does not belong in the part of the article dealing with Jewish opposition to Zionism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am very sceptical about the membership figures quoted above. In the first place, the figure of 30,000 Bund members would appear to apply to 1903-4, when the party was illegal, rather than 1917.[3] RolandR (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The Bund was a specifically "Jewish" socialist organization and was anti-Zionist, so it is right that it be under Jewish opposition. The Bund called for Jewish autonomy (as the article stated) and that made it different from other socialist organizations (including the Russian communist party which was CREATED by the Bund).
The statistics show quite clearly that the Bund was less popular then Zionism so they are certainly relevant to Zionism. Until a couple of weeks ago this article claimed that Socialism was more opular then Zionism among Eastern European Jews and that view is commonly expressed so it was important to brings statistics that would show it to be inaccurate. If we don't leave it in someone will soon come along and restate the claim.
The stuff aobut middle eastern communists should in my view be deleted as it is unsourced and there is no way of gauging what "Jewish communists in the middle-east" believed. The movement was not democratic and opinions were dictated from above.
If you want to delete the whole article I have no objection. Anti-Zionism is not an ideology or a movement.
Telaviv1 (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Deleting, or renaming, doesn't seem to me an unreasonable option. Quite possibly this article should otherwise be much shorter than it is. The problem, to be honest, is how much of the material might otherwise be included in Zionism, or otherwise if there is a better offshoot article for controversy, and then a better place for a redirect. No one seems to have come up with a good solution yet. Mackan79 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is, as I said,
- content relevant to the article
- citing sources
- placement of material in the correct place. (If the Bund and Communist Party had identical positions, it would not to be relevant as a Jewish viewpoint.)
- The problem is, as I said,
- Don't get discouraged, Telaviv1. At least you have not had to deal with tag-team reverts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- ^ "August Grabski on the Anti-Zionism of the Bund (1947-1972)" Workers Liberty, 2005
- ^ Zvi Y. Gitelman, A Century of Ambivalence: The Jews of Russia and the Soviet Union, 1881 to the Present, 2001, pages 60-61 and 64.
- ^ Abramsky, Chimen (1970), "The Biro-Bidzhan Project, 1927-1959", in Kochan, Lionel (ed.), The Jews in Soviet Russia since 1917, London: Oxford University Press, p. 63, ISBN 192154738
{{citation}}
: Check|isbn=
value: length (help). "The Bund claimed that, in 1903-4, in conditions of illegality, it had a membership of 30,000, an astonishing figure for the time. The Bund probably commanded a larger following than the Russian Social Democratic Party (R.S.D.R.P.). The Zionist-Socialists (the Z.S.) stated in its report to the Stuttgart congress of the Second International in 1907 that it had a membership of 27,000. A Jewish historian estimated that the Jewish labour movement numbered about 70,000 members".
References
Censorship
Why is this article constantly being censored by Zionist hawks? Isn't this supposed to be an even-handed analysis? Phony propagandists like Jayjg espouse their bullshit views (which are contrary to the views of the international community via the UN/Human Rights Groups, etc. etc.) are ruining Wikipedia and turning it into another arm of the Israel lobby. Any criticism is deemed a conspiracy theory. You are ruining everything this site is supposed to stand for. Fucking Nazis.