m fix archiver |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 34 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:Zionism/Archive 12, Talk:Zionism/Archive 9, Talk:Zionism/Archive 10, Talk:Zionism/Archive 11. |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 125K |
|maxarchivesize = 125K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 12 |
||
|algo = old(30d) |
|algo = old(30d) |
||
|archive = Talk:Zionism/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:Zionism/Archive %(counter)d |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
== |
== terrorism and violence == |
||
A section on "black zionism", are you kidding me??? Who put that in the article? Someone please remove it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/12.28.178.41|12.28.178.41]] ([[User talk:12.28.178.41|talk]]) 18:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Why? [[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== two state or one state == |
|||
I am unclear as to what is zionism concerning a two state or the whole state of israel. Please does anyone know about this? I would like to know if current, past, or what types of Zionism might agree or call for a two state solution in israel/palestine or who want the whole state to be israel. [[User:Sp0|Sp0]] ([[User talk:Sp0|talk]]) 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==terrorism and violence== |
|||
using the word terrorism to describe the PLO seems to take a pro Zionist view. I recomend using violence because it is more neutral than the word terror and basically is the same thing.I will change it for now but discuss it on the discussion page if I am wrong. Thank You! ([[User:Ssd175|Ssd175]] 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)) |
using the word terrorism to describe the PLO seems to take a pro Zionist view. I recomend using violence because it is more neutral than the word terror and basically is the same thing.I will change it for now but discuss it on the discussion page if I am wrong. Thank You! ([[User:Ssd175|Ssd175]] 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)) |
||
Line 81: | Line 71: | ||
I am a bit less blind than the previous guy! I have also been in Palestine and I clearly saw how Palestinians live. They don't have any freedom of movement inside their own country, they can't use the airport, they have to pass check-points, they are trapped by that horrible and non-human wall into small disconnected areas, they live in extreme poverty, and each day of their life for more than 60 years they have been forced to see military tanks, soldiers holding guns, at every corner. It is a very hard life for those Palestinians that are not terrorists to be treated like terrorists! I think that any kind of state is a very bad (not to say also criminal) state if it decides to fight criminality by putting in jail all the population! This means Zionist way of thinking and dealing with problems is completely wrong! and it is also criminal! I have also been talking to many Israeli-Arabs and they tell me that Israel offers them a lot of money to sell their lands and move to the USA giving them an American citizenship in exchange of signing a contract in which they and their children must never return to Israel again! and this is just because they are Arabs.. i think this is Zionism!! A very horrible thing! So, in my reply to the previous guy I would like to respond: please open your eyes more! you are not blind, but you see just what you like to see and not the truth. Nur ('[[Special:Contributions/82.75.250.252|82.75.250.252]] ([[User talk:82.75.250.252|talk]]) 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)','','') |
I am a bit less blind than the previous guy! I have also been in Palestine and I clearly saw how Palestinians live. They don't have any freedom of movement inside their own country, they can't use the airport, they have to pass check-points, they are trapped by that horrible and non-human wall into small disconnected areas, they live in extreme poverty, and each day of their life for more than 60 years they have been forced to see military tanks, soldiers holding guns, at every corner. It is a very hard life for those Palestinians that are not terrorists to be treated like terrorists! I think that any kind of state is a very bad (not to say also criminal) state if it decides to fight criminality by putting in jail all the population! This means Zionist way of thinking and dealing with problems is completely wrong! and it is also criminal! I have also been talking to many Israeli-Arabs and they tell me that Israel offers them a lot of money to sell their lands and move to the USA giving them an American citizenship in exchange of signing a contract in which they and their children must never return to Israel again! and this is just because they are Arabs.. i think this is Zionism!! A very horrible thing! So, in my reply to the previous guy I would like to respond: please open your eyes more! you are not blind, but you see just what you like to see and not the truth. Nur ('[[Special:Contributions/82.75.250.252|82.75.250.252]] ([[User talk:82.75.250.252|talk]]) 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)','','') |
||
== Ceedjee's reversals == |
|||
Ceedjee has been reverting several of my edits. This is not warranted by wikipedia policy. |
|||
Dear Ceedjee, my edits are all '''relevant and from reliable sources'''. Therefore they should be in the article and there's no excuse for deleting them. Of course I understand that they don't coincide with your pov, but then either: |
|||
* your pov cannot be found in reliable sources (since I tend not to read Zionist historians (except Morris) I don't know whether these sources support your pov), in which case my edits are NPOV, i.e. neutral, or |
|||
* your pov can be found in reliable sources, in which case you are free to find them and add them to the article, but not to remove my edits. Wikipedia policy states: ''An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.'' [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance]]. |
|||
I am putting my edits back in and are willing to discuss each of them with you. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I don't think omeone who doesn't read "zionist" historians shold be contributing to a page on zionism. thats like editing the page on Africa and boasting that you do't read African historians. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 16:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:This is a very good point. I have read the NPOV policy page, and it says the we must show all significant points of view in an article. If you only accept or read one point of view, then you will not be able to follow policy. Also, I think material written by Anti-Zionists might be better suited to the Anti-Zionism article. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 21:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::You're wrong. NPOV requires all pov's to be present. Someone can add pov's from one side, another can add pov's from another side. Together, we make a good article. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't think I'm wrong. The policy says all significant points of view must be presented. If you only read one-sided material, you can't make a proper presentation of all sides, and it is your responsibility to ensure that your additions do not unbalance the article and violate the NPOV policy. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 22:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think the sources I read and use are quite balanced, unlike some Zionist works that contain a lot of apologetics, like Morris' or the quote from Shapira in the article, on Zionist attitudes towards Palestinians:'' 'Yet at that particular juncture in the movement such deliberations [...] had about the same importance as the learned disputations customarily held in the courtyards of Hassidic rebbes regarding what would happen after the coming of the messiah' '', which some editors even see fit to add to this article. Also, dismissing books that are more critical on Zionism, like you seem to do, will surely make this article POV. |
|||
::::Besides, wikipedia policy says this: ''An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.''. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance]] |
|||
:::::That is not a policy page, and it appears it was written in January 2004, when Wikipedia was quite young. This is a mature article, and your additions from only one point of view are unbalancing it. You've admitted yourself you only use non-Zionist sources along with Morris. In this article you are using anti-Zionists and politicians. This is not acceptable. Please take responsibility for your edits, and the effect they have on the whole. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 21:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The page I'm referring to is a page with an explanation of official Wikipedia policy. If it were obsolete, as you claim, it would not still be there. The sources I use are reliable. Even if they are anti-Zionist, as you claim (I say they're quite neutral), that would not be the relevant criterium for a disqualification. Reliability is the issue! In fact you are acting irresponsible by removing relevant and sourced material. |
|||
::::::Concerning NPOV, Wikipedia policy requires all pov's to be represented. The Zionist pov is already there, and my additions make this article more NPOV and more mature. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 22:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You are, of course, correct. This article is about a controversial belief system about which there is learned disagreement, with real evidence and well-made arguments on both sides. This entry doesn't, but a real encyclopedia article should reflect that. The way to get 'there', as you indicated, is obvious; your quote is practically a direct reference to what may be wrong with this encyclopedia entry and how to solve the problem: <em>An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.</em>[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The page you are referring to does not say it is a policy page in any way. I checked it carefully, and looked in its history to see who wrote it, which is how I also saw that that advice was written in January 2004. I'm not surprised that you say writers like Khalidi and Finkelstein and Flapan and Sternhall are neutral, but that's because you choose writers writing from a very specific and strong bias. Writing an article about Zionism using only non-Zionist and anti-Zionist sources is like writing an article about American history using only non-American and Communist Soviet sources. Concerning NPOV, that is right, NPOV policy requires all points of view to be represented, but you are only putting information from writers who write from one point of view. I don't know what "Zionist pov" you are talking about, but your additions from strongly opinionated writers, many of whom aren't even historians, violates the NPOV policy and the Verifiability policy. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
=== JaapBoBo pov pushing === |
|||
:I asked you to discuss any edit here before modyfing the article. |
|||
:If somebody adds 1 entire book from Pappe and 2 lines from Morris, he doesn't respect npov. |
|||
:If somebody adds all possible details on a topic in a general article, he doesn't respect wp:due weight. |
|||
:This is what you do. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ceedjee|contribs]]) 14:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:You answered on my talk page you agreed but you came here and throw personnal attacks. |
|||
:This just after 1 week of absence where you were convinced of manipulating Morris quote. |
|||
:There is no disagreement of pov between us. I don't have pov concering this stuff but I cannot agree your manipulation. |
|||
:So, just write here below *ONE* of the section you want to add and let's discuss this. |
|||
:[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 14:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I did not say on your talk page that I was not planning to reverse you. |
|||
::Please if you think one of my deletions was unwarrented you are free to adress that particular deletion. What you are doing now is usually called vandalism. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 14:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::By the way, I am not pov-pushing. I explained above what I did. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 14:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oh Yes. What you do on wikipedia is pov pushing and manipulation. |
|||
:::Add here below what you want to add in the article and let's discuss this. |
|||
:::But go step by step and paragraph by paragraph. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 14:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::You can see all the changes I made yesterday on the history page of the article, so if there is anyone particular you don't agree with you can bring it up here. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I removed the stuff japbobo added because it was repetious and some of it was stupid. to say that weizmann opposed one view while supporting it in the back of his mind is just dumb. It doesn't really matter what the source is. In addition the article is already too long. |
|||
The POV that Bobo is pushing (and it is a POV) is represented in the article. |
|||
If there is a particular aspect of Zionism you (Jaapbobo) feel is not being discussed I wil be happy to hear about it and discuss it with a view to improving the article but it seems to me that at the moment youare just trying to put in quotes from Flapan et al with little more intnetion that making Zionist leaders look bad and the result is miles of text and quotes that are not paricularly relevant, interesting nor do they meet decent standards of English writing. |
|||
Thanks |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 16:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Edits == |
|||
Telaviv, if you have remarks on my edits, please state them more particular below. |
|||
I understand your concern about the length of the article, but I am concerned with NPOV, which I think is more important. Maybe in some cases my edits can be made shorter, but please, lets consider this for each edit separately. |
|||
In case you don't agree with some pov's wikipedia policy says it's better to add other pov's than to delete: see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance]] --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Weizmann=== |
|||
:''Weizmann rejected the idea that population transfer of Palestinians to other Arab countries was immoral (Under the 1923 [[Treaty of Lausanne]], Turks and Greeks had agreed a mutual transfer arrangement). According to Flapan this idea was in the back of his mind, although he didn't say this in public. In 1930 he did however urge the British to consider transfer of Palestinians to Transjordan.<ref>Simha Flapan, 'Zionism and the Palestinians', 1979, ISBN 0-85664-499-4, p. 70</ref>'' |
|||
Of this Telaviv says: ''weizmann opposed one view while supporting it in the back of his mind is just dumb''. The idea in the back of Weizmann's mind was of course that he rejected the idea that transfer was immoral. Maybe it should be stated clearer.--[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Sorry I have been away recently. |
|||
First of all Weizmann was involved in the zionist movement for over 50 years and this does not really deal with his views across the period. It focuses on two moments which are given out of context and meant to give a negative impression of Weizmann. I don't think you can really read Weizmann's mind and in this context only official positions should be referred to. Also this does not really provide an effective summary of what Weizmann stood for. |
|||
As I understand it Weizmann was a democrat who was willing to talk to the Arabs and to make a lot of compromises. However he opposed creating an elected assembly in Palestine when there was an Arab majority as this would have enabled the Arabs to prevent Jewish migration, which was an issue he would not compromise on. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 14:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:So you are saying that Weizmann was a democrat, ... except when the Palestinians were concerned...!?! |
|||
:In fact what Flapan says is not very different from that. If Weizmann could get rid of some Palestinians by transfer, he would do it. It appears that according to Flapan, who has studied the subject extensively, including the unofficial side, thinks that Weizmann was willing to go a little bit further than you think. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 19:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I have studied the period quite extensively too and am currently reading a biogrpahy of Weizmann. I'm up to 1918 and will try to amke some progress in the next week or so. |
|||
I agree that Zionism ahd a problem with the fact that its "nation" was not in the right place. What the Zionists wanted was a period of grace under British control where they could increase their numbers so that they became the majority and they were willing, during this phase to deny certain Arab rights. Any transfer on the cards would have been at the hands of the British and not the Jews. I am nearly at San Remo so I'll soon learn more... |
|||
You should also examine the conditions of Jews in Eastern Europe. The writers you refer to don't discuss what was pushing the Jews out of Europe. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 07:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm curious what you'll read. Who's the biographer? |
|||
:By the way, with Weizmann almost all Zionists rejected the idea that population transfer of Palestinians to other Arab countries was immoral. Read e.g. Masalha's 'Expulsion of the Palestinians'. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::That is not completely correct. |
|||
::There was a debate among zionists as well as among british because at that time it was not clear to people if population transfer was morale or not. It was another time than today. |
|||
::So, they debated this and some were opposed (minority) and some others see this as a good solution (the majority). |
|||
::You read Morris, did you ? You can also read Segev, 'One Palestine, complete'. |
|||
::When the Peel Commission proposed the transfer in 1936, they didn't oppose but were very pleased by this who was one of the way to solve the unmanageable problem of the demographic outcome and the mutual hatred between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. |
|||
::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 07:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The moral side of the problem was not a part of the discussion. According to Masalha the ones that did not support transfer did not do that for moral reasons, but because they feared the Palestinians would resist forced transfer (the Peel proposal did not require the Palestinian population to be transfered to agree with transfer, for them it was 'in the last resort compulsory'). The Peel proposal was rejected because the Zionists wanted more than the 20% of PAlestine it granted them. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::As written here above, the morale part of the problem was a part of the discussion among some of the Zionists and they were aware of the negative morale aspect of a transfer given they feared defending this "solution" openly would be negative for the sympathy accorded to the Zionist project. |
|||
::::We don't mind the reason why [some] Zionists rejected Peel proposal (Ben Gurion and Weizman defended this). They were happy that British proposed themselves the ''transfer'' in the Peel report. Note that British adminisration finally rejected this ''solution'' because it was not morale ! (this is explained eg in Tom Segev, ''One Palestine, complete''). |
|||
::::Finally, the last morale aspect I see is described by Morris who points out that they tried to ''justify'' this solution by comparison with what happened between Greece and Turkey in the 20ies. |
|||
::::What could seem strange (UK proposing an immorale solution; Zionists defending this but not openly; ...) is due to the fact that morale values at that time were not the same as us today and that only a part of the population understood at the time the potential immorality around this. |
|||
::::Note also, as Pappe reminds that ''ethnic cleansing'' is a recent concepts. |
|||
::::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 08:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You're falling for a propaganda trick - despite what some might want you to think, the Peel Commission is a footnote in history, just one of a whole series of reports. It went to Palestine in 1936 and was boycotted by the Arab side (who were at last in serious revolt). Peel wrote something that might have kicked off a new state - not the "national home" of Balfour and the Mandate. The British had always been opposed to transfer and were bound to reject it. I think the proposal involved ethnically cleansing 225,000 Arabs and 1,250 of the immigrants - it was clearly an outrage. 3 years later, the British finally took the obvious decision and attempted to stop immigration, but by then it was too late. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 23:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Ben-Gurion=== |
|||
:''According to Flapan Ben-Gurions assesment of Arab feelings led him to an even more militant line on the need to build up Jewish military strength: 'I believe in our power, in our power which will grow, and if it will grow agreement will come...'.<ref>Simha Flapan, 'Zionism and the Palestinians', 1979, ISBN 0-85664-499-4, p. 142-144</ref>'' |
|||
This text is very relevant and from a reliable source. Why should it not be in? |
|||
Maybe we should not include the remaining part I added about Ben-Gurion. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
yes try ot keep it short and to the point. I have no poblem with this particular statement but don't think you need to make the same point twice. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 14:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Hebrew labor=== |
|||
:''According to Flapan 'The struggle for "100 per cent of Jewish labour" in the Jewish sector of the Palestine economy occupied the energies of the labour movement for most of the Mandatory years and contributed more than any other factor to the crystallisation of the concept of territorial, economic and social separation between Jews and Arabs.'<ref>Simha Flapan, 'Zionism and the Palestinians', 1979, ISBN 0-85664-499-4, p. 199</ref>'' |
|||
This is relevant, and according to Flapan one of the core policies of the Zionists. Now its only mentioned (without the importance Flapan ascribes to it) in the Arab attitudes (''such as the "Hebrew labor" movement which, in an effort to prevent Zionist settlements turning into a standard colonial enterprise and to secure the creation of a Jewish proletariat, campaigned against the employment of cheap Arab labour.''), but it was a central Zionist attitude and should be mentioned as part of the Zionist attitudes. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I combined this with 'Flapan's overview' (see below) to: |
|||
::''According to Flapan one of the basic concepts of mainstream Zionism with regard to the Arab Palestinians was economic, social and cultural segregation as a means to create a Jewish national life. Especially the struggle for "100 per cent of Jewish labour" in the Jewish sector of the economy occupied the energies of the labour movement for most of the Mandatory years and contributed more than any other factor to the territorial, economic and social separation between Jews and Arabs.'<ref>Simha Flapan, 'Zionism and the Palestinians', 1979, ISBN 0-85664-499-4, p. 11, 199</ref>'' |
|||
::--[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Historical right=== |
|||
:''According to Finkelstein the establishment of a Jewish majority and a Jewish state in Palestine was fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of the indigenous Arab inhabitants of Palestine. They would either have to move or become a minority in their own country. Nonetheless mainstream Zionism never doubted its historical right to establish a Jewish majority on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine. Zionism justified this with two 'facts': the bond of the Jewish nation with Palestine, as derived from its history, was unique, while the Arabs of Palestine were part of the Arab nation and therefore had no special bond with Palestine. Therefore the Jews had a preemptive right to Palestine.<ref>N. Finkelstein, 2002, 'Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict', 2nd ed., p. 12-16</ref> For example [[A. D. Gordon|Aaron David Gordon]], whose teachings formed the main intellectual inspiration of the labor leaders, wrote in 1921:<blockquote>'For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible [... including the Gospels and the New Testament ...] It all came from us; it was created among us. [...] And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country? Such creations, or even the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.'<ref>Zeev Sternhell, 1998, 'The founding myths of Israel', p. 71,72, ISBN 0-691-01694-1</ref></blockquote>'' |
|||
This is the core of Zionist attitudes towards the Palestinians and is supported by several reliable sources. I understand that many Zionist scholars have not paid attention to this, but more neutral sources have. To delete this from the article is to make it pov. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The article is not about the Arab population of Palestine, nor about historical rights. 1. Historical land rights are rights that by definition do not apply to Jews and therefore to claim them is to say Jews are second class human beings. 2. How many generations does one have to live somewhere to acquire historical rights? how many generations do you have to be outside it to lose them? |
|||
The article does not suggest the Palestinians have no rights or connection to Palestine, it is about Zionism and what Zionists claim. The biblical origins of Zionism are mentioned in the introduction. If you want to mention it then it needs ot be no more then a line. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:You are trying to argue with Finkelstein's pov that Zionism claims a historical right. Maybe you should read his book, in order to understand his point better. Gorny and Sternhell agree with Finkelstein on this point. E.g. Sternhell quotes Zionism's most important ideologue [[A. D. Gordon|Aaron David Gordon]], who wrote in 1921: |
|||
::''For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible [... including the Gospels and the New Testament ...] It all came from us; it was created among us. [...] And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country? Such creations, or even the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.''<ref>Zeev Sternhell, 1998, 'The founding myths of Israel', p. 71,72, ISBN 0-691-01694-1</ref> |
|||
:According to [[Zeev Sternhell]] 'this was the ultimate Zionist argument', so there's no doubt about this historical right which Zionism claimed. Also maybe you are not aware that Gordon is the nationalist ideologue who by 1920 eclipsed all nationalist socialist ideologues. Socialism did not suit Zionism because it was based on class struggle. Instead Zionism needed class cooperation to conquer the Land. The Histradut treated its workers not different than a large European company treated it's workers. |
|||
:This is more important and relevant than you appear to think. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 20:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I think you misunderstood me. I accepted your point about Zinism claiming a historical right too. However I think the issue is addressed in the article's discussion of the religious origins of Zionism and should not result in more then a sentence. |
|||
The socialist movement dominated the Zionism movement, so to say it was not socialist is wrong. I understand that the authors you have read are claiming it was not 'proper' socialism however that depends on a very narrow definition of socialism and it seems to me to be the result of POV determining theory. You could eaqually say the British LAbour PArty was/is not socialist. It owuld be more accurate to say it was social-democrat or something like that. |
|||
You also should take into account that Marx "On the Jewish Question" had a lot of influence and is an anti-semitic text which calls for a ban on judaism (he says it is not the Jews who should be emancipated but Europe which needs to be emancipated FROM the Jews. |
|||
How you consider the Histadrut treated its workers depends on the Eruopean company you are comparing it to. The Histadrut did a lot more then provide jobs - it provided helath care, sports facilities and also trade union services for workers in other sectors. Workers employed b the histadrut usually had very good conditions, certainly by british standards (woith which I am familar). |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 13:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think you're wrong about the socialist chracter of labour zionism. In the first half of the 20th century most socialist parties were not yet called social democrats. Socialists fought a class struggle. Zionism abhorred class struggle. Sternhell writes (p5. of 'The Founding Myths of Israel') that in 1977, after more than 40 years of Zionist 'labour' in power Israels social policies lagged far behind those of France and Britain, and (p.6) that the Yishuv became in the 1930s a typical bourgeois society with significant social and economic discrepancies, etc.. |
|||
:The point is whether Finkelstein's and Sternhell's pov are relevant enough to be mentioned. |
|||
:I think it is. Two major facts were created by Zionism: the State of Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Finkelstein's pov is relevant for both, but very relevant for the second. If Zionism had not believed in their preemptive right to the Land of Israel it would probably not have succeeded. |
|||
:The sources also find it very relevant. Finkelstein says that this is the justification given for Zionism by Zionism. Sternhell says it was their 'ultimate argument'. Apparently both find it very relevant for Zionism. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::In going on only reading one pov there is no risk you can get a reasonnable picture of the situation. |
|||
::An exemple is Histadrout organised commons strikes where Arabs and Jews were together. |
|||
::Another example is Brit Shalom, with Magnes, the director of the Hebrew University who militated for a binational state. |
|||
::But these movement were minoritary. Jews ans Arabs didn't want a binational solution and as soon as 1920 they started clashing with more and more violence and developed a mutual fear and hatred. |
|||
::''Two major facts were created by Zionism: the State of Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem'' |
|||
::This is a nationalist point of view far from any humanist consideration. What scholar wrote that ? You should not refer to him. |
|||
::[[Tom Segev]] describes in ''One Palestine, complete'' many other "facts created by Zionism". It also developed an educational system (with numerous new school and a University - access to education is the basis of social equity, particularly just after WWI), they developed a parlementary system where they could debate and discuss the different topics of interest; they were one of the first political system to give equal rights to men and women (with some practical limits but in rejecting Arabs); On the political side, their diplomacy was extremely efficient and respected, particularly at Londonon; on the economical point of view, they develop the ''communist'' system of Moshav and Kibbutz while on the liberal side, they modernized Palestine, developed Haifa and other cities and build a new harbor at Tel-Aviv (in the context of an economical war, it is true)... There are also dark facts, such as the development of a more and more segregationnist system where Arabs were rejected and their will to be majoritary in the country (ie another country) but that are explanations that also deserve to be given. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 08:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
|||
:::Still, also from a humanist pov: ''Two '''major''' facts were created by Zionism: the State of Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem''. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 19:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Who says those are the "major facts created by Zionism"? Many factors led to the Palestinian refugee problem. History is not as simple as one-sided analysts would have you believe. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 21:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Well, JaapBoBo. |
|||
:::::This illustrates once more the way you (wrongly) understand NPoV. |
|||
:::::It is exactly the same that in this exemple : when Morris writes there were ''numerous causes to the first and second waves of the Palestinian exodus and that you create a table titled '''''the''' main cause of the exodus'' according to Morris. |
|||
:::::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 07:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I think one could say that Zionism as a movement was not socialist, however to describe socialist Zionism as non-socialist is a highly contrived argument. First how do you define socialist? Class struggle is a feature of Marxist theory which is not necessarily the same thing. Egalitarianism is the key and the Kibbutz is arguably the most outstanding socialist society to have been built in the twentieth century. |
|||
Before the war the British labour party was actually more socialist then it is today. I think you will also find that Rosa Luxembourg led the SPD in germany. Given the prominence of Jews in so many socialist movements across Europe (and the Middle East!) it seems unlikely the Socialist Zionists did not have a very good understanding of what socialism was about. |
|||
The authors you quote are Marxists and keen to attack zionism yet while they force Zionists and other liberals to address their failings they fail to address their own serious moral failings. Marxist thinking led to the worst genocides of the 20th century - Stalin and Mao were arguably worse then Hitler and that ignores Pol Pot and Kim (incidnetally my uncle did 5 years in Siberia and my grandmother died in Auschwitz). |
|||
As for the "humanism" which you mention - well that is a product of Liberal thought. Marxist thinking disavows the concept of individual human rights and recognizes only collective rights. That is why it is possible for it to ignore its own contribution to so much suffering. |
|||
As for racism, I have already noted that Marxism is an anti-semitic philopsphy at its core, unfortunately its prime exponenets also fail to tackle this issue. |
|||
If you look hard enough you will find flaws in anyone. A key factor in racism (I speak from expereince) is that people will examine you with a microscope for your flaws and then amplify them. That is how anti-semitism and anti-Zionism combine. If Marxism was subject to the kind of close ananlysis it gives others it would not emerge unscathed. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 08:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Of course, zionism is not socialism. But in zionism there were socialist (Mapai) and marxist (Mapam) movements. If the principle of ''kibboutz'' and the organisation of ''Palmach'' are not exemples of the application of the marxist model, what is a marxist model ? [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 12:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with this:'' 'I think one could say that Zionism as a movement was not socialist, however to describe socialist Zionism as non-socialist is a highly contrived argument.' ''. In practice Zionsim was not socialist, except for the Kibbutz movement. Sternhell says the first Kibbutzes (or Kvutza's) were established to solve practical problems, not because of an ideal. The policy of the Zionist leaders in the cities was however not socialist, but they used the Kibbutz movement to appear socialist. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
====Historical right==== |
|||
Back to the 'real' discussion: |
|||
I think Finkelstein's pov here is well founded. E.g. Gorny cites a host of Zionists claiming a preemptive right. The cultural Zionist Ahad Ha'am 'saw the historical rights of the Jews as outweighing the Arabs' residential rights in Palestine'<ref>Y. Gorny, 1987, 'Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948', p. 103, 104</ref>. Max Nordau declared that Palestine was the 'legal and historical inheritance' of the Jewish nation, and that the Palestinian Arabs had only 'possession rights'.<ref>Y. Gorny, 1987, 'Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948', p. 157</ref> Ben Gurion held that the Jewish people had a superior right to Palestine,<ref>Y. Gorny, 1987, 'Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948', p. 210</ref> that Palestine was important to the Jews as a nation and to the Arabs as individuals, and hence the right of the Jewish people to concentrate in Palestine, a right which was not due to the Arabs.<ref>Y. Gorny, 1987, 'Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948', p. 218</ref> A few Zionists thought different, e.g. Bergmann, a member of Brit-Shalom in 1929: 'our opponents [mainstream Zionism] hold different views. When they speak of Palestine, of our country, they mean "our country", that is to say "not ''their'' country" [... this belief is based on the concept that in a State] one people, among the people residing there, should be granted the majority right.'<ref>Y. Gorny, 1987, 'Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948', p. 123</ref> |
|||
--[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Ypu constatnly use the word "zionist" when you mean "jewish". that and your tendency to remove any references to Palestinian antisemitism can be construed as antisemitic behaviour. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 16:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I have no 'tendency to remove any references to Palestinian antisemitism', I simply question '''unsourced''' references to Palestinian antisemitism. As far as I know there are many anti-zionist Jews, so on this page on 'Zionism', I prefer to talk about Zionists when I mean Zionists, and Jews when I mean Jews. I think your speculation about 'construed as antisemitic behaviour' is disgusting! --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 10:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Flapan's overview=== |
|||
:''Flapan distinguishes some basic concepts of mainstream Zionism with regard to the Arab Palestinians<ref>Simha Flapan, 'Zionism and the Palestinians', 1979, ISBN 0-85664-499-4, p. 11</ref>:'' |
|||
::''1 non-recognition of the existence of the Palestinians as a separate nation'' |
|||
::''2 Zionism's civilising mission in an undeveloped area'' |
|||
::''3 economic, social and cultural segregation as a means to create a Jewish national life'' |
|||
::''4 the concept of 'peace from strength''' |
|||
This is a fine summary, by a reliable source, of Zionist attitudes. Why should we take it out? --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Why do you rely solely on Flapan and Finkelstein? This is unbalanced. Flapan was mostly a politician, and Finkelstein is not a historian, he is a former assistant professor of political science with a well-known and very strong bias. You should use works from non-political historians, or at least show differing points of view, as the NPOV says, not just everything from one fairly extreme side. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I also read Morris, Sternhell, R. Khalidi. Flapan was a historian. Finkelstein is a political scientist, but he wrote his PhD thesis on Zionism. They are also not extreme, only some Zionist sources call them extreme because they debunk Zionist myths. E.g. Finkelstein is in fact very nuanced. In 'Image and Reality' he attacks Morris' conclusions, but he acknowledges Morris research of sources. To cite from 'Image and Reality' (p.86,87): 'Morris has indisputably produced landmark studies', '[Morris answer to Shabtai Teveth is] a virtuoso performance' and 'Morris's research will serve as a benchmark for all future scholarship on the topic'. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::You haven't quoted any of those other authors, and Flapan was primarily a politician. [[Abba Eban]] also wrote histories of Israel, would you call him a historian? Regarding Finkelstein, Morris is indeed the benchmark when it comes to Israeli history, but Finkelstein's opinion of Morris it not as important as Morris's opinion of Finkelstein, which is decidedly negative. This is what he has to say about Finkelstein: "Finkelstein and Nur Masalha share a method: they selectively quote from [my books] what suits their purposes while ignoring, and in Finkelstein's case, ridiculing what doesn't. Neither seems to know anything about 1948 beyond what is to be found in my books and neither marshals sources or material from elsewhere that could serve to contradict my findings". Finkelstein doesn't do actual historical research, but instead reads the works of real historians (primarily Morris) and then puts his own political slant on things. Your editing of this article in order to add only one point of view is irresponsible and against policy. Please stop. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am familiar with Morris criticism of Finkelstein. In your quote of Morris he grossly overcharges the actual content of his criticism. Finkelstein's criticism is that Morris's conclusions in 'The Birth of the Palestinian Refigee Problem' were not supported by the evidence he gave. In fact to prove this Finkelstein only needed Morris' book. Morris distorts this into: 'neither seems to know anything about 1948 beyond what is to be found in my books'. In fact Finkelstein is very familiar with other sources on this subject, e.g. in 'Image and Reality' he also criticises a book by Anita Shapira and one by Joan Peters. Furthermore he wrote his thesis 'from the Jewish Question to the Jewish state' on the political history of Zionism. He is indeed an expert. What stands out the most is that not one criticism of his work has stuck -- only personal attacks! In fact, [[Benny_Morris#Norman_Finkelstein| here]] you can read more about Finkelstein's criticism of Morris and Morris answer. In fact the two are just having a professional disagreement about the interpretation of historical evidence. Morris accuses Finkelstein of bias, but in fact if you want to know who puts a political slant on things read [[User:JaapBoBo#Critical_analysis_of_Benny_Morris.27_.27Birth_revisited.27| this]]: it's Morris! In Finkelstein's book 'Image and Reality' you can read more examples. So there's nothing wrong with Finkelsteins reliability, and in fact Morris reliability is at stake here. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Morris is a groundbreaking, actual historian, who went though much primary material to discover all sorts of new things unknown to history. Finkelstein is a former associate professor of political science who writes heavily political works. He is in no way a historian, he merely comments on the work of actual historians. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::By the way, I did quote Sternhell and Khalidi in the stuff you deleted! This proves you are behaving irresponsible, because you haven't even read what you deleted! Please stop this behavior. Thx. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Is it possible that you really think that Sternhall and Khalidi's point of view is in any way significantly different from Finkelstein's? Please stop adding material from only one, highly biased, point of view, you are unbalancing the article and violating Wikipedia policy when you do this. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Modern Zionism recognizes the Palestinians are a seperate nation, while historically the Zionists were quite willing to allow a Palestinian state in Palestine so long as they had a Jewish one along side it. The Palestinians refused to recognize the Jews as a naitona with rights to Palestine. Maybe we should mention that? What do you think? |
|||
I think Morriss is fine as a historian and I am optimistic that despite our differences we can work out a way to co-exist. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::You're right the Palestinians didn't recognise Jewish rights to Palestine. Please mention it. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::And why would not you try to mention *by yourself* different pov's on the same subject when you edit wikipedia ? |
|||
:::When you add one relatively low significant pov we are not there to add all the other ones. |
|||
:::They are not editors who edit with a pro-israeli bias and others who edit with a pro-palestinian bias. Wikipedia this is : editors who give the different pov's on a matter whatever their own mind on the matter. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 16:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===denial of Palestinians as a nation=== |
|||
''Thus from the beginning Zionism ignored the Palestinians as a [[nation]] but chose to see the them as part of the larger Arab nation.<ref>Simha Flapan, 'Zionism and the Palestinians', 1979, ISBN 0-85664-499-4, p. 11</ref> This supported the Zionists' claim of a preemptive right to the Palestinian territory.<ref>N. Finkelstein, 2002, 'Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict', 2nd ed., p. 12-16</ref>'' |
|||
This is a very relevant part of the Zionist attitude. It's also from reliable sources. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
See my comment above. |
|||
The fact that the Zionists saw the Pals as part of a larger Arab nation does not mean that beleived the Arabs had no rights to Palestine. They recongized Arab rights, just did not perceive them as being particularly distinct. I don't think that had they seen the Pals as a seperate nation it owuld have affected their views. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: First of all, even the Palestinians didn't see themselves as a nation at the begining of the 20th century and the Zionist movement was born at the late 19th century. The Palestinian national movement born only after the British occupied the Land of Israel from the Ottoman Empire. Secondly, it is wrong to call the Land of Israel "Palestinian territory" because it was never belong to the Pals and POVly gives the Pals ownership on the entire territory known as Israel\Palestine. Therefore, the above paragraph isn't true and should be removed. Thirdly, [[Norman Finkelstein]] is not quite a reliable source, he is the author of the book "[[The Holocaust Industry]]" and considered by many as a sort of Holocaust denier. '''[[User:MathKnight|<font color="blue">M</font><font color="black">ath</font><font color="green">K</font><font color="black">night</font>]]''' <font color="blue">[[User:MathKnight\Gothic|Gothic]] [[Israel]]i [[Jew]]</font> 18:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::To answer your three point: |
|||
::*According to R. Khalidi, by the early 1920s the Palestinians had a highly developed sense of national identity.<ref>R. Khalidi, 2006, 'The iron cage', p. XXXIX, ISBN 987-0-8070-0308-4</ref> |
|||
::*If you think 'Palestinian territory' is a pov term you can substitu e.g 'Mandatory Palestine' |
|||
:;*Finkelstein is a reliable source. If you read the book you'll see he's not a Holocaust denier, even though extremists might call him that. The opinion of other scholars of Finkelstein's work is much more important, and he is well regarded by them. A lot of pro-Israeli authors have criticised him of course (or tried to), but his arguments are well founded, so the criticism is not very serious. Certainly it does not affect his reliability. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Finkelstein is not a historian of any sort, he writes political works. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Finkelstein is a scholar. Note the high number of references he gets at Google Scholar [[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22norman%20finkelstein%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=ws|//scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22norman%20finkelstein%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=ws]]. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 22:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Bill Clinton gets 80 times as many references at Google Scholar[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&q=%22Bill+Clinton%22&btnG=Search]. Does that mean he is 80 times the scholar that Finkelstein is? Anyway, and back to the point, I said he is not a historian, which he is not. Expertise in one field does not give you expertise in another. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Finkelstein garners far more citations than many other authors on Israel/Palestine (some of them are so poor that "historian" seems like a mis-nomer). And Finkelstein's ground-breaking work on "The Holocaust Industry" is now being proved in court, with a conviction of an Israel attorney for stealing millions from Holocaust survivors. Finkelstein's problem is that he appears to have proved a Harvard lawyer and high-profile supporter of Israel an unreliable champion (refusing to pay out $10,000 on a challenge) and a dubious author (crediting or not crediting the fraudulent work of another supporter of Israel, contradicting himself over Israeli torture etc.) [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Can you explain what is a "highly developed sense of naitonal identity" and how it is measured? |
|||
Which other scholars are you referring to? You keep making a diferentiation between what you define as "pro-Israeli" authors or "zionist" historians. That is a POV way of looking at things. You expect others to judge historians objectively (which is reasonable) while yourself failing to take an objective approach. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 07:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't know what Khalidi means exactly with "highly developed sense of naitonal identity", but he is a scholar who studied the subject. |
|||
:Recognising that some scholars are pov-ed is not POV, it's the truth. I think many Zionist and pro-Israeli writers are pov-ed. The same holds for many 'pro-Palestinian' writers. Probably the authors I read are also pov-ed, but in my opinion they are quite neutral. What is more important however is that I think that most pov-ed sources can still be reliable sources. Wikipedia does not say biased sources are unreliable, and bias is not a criterium for reliability. I don't ask other people things that I don't ask of myself. In fact I ask everybody, including myself, simply to comply with Wikipedia policy. This means that if somebody doesn't agree with one of my edits, or finds it pov, I ask him or her to make it NPOV by adding the other pov from a reliable source. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance]] --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 22:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::But working that way, you don't comply to wp:policy. |
|||
::Wikipedia doesn't just ask editors to give all pov's. It also requires to give them their due:weight ! |
|||
::What we ask you is to comply with that policy and not desequilibrate articles neutrality by adding minority pov's, sometimes even without giving the majority view ! |
|||
::You ask others to correct your pov's [if they can]. But we are not here to equilibrate your edits or to correct you. You are not a "particular editor" who gives the "line of edition". |
|||
::To fulfil wp:policy you have to give the pov you add their due:weight. It means you *alone* have to gather all pov's on a subject and to give the different minds their due weight. |
|||
::Finally, in an article that doesn't respect NPoV, eg because a minority pov is over-represented, there are *4 ways* of dealing with this : |
|||
::* adding the complementary pov's (the best) |
|||
::* requiring this on the talk page |
|||
::* adding a tag |
|||
::* removing the information |
|||
::Personnaly, I have started to discuss with you -without success-; I added complementary information on some of your edits asking you to try to work that way by yourself -without success-; after I added tags -without success-; now I remove the unbalance information. |
|||
::And many others proceeded that way with you too. |
|||
::After all the discussions and the warnings that you received, the fact you still defend the way of working you describe just here above makes me think you pov-push : ie you push some pov's without trying to get neutral articles but having in mind to defend the presence of some precise pov's in them, which is againt wikipedia policy. |
|||
::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 10:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::First of all I don't give pov's that I don't have references of. Second, it's only in your view that I give minority povs. If another majority pov exists it would be very easy for you or other editors to find it and add it. Actually adding is not only the best, but also the '''only''' way. Additionaly you may '''ask''' this on the talk page and/or add a tag (see also [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance]]). If you can't find the other pov it makes me think you don't know whether it exists, but just assume it exists. |
|||
:::Additionaly I have a question for you: Can you point out the WP-policy page supporting this:'' 'It means you *alone* have to gather all pov's on a subject and to give the different minds their due weight.' ''? --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::The second paragraph in the Neutral point of view policy states "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." It specifically says "of all article editors". When you add material from only one fairly extreme point of view you are violating this basic rule. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::And just as a reminder, there is also : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_enemy writing for the enemy] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight undue weight] that answer to JaapBoBo questions. |
|||
:::::''If you can't find the other pov it makes me think you don't know whether it exists, but just assume it exists'' |
|||
:::::No. I did give you other pov's in other discussions but when it is done you disappered. You keep going on with your attitude. |
|||
:::::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 08:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::@Ceedjee: indeed, in ''other'' discussions you did, and I accepted their inclusion. |
|||
::::::@David Sher: According to wikipedia policy all editors are expected to work together to reach NPOV. That is what I am doing. Note that 'reliable sources' are required and that I'm adding from the reliable sources that I read. When I think another pov exists besides the one I'm adding I usually start my edit with 'According to ...'. Besides, the pov's I add are not 'fairly extreme'. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 19:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I already pointed out to you that the policy applies to each individual editor; don't slough your responsibility to edit according to policy on me. I'm not responsible for fixing your edits, you're responsible for ensuring they abide by the policy. You've admitted yourself your sources are all from one POV, and when it comes to Zionism, Finkelstein etc. are pretty extreme (not to mention not historians). If you want to add material find mainstream centrist historians please. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 20:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm sure my edits are in line with wikipedia policy. |
|||
::::::::You think many sources I use are biased (I don't agree), I think many Zionist sources are biased (you probably don't agree) . The end result is a more NPOV article. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::It has been explained you in what '''''you don't respect wikipedia policy'''''. |
|||
:::::::::In wikipedia, there are not people who defend one pov and others who defend another. And this is not, as you wrote before a matter of ''negociation''. Wikipedia is not a political tribune or a room for debate. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and each editor is expected to respect NPoV so each editor is exepcted to give all pov's he can have. |
|||
:::::::::You are aware you systematically introduce only one pov and don't try to write a neutral way (in the sense of wikipedia). |
|||
:::::::::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 11:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::You're mistaken about NPOV - adding (or improving on) the substantiation for one POV is not a violation of policy. It's a violation when you remove evidence for one particular POV, or mis-characterise it. Attempting to claim that policy is meant to be something else is WikiLawyering. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::No, you are mistaken. I have read the policy carefully, and it says in the second paragraph "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." It specifically says "of all article editors". When you add material from only one fairly extreme point of view you are violating this basic rule. I'm not sure what "WikiLawyering" is, but attempts to get around the plain meaning and wording of this policy that "all editors" must write from a neutral point of view probably fall under that label. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Beit Or's reversals == |
|||
Dear Beit Or, |
|||
Please don't reverse just like that, without even adressing the issues on the talk page. The points are already noted above, so it is very simple for you to add your pov for each item. |
|||
Note also that you make the article pov by deleting stuff from more critical sources. Wikipedia policy says: ''An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.'' [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance]] So if there are reliable sources that don't agree with the sources I quote, then you can add their pov. If those sources don't exist, the pov I give is the only one. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:This argumentation has already been answered to you. |
|||
:*There is also : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_enemy writing for the enemy] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight undue weight] |
|||
:*More, it is written ''sometimes'', not ''always''. It is not written that this could become an habit or a way of working only to add a very precise point or extremely oriented pov's. |
|||
:* that doens't prevent you to try to improve your edit by yourself, working more in the mind of a collaborative project and to find by yourself the other pov's you say you don't know, particularly on "hot topics" and to have balanced articles. |
|||
:Finally, the only rule concerning revert is 3RR. So, if Beit Or, wants to revert you; he can. When there are 4-5 editors who revert you; you should wonder who is the problematic editor. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 10:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't complain that editors revert, I complain that they revert without taking part in the discussion. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::He should not. But why do you care ? In the same situation you answer : what is the wikipedia policy that prevents him from working that way ? [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 12:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::In cases of dispute Wikipedia policy expects editors to try to reach consensus, preferably on the talk page. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 19:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It looks to me like you tried to force your views on the article first, and only tried to reach consensus when enough editors got fed up with your edits that they all started reverting you. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I unfortunately share this point of view. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 20:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The fact is that I'm adding relevant material from reliable sources. You don't agree with the pov of these sources, so you can add pov's from other sources. Why are you not doing that? Why don't you stop claiming and start showing me that the pov you (want to) support exists? --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 08:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The remark was : "It looks to me like you tried to force your views on the article first, and only tried to reach consensus when enough editors got fed up with your edits that they all started reverting you.". I wrote I agree. |
|||
::::::::I already answered your last comment several times at other places on this talk page. |
|||
::::::::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 11:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::This is wiki-lawyering - we're here to write articles, not to hamstring others attempting to add good information to the encyclopedia. In many cases there are two or more POVs to be added, working on one of them is not harmful to the project - whereas deleting the material of others (the subject of this section) is (often) very harmful. Considering the mass of material linking Zionism to violent extremism and universally condemned International crimes, this article is badly POV in favour of the subject already. The inclusion of Husseini into this article is just one example of the ludicrously irrelevant. It's apparently included with POV determination to smear the victims of this movement. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::PR, I remember your comments from the other discussion page, and they are as extreme as ever. Zionism is not a "universally condemned International crime", and all editors must write from a neutral point of view - neither you nor JaapBoBo are exempt from this. Inserting the extreme views from only one side of the issue, particularly when many of the sources are not even historians, is a violation of clearly written policy, and your claim that deleting bad material is somehow "very harmful", but inserting it is good, is ludicrous. [[User:David Sher|David Sher]] ([[User talk:David Sher|talk]]) 23:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Only proponents view? == |
== Only proponents view? == |
||
Line 370: | Line 94: | ||
* Now, then. Some people (not you) have been known to get hot and bothered when an editor wonders out loud about questions such as whether "Zionists," like "Islamists," have ever attacked civilians, or whether there may, very occasionally, actually be disputes that fall into the category of "Controversies related to Israel and Zionism." So I'll make everyone who is reading this a deal: I definitely won't wonder any further about anything like that, or advocate for such photos in this article, or suggest a new template, because I believe those would be errors that would degrade article quality. Perhaps I could point out, however, that contentious ideologies like Zionism do make waves, too, from time to time, and that [[WP:NPOV]] is still supposed to be our policy, There really are points of view other than "pro-Zionism" that are relevant to the opening section here, and precedent exists, in [[Islamism]] and elsewhere, for the practice of prominently mentioning those points of view. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 20:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
* Now, then. Some people (not you) have been known to get hot and bothered when an editor wonders out loud about questions such as whether "Zionists," like "Islamists," have ever attacked civilians, or whether there may, very occasionally, actually be disputes that fall into the category of "Controversies related to Israel and Zionism." So I'll make everyone who is reading this a deal: I definitely won't wonder any further about anything like that, or advocate for such photos in this article, or suggest a new template, because I believe those would be errors that would degrade article quality. Perhaps I could point out, however, that contentious ideologies like Zionism do make waves, too, from time to time, and that [[WP:NPOV]] is still supposed to be our policy, There really are points of view other than "pro-Zionism" that are relevant to the opening section here, and precedent exists, in [[Islamism]] and elsewhere, for the practice of prominently mentioning those points of view. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 20:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Edits == |
|||
== Space for 'Zionist attitudes toward the Arabs' and 'Zionist ideology' == |
|||
In general I'd like to add more lengthy texts to this article on these subjects. I discovered there exists a page on the [[History of Zionism]], which is a copy of 80% of this article as it was one month ago (only it was not developed since then). We could create a lot of space here by moving the history to that article. |
|||
Alternatively we could start an article on Zionist attitudes toward the Arabs'. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Weizmann edits == |
|||
===Kazem=== |
|||
I have a problem with this: |
|||
:''At this meeting Kazem produced an English copy of the [[Protocols of the Elders of Zion]] (brought to Palestine by British officers who had [[Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War|fought the Bolshevik]]s alongside the anti-semitic [[White Movement]]) and asked if the Zionist commission was connected to the Elders of Zion.<ref>Jon Kimche, ''The Second Arab Awakening'', London 1970 pp 179-183 </ref>'' |
|||
It's nice to know this but is it relevant and is it neutral? I think it rather indicates ignorance than anti-semitism on the part of Kazem. However it suggests anti-semitism and is pov. I removed it. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Flapan vs. Reinharz, NPOV=== |
|||
If sources disagree wikipedia NPOV-policy requires both pov's to be given. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I am not sure there are 2 pov's expressed but rather they share the same pov. I reformulated in keeping the same ideas. |
|||
:Nevertheless I wonder if it should not be pointed out there was no ''palestinian natioalist'' at that time (ie before 1920 !!!). Husseini and the others fought for a ''pan-arab'' nationalism. They called Palestine ''South Syria''. |
|||
:It is only in 1920, ''after'' Fayçal was chased from Damas by the French and that the pan-arab ambition died that an arab palestinian nationalism appeared among palestinian arab leaders. |
|||
:Both Benny Morris (''Righteous Victims'') and Tom Segev (''One Palestine, Complete'') describe this nationism that way. I gonna check for Sachar and Laqueur to have the tradionnal israeli pov. I don't know where to check arab pov concerning this. Nevertheless I don't think there is any ''controversy'' around this matter. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 10:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Laqueur doesn't write exactly the same. He focuses more on the rise of a strong opposition to zionism as soon as 1919. |
|||
::Nevertheless, I think the structure of this section is not appropriate. |
|||
::The ''attitude towards the Arabs'' should not be described ''leader by leader'' but chronologically (as do historians on that topic) because it is linked with the events in Palestine. |
|||
::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I suggest that the whole thing be moved out of the article as it is problematic and takes up a lot of space. |
|||
JaapBobo says that ignorance excuses antisemitism. I think that is not a justifiable reason for deleting the reference I provided. As for Palestinian Nationalism, I have explained in the past that it was only after about 1920 thatthe Palestinains turned to Palestinian-Arab naitonalism but JaapBobo who is obviously fairly ingnorant about eh subject (and therefore cannot be an antisemite) deleted it. |
|||
Apparently Flapan says Weizmann opposed meeting the Palestinians but no emprical evidence was supplied to support that point. I provided emiprical evidence that not only did he not oppose meeting with them - he met them himself, and so I deleted the obviously errnoeous piece. JaapBobo's stuff on Weizmann is either misleading or wrong. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 08:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
It might be necessary to create an article "Zionism and the Arabs", which would be of interest to a lot of people. We could move a large chunk of material to that section. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 11:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree that JaapBoBo edits could be misleading. |
|||
:At least, I don't see why to focus that much on what Weizmann did in 1917-1919 in Palestine. It is anecdotical concerning the relationships between Zionists and Palestinian arab nationalists. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 12:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the idea of having an article dedicated to this topic could be useful. |
|||
:[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 12:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I protest, I am not saying that 'ignorance excuses antisemitism', I'am saying that from the text on Kasem I conclude that Kasem was ignorant. How else would you describe somebody who 'asked if the Zionist commission was connected to the Elders of Zion'? In fact this says nothing about whether Kasem was an anti-semite or not. |
|||
::As to what TelAviv says about Flapan: |
|||
:::*''meeting'' and ''negotiating for s political solution'' are not the same. |
|||
:::*You are engaging in original reserach [[WP:OR]] |
|||
:::*I can cite an example Flapan gave (p. 70): 'Weizmann came out vehemently against the attempts of Dr. Judah L. Magnes, [...] to mediate with the Arabs.' |
|||
::--[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 22:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::We are slipping in the direction of ''interpretation''. |
|||
:::At that time, Arabs were antisemite, as well as British. But that was a ''normal'' behaviour. |
|||
:::And at that time, assuming the ''Jews were controlling the world'' was not shocking but sincerly considered as a relevant and viable hypothesis. |
|||
:::Note this is not my interpretation. Tom Segev gives numerous exemples of this ''antisemitism'' and he doesn't refrain from taging each british officier as ''antisemite'', ''anti-Zionist'', ''pro-Zionist'', ''pro-Arab'' or ''pro-British''. For Arabs, I don't know why, he prefers writing ''they made antisemite comments''. And for Jews, he refrains from commenting. Just giving ''facts'' associated with people. |
|||
:::Tom Segev (and Benny Morris by the way) make several references to the ''Protocole of the Elder of Zion'' used several times by Arab leaders. And they were not ''ignorant''. They were ''convinced'' it was truth. Tom Segev refers to the [[Anwar Nusseibeh]] diary who writes that he is aware that the ''Protocol'' is ''claimed'' to be a forgery but that he thinks it is not and it is truth because they are too many ''mysterious'' connections. |
|||
:::So, what I mean is that Arabs were antisemite but they were antisemite as everybody was at that time, because it was simply ''normal'' (in the sense ''as everybody does'' or ''as everybody thinks'', not in the sense ''as things should be''...). |
|||
:::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 10:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::nb: this makes me think : you wrote that one of the two main achievement of Zionism was the 1948 exodus. You could also have written that one of the main achievemnt of antisemitism was Zionism and so... Things are not that simple. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 10:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's distorting to introduce the subject of anti-semitism. Some of the immigrants, from as early as 1881/82 were set on armed dispossession of the Palestinians. 1908 is sometimes given as the date when the Yishuv (if it was called that then?) set about a seperatist intent. Shortly after the Balfour Declaration, their threatening intentions became very obvious, and in 1920, despite still only being 10% of the population, they practically seized control. Fear and hatred of them didn't come from some kind of illogical racism, but from a direct and personal knowledge of their violent ways and intentions. |
|||
::::Let me put it another way - if I develop an aversion to Islamic dress and mosques based on reading Robert Spencer or the Daily Mail, then it's reasonable to call me Islamophobic. If I live in an inner-city area and rub shoulders with armed racists every day, then calling my fears phobic is unreasonable - even hatred on my part becomes a sensible and valid response. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 22:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::'''The Accusation''': "Some of the immigrants, from as early as 1881/82 were set on armed dispossession of the Palestinians." - PalestineRemembered. 22:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC). |
|||
:::::'''The Reality''': PalestineRemembered's claim that the goal of the Jewish immigrants to Palestine has been to dispossess the Palestinian Arabs since the 1880s is simply fallacious and PalestineRemembered's alleged two-stage plan for domination of the land amounts to a bogus conspiracy theory. The Russian immigrants of the [[First Aliyah]] escaping oppression from the czar and settling in the Galilee could not possibly have imagined the events of 1948 and certainly not the events of 1967! The Zionists had not even collectively agreed upon which region of the planet to focus their dreams of Jewish statehood until 1905 (Uganda was still an option before the time). As far as I know, the Jewish population of Palestine had no arms to speak of until at least 1920 (when the [[Haganah]] was established), and even those arms were not nearly enough to be able to "seize control" as PalestineRemembered is alleging. I already corrected him this week on this very allegation to which he admitted to it as being a "historical falsehood."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsraeli-Palestinian_conflict&diff=180246178&oldid=180166385] It is a shame he still feels the need to tell it even though he already knows and admits that it is false. --[[User:GHcool|GHcool]] ([[User talk:GHcool|talk]]) 23:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::This is the second time I've seen the same thing posted - as I said before, if I'm ever guilty of posting historical falsehoods, I'm sure I'll be reminded. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
=== Weizmann === |
|||
* "I can cite an example Flapan gave (p. 70): 'Weizmann came out vehemently against the attempts of Dr. Judah L. Magnes, [...] to mediate with the Arabs." |
|||
Yes but when and why ? And were there other occasions where he would have acted exactly the other way. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 10:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
From what I know of Weizmann, he would have been annoyed by Magnes "mediating" when he was not authorized to do so. Magnes was the head of the Hebrew U while Weizmann was the head of the Zionist movement. what do you mean by "mediate"? |
|||
Weizmann did meet with Palestinian arabs and held talks with them so the statement is inaccurate. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 16:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Weizmann's views on Palestine and the Palestinians are well known: "...not only the place with a spiritual bond between God and the Jewish people, but also as an essentially unused, unappreciated territory which was inhabited not by an advanced population but by a backward, dishonest, uneducated and ignorant Arab people." Letter of 30 May 1918 to Lord Balfour. He is quoted by Dr. A Rupin (in German) as saying "with regard to the Arab question - the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence." [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 22:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I think this picture quite properly the 'majority' view the Zionists had concering Arabs. |
|||
::A neutral formulation would require to state if this is a fact or a point of view of Weizmann. |
|||
::From what I have read, I think before the arrival of the British, Palestine was "inhabited not by an advanced population but by a backward, <s>dishonest</s> (?), uneducated and ignorant Arab people". |
|||
::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 12:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Flapan apparently says that Weizmann was opposed to attempts to mediate with the Arabs. Since we know and deplore Weizmann's attitude to the Arabs, the statement is so unsuprising as not to need any discussion. When there are so many other, startling (not to say "wildly mis-guided"), statements in this article it seems odd to examine/question one which is so completely unsurprising. |
|||
:::I'll give you another example of an area that needs urgent re-writing - the Exodus (c.1400BCE?!) is introduced as if it is history - when modern archaeology suggests that the "first Israelis" arose only in the 8th C BCE. If David and Jonathan ever existed, they were no more than tribal chieftains. Let's deal with serious problems first! [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 19:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Biltmore Programm == |
|||
''The Biltmore Program called for "Palestine [to] be established as a Jewish Commonwealth". [[David Ben-Gurion]], who dominated the conference, formulated the Zionists' demand 'not as a Jewish state in Palestine but as Palestine as a Jewish state'<ref>Ben-Gurion cited by Simha Flapan, 'The birth of the Israel ...', 1987, p23-24</ref>. It was significant in that all US Jewish organizations were now united in agreement on the need for a Jewish state in Palestine.'' |
|||
''From the beginning of the forties the Zionist movement stopped paying attention to the 'Arab question'. The reason is that it was expected that any solution, whether a Jewish state in all of Palestine, partition, or an international protectorate, would have to be imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by force, because of their refusal to compromise<ref>Y. Gorny, 1987, 'Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948', ISBN 0-19-822721-3, p. 280-1</ref>.'' |
|||
Somebody removed this text without giving a reason, but it's relevant and properly sourced (the second part is by the pro-Israeli historian Gorny), so it should stay in. |
|||
To illustrate the relevance: according to Teveth a war was'' 'made inevitable after the Biltmore Plan of 1942 declared Zionism's explicit aim to be a Jewish state, which the Arabs were determined to oppose by force.' ''<ref>S. Teveth, 1985, 'Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs', p. 200</ref> |
|||
--[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 10:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't see why it could not stay in the article. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 13:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== History of Zionism (3) == |
|||
I wrote a small History of Zionism and copied the History of Zionism from this article to the [[History of Zionism]] article. Please see the discussion here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism#History_of_Zionism.27], which actually proposes what I just performed. |
|||
I tried to write a neutral history, but feel free to improve it. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 23:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Article size == |
|||
From guideline: "this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles now exist which are over 32 KB of total text size." We're at 31. Pages "significantly larger" than 32K are "not recommended." When we get significantly larger than 32K, let's re-examine this discussion. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BrandonYusufToropov|contribs]]) 18:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Good action. I forgot to remove that. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Negation of the Diaspora == |
|||
On second thougths I found the section a bit long for the article, so I made a summary and a new article. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Ruppin quote == |
|||
BrandonYusufToropov, while you might have made an argument that the Ruppin quote belonged in the article when it was over 90k, there is obviously no justification whatsoever for inserting it now that the article is down to 30k. Did you notice that there are no other quotes in the "History of Zionism" section? That's because it is now an ''overview''. Inserting this one dubious quote into a brief summary is the rankest sort of POV-pushing. The quote is already in the History of Zionism, you got your way; please stop trying to push it into brief summaries of the article too. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Jay -- hello again, and nice to hear from you after your long whatever it was. |
|||
::For the record, the various objections from various parties have gone from "the quote was fraudulent" (meaning I was accused of being a liar, but that's water under the bridge), to "the quote hasn't been properly sourced" to "the quote isn't something you, BYT, actually read by physically holding the book in your hand," to "the quote hasn't been translated properly," to "the quote doesn't connect to the book you said it connects to," to "the quote can't be right because you, BYT, can't read Hebrew" to "the quote doesn't belong because we are now featuring no quotes in the section." |
|||
::Next time around I will be expecting "The quote violates national security objectives." (Which nation, though?) |
|||
:: Since you've decided to engage here, I'd like to get your comments, please, on the following seemingly direct advice from [[WP:Quote]]: |
|||
::* ''Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves.'' |
|||
::* ''When editing an article, a contributor should use quotations when ... <snip> dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors. (e.g. Using "Coulter stated that '[w]e need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' crème brûlée. That's just a joke, for you in the media.'" instead of "Coulter called for the killing of a Supreme Court Justice.") |
|||
::Also of interest is this guideline page's advice on when ''not'' to use quotes, and none of it seems to apply. You're saying we shouldn't use quotes because the article is short. The guideline page says you should eliminate or condense quotes when the article is too ''long.'' |
|||
::Perhaps at this stage we should consider mediation. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 10:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hi Brandon. Regarding the quote, when there was a 65K section on the History of Zionism in this article, then you could have argued that an obscure and likely misconstrued quote like that had a place - not a good argument, but an argument. However, now that the History section is down to seven short paragraphs, it's almost a textbook case of [[WP:UNDUE]] to try to include a full K on that single quote. According to whom (besides BrandonYusufToropov) is that quote such a seminal quote in the history of Zionism that it is the only thing worth quoting in the entire summary section? As for mediation, I certainly wouldn't object, but I'm hoping you'll abide by policy without it. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Hello, Jay. According to whom are only "seminal quotes in the history of Zionism" allowed in the article? No one's saying there shouldn't be other quotes in that section; not sure I see the "policy" mandating that. |
|||
Since you raise the issue of "policy," though, and the importance of abiding by it -- why no comment on these two bullet points? I did ask you what you thought of them. |
|||
::* ''Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves.'' |
|||
::* ''When editing an article, a contributor should use quotations when ... <snip> dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors. (e.g. Using "Coulter stated that '[w]e need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' crème brûlée. That's just a joke, for you in the media.'" instead of "Coulter called for the killing of a Supreme Court Justice.") |
|||
Peace, [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
BYT, can you provide another secondary source attesting to the quote's importance? [[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|talk]]) 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yep. Stay tuned. I've done a lot of this work already, but what's worth doing well is worth doing again. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:BYT, [[WP:QUOTE]] is an essay; it has no significance whatsoever on Wikipedia. On the other hand, [[WP:UNDUE]] is policy. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Fair point. Thanks for the distinction. It's not [[WP:UNDUE]] if we work together to give it the context we need. Are you up for that? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::The context needed is already there, in [[History of Zionism]]. In reality, even that article doesn't provide context, but your persistence in inserting this POV and out-of-context quote has essentially worn people down. That, however, will not apply to the brief summary of the history of Zionism present found in this article. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 06:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Getting ready to add a NPOV TAG == |
|||
I just reverted this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=186979762&oldid=186978924], a two word 'against Islam' snippet at the end of the lede section. I didn't do it because it was necessarily wrong, but it was not RS'd and in the lede. Sorry Aswany4life (I also, just now noticed that your name and talk are now blue.) |
|||
I looked at this page earlier in the week, but noted that it had been a former FA candidate, so I went there [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&oldid=1973229] instead and read it. Not bad, actually for Dec'03. It has some holes in it, but also notes some things that the current version does not (e.g. 'Jewish labour' to use the term of the time, which constitutes a big factual hole in #Labor Zionism.) From a 'for the benefit of the readers' point of view, it reads a whole lot better than the current version. This [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=183802212]] is my post at the ArbCom Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop, which brought this on. |
|||
When I returned to the current article, I couldn't get past the lede sentence that ends w/ the [[Land of Israel]]; what happened to Palestine. That is absolutely POV, zealous POV; that is NOT what Zionism is or was, and certainly not in an encyclopedia which claims NPOV. That is only how some people see it. The current article gives very little for a reader to understand that the definition has changed over time. What is stated now is a third (whatever) generational dream, by those who consider the reasons for the creation of '48 Israel, can be recycled and repeated to get the remaining West Bank. Things have changed since '48, when the world accepted those reasons as valid and Israel was created and defended itself. There are several generations of Israelis to prove it. The source is not a reliable source to define what Zionism is, unless it is included in a section called 'Zionism today'. Oh, gee, in Dec'03 that section existed. This Eretz Israel definition of Zionism by the maximalists has much to do with why the Palestinians so despise post-'67 Zionism in particular and why many Israelis think that hating Zionism means denying Israel. |
|||
The two are very different. The legitimate Zionist dreams for world decisions made to recognize the Jewish people's need and the creation of Israel at that time are no longer as valid now. The general problem now is the lack of a similar nation for Palestinians. You see, we live in a 'modern world' that recognizes self-determination, human rights equality of peoples, it didn't do that then; it also has some more facts upon which to make a different judgment, like UN242, and 338, [[Oslo Accords]] and the PA. What is seen by most of the world and recognized in this encyclopedia is NPOV. |
|||
I see a lot of indications that what Aswany added might be valid, but he has to RS it, but I still don't think it belongs in the lede. But it may sometime be a defining parameter of what Zionism is today. I must give the active editors time to work this out and I will, but that lede is pure POV unless some historical perspective is added. It is so POV it should not stand long. [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 08:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Excellent points for discussion, and the POV problems here have bothered me for years. |
|||
:::No, really. Years. |
|||
:::Strongly support the addition of the NPOV tag. |
|||
:::All the same, my 2c is: What Aswany added was fundamentally unencyclopedic. Can't imagine even the most carefully sourced passage in Zionism passing the smell test if it tries to incorporate language like this. Not even [[Islamism]], as biased as that article currently is, features such partisan, point-scoring, swagger. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 14:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Purposful out-dent. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BTY]], Thank you for your support. But as an old fart, I appreciate your views (which appear to agree with mine) similarly as much as I must give credence (Clearwater) to those who give my post the necessary initial 'sniff test' and decide, based on their olfactory first impressions, that my posts stink. No problem for me; I will likely die sooner than you-all, but what I have decided is that if I am to document that fact that I have lived, then I must document the fact that I died a Wikipedian. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CasualObserver'48|contribs]]) 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->Due to an edit conflict, I will live with what the electronic gods have decided what the ether has absorbed. [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 15:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:CasualObserver48, I'm not really understanding what specifically you feel is inappropriate with the current lead, beyond your claims that it is POV. Are there specific sentences which you feel are inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate? Regardless, I must express dismay that you would state that you see "a lot of indications that" the claim that Zionism is "the dominant Jewish political movement against Islam" "might be valid". Zionism, in reality, has little if anything to do with Islam; it is a movement of Jewish national liberation, and a movement in support of the State of Israel, and your statement makes me seriously question whether you can edit these kinds of articles in a way that conforms with [[WP:NPOV]]. What would you do if someone had entered into the [[Palestinian nationalism]] article the claim that "[[Palestinian nationalism]] is the dominant Muslim political movement against Judaism"? Would you also say that there are "a lot of indications that it might be valid", and encourage the person to find reliable sourcing for the claim? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 06:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Jay, read what I said again about my objection to the lede '''sentence'''. I see that you took up real fast, tho, on what else I said (re: Islam), and then proceeded to discuss that and skip the definition of Zionism, which was the reason for my post. I believe there is a word for that, it slips my mind, but G- would know what that is. [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 08:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::You went on at great length about Aswany's insertion, and expressed an alarming viewpoint regards to it; don't be surprised when someone responds. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Lede is contradicted by the very reference it purports to use. From that reference:"Zionism is not about borders - Zionism was never about borders. '''Some Zionist programs envisioned a Jewish homeland outside of Palestine'''". While in modern contexts, currently Zionism is *mostly* about that strip of land, it is somewhat inaccurate for the very first sentence to be contradicted by the source it references. Uganda's nowhere *near* palestine, but was one proposed destination. [[User:Ronabop|Ronabop]] ([[User talk:Ronabop|talk]]) 07:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not even sure why that particular source is used, it doesn't look overwhelmingly reliable to me. In any event, as is quite clear from both history books and the History of Zionism article itself, Zionism was almost exclusively about Palestine. The very First Zionist Congress, in 1897, resolved that "Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law." Yes, in 1903 the British Colonial Secretary did propose a Jewish homeland in Uganda (actually modern-day Kenya), and after the [[Kishinev pogroms]] Herzl introduced a motion at the 6th Zionist congress to study it as a temporary measure. However, even then, the Russian delegation walked out in protest, and nothing really came of the proposal, which was dismissed in the 7th congress of 1905. For that matter, the Nazis proposed a [[Madagascar Plan|Jewish homeland in Madagascar]]; needless to say, nothing came of that either. NPOV, particularly regarding the lede, does not require us to list every minor or aberrant idea that ever crossed someone's mind; on the contrary. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 07:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Jay, I much prefer your 'Palestine' definition of Zionism (i.e., the lede sentence), as will most editors and I would be very happy for you to change it, as you see fit; I appreciate your historical perspective. I note that the majority of your post entails discussion of an evolutionary dead end of Zionism [[Territorialism]], and again, you avoid discussing the highly POV lede. Very frankly, you of all people, very well know the difference between "Palestine', 'Israel', and 'Land of Israel'. For those who might not know, it is a certain political view of the past, the present, and if those POV-pushers gain their dream, the future, respectively. You very well know what this problem is, it comes right down to, well, Zion-ishness. Regards, [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 11:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, got caught in an edit conflict...I added it where it was written to go at the time |
|||
::::Not sure what's so "aberrant" about it, but I changed the first sentence to reflect that Zionism was about making a state, without getting into all the details, and how that state wound up. [[User:Ronabop|Ronabop]] ([[User talk:Ronabop|talk]]) 08:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The change you made made the sentence awkward. I also don't think it solved the problem you were trying to solve. It might be better to remove "in the land of Israel", as that is mentioned later in the article. [[User:Andareed|Andareed]] ([[User talk:Andareed|talk]]) 08:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's "aberrant" in that non-"Land of Israel" proposals were extreme minority views that gained no traction; the vast majority of Zionist thought and effort centered on the establishment of a Jewish homeland '''in the Land of Israel'''. Your removal violated [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 08:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I've removed the unreliable source, and substituted more reliable ones. Currently used are the following: |
|||
:::::*"An international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel." ("Zionism," Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary). |
|||
:::::*"Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”)," [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9078399/Zionism "Zionism"], ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', |
|||
:::::*""A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel." ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,'' Fourth Edition. |
|||
:::::That should do for neutral and reliable definitions. Anything else? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 09:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Jay, these are all relatively valid, current, RS’d definitions (which, however, loose historical perspective), and I appreciate your suggestions; I also note that none of these include [[Land of Israel]] or [[Eretz Israel]] (except by a translation from Hebrew and back to English, fancy footwork). These latter ones, according to Wikipedia’s included maps, indicate rather nebulous borders, and tend to cause legitimate emotive responses among [[Israel]]’s neighbors and neighboring peoples. Which of these do you really think that Wiki should blue-link with Zionism? - [[Israel]]’s borders or with those nebulous borders related to ‘Land of Israel’ and/or ‘Eretz Israel’. I am not asking what you think/hope/pray, I am asking what you, being an experienced editor, think Wikipedia should do. Like I said, do as you see fit; but note that only with documentation of that changing definition can any reader truly understand the meaning of Zionism from both sides of the border, in an NPOV presentation. [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 12:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I've replaced the wording with [[Palestine]], as used by the sources, and re-worded to better fit what the sources say. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 15:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I appreciate your greatly improved NPOV edit to the lede, thank you. [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I'm adding the full quotation from the article of britannica in this matter, i.e. "(Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”)". The reason is that Jewish nation in Palestine will confuse the reader as (a) he won't realise we're talking about the region, not the proposed state (b) Palestine is a name that came after the Land of Israel... so it's not logical. The whole point of Zionism is that this name is the roman name of a jewish homeland. [[User:Amoruso|Amoruso]] ([[User talk:Amoruso|talk]]) 00:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Serbian example == |
|||
The Serbian example is given undue weight. It is only one aspect of proto-Zionism, and proto-Zionism is hardly mentioned in this article. The Serbian stuff would be better placed in another article or a new article. I removed it from this article. --[[User:JaapBoBo|JaapBoBo]] ([[User talk:JaapBoBo|talk]]) 22:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Reworking of history section== |
|||
The history section lacked numerous important historical events and wikilinks. It also lacked, in my opinion, an appreciation of the emotional importance of these events. I reworked the section; I hope you like it. Can anyone find references to the Jews' response to the Balfour declaration? Can anyone find a source documenting the celebrations on May 14th 1948? [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 14:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:You are right. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Muslims opposing Zionism == |
|||
Jews and Jewish groups opposing Zionism = fringe groups, "not mainstream," and not worthy of extended discussion or identification in this article. |
|||
Muslims who support Zionism = exceptional and therefore interesting and worthy of a subsection. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=199090762&oldid=199045806] |
|||
Inconsistency here, perhaps? We are getting, at various points throughout the article, gauzy, flatteringly lighted close-ups of people who think this political philosophy is a great idea. |
|||
'''All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.''' -- [[WP:NPOV]] |
|||
[[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 12:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Brandon, did you notice that there is, in the article, a chapter about anti-zionism? It is kept short, with a link to the [[anti-zionism]] main article, as per the [[WP:SS]] guideline. What more do you want? |
|||
:I will grant you that the co-existence of these two article is against the [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:FORK]] policies. [[Wikipedia:Criticism]] states: ''Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has ... its own Wikipedia article.'' But I also think that Zionism is an example of a topic where the NPOV policy simply cannot be applied because of the high emotional charge on both sides of the issue. The current situation is the best that can be realistically achieved. Sounds a lot like Israel & Palestine, right? [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, I noticed the chapter about anti-Zionism. I noticed that it broadly describes ''all'' opposition, "ranging from Jewish anti-Zionists to pro-Palestinian activist." I also noticed that there is not, for instance, a chapter called "Jewish Opposition to Zionism." |
|||
::Your suggestion that this is an area "where the NPOV policy simply cannot be applied" leads me to believe you haven't really gotten the spirit of this project. |
|||
::Unless we want to give citations of prominent Muslims who oppose Zionism ... and something tells me that's not the direction editors here want to go -- the "Muslims Supporting Zionism" section fails both [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 09:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::This chapter is kept short as per the [[WP:SUMMARY]] guideline. The policies you mention apply to the [[anti-zionism|main article]] on this subject, again as per WP:SUMMARY; please move your criticisms to that talk page. Did I mention WP:SUMMARY? [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 15:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
If you look in the [[History of Zionism]] you will see material on Jewish opposition to Zionism. |
|||
you can also find stuff on it in [[Anti-Zionism]]. This article is about Zionism and not about opposition to it. If you look at [[Marxism]] you will find not much about [[anti-Marxism]] but there is a link to an article about it. The same goes for [[Islamism]]. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 16:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks, Telaviv1. Re: "The same goes for [[islamism]]" -- I draw a different conclusion from the content there, and suggest that you study the article a little more closely. I certainly agree, though, that the analogue you draw between [[Zionism]] and [[Islamism]] is significant. |
|||
::If you look here[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#Alienation_from_the_West] you'll see that that article quotes, among other skeptical voices, that of Daniel Pipes, easily one of the most vocal opponents of Islamist political philosophies, and perhaps the most likely to lump them all together into a single, seemingly megalithic movement. |
|||
::I see a possibility for some common ground here. You are suggesting, if I follow this correctly, that we follow the template in [[Islamism]]. By extension, that means incorporating a quote from a similarly prominent opponent of Zionism here. Whom do you suggest? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
An interesting proposal BYT. Give me a day or two and I will read the article on Islamism. I had a quick look and didn't see the reference that bothers you. I found this: |
|||
"Criticism |
|||
Islamism has no shortage of critics and has been attacked on many fronts, for repression of free expression, rigidity, hypocrisy, lack of true understanding of Islam, and misinterpreting the Quran and Sunna, and for innovations (Bid‘ah) to Islam notwithstanding their proclaimed opposition to the innovation. Despite this it remains very popular." |
|||
In principle, I don't think the two movements are comparable or that one sould serve as a template for the other (why not do that in reverse?) but a comparison might be educational. |
|||
Incidently why not use the Marxism article as a template? Do you think Islamism might have more in common with Marxism then with Zionism? |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 16:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:* Zionism, like Islamism and unlike Marxism, is a religiously driven political doctrine. |
|||
:* Zionism, like Islamism and unilike Marxism, is a contemporary political force in the Middle East. |
|||
:* Zionism, like Islamism and unlike Marxism, envisions an enduring nation-state. |
|||
:* Zionism, like Islamism and unlike Marxism, sees human beings in an ethical and religious context first and foremost, and rejects defining them narrowly as economic functionaries. |
|||
:* Zionism, like Islamism and unlike Marxism, is firmly rooted to a historical sense of place as a touchstone for its nationalism. (Jerusalem and Mecca, respectively.) |
|||
:* Zionism, like Islamism and unlike Marxism, emphasizes establishing one's personal and civic identities by means of a direct embrace of monotheism. |
|||
:I didn't say there was anything in the [[Islamism]] article that "bothered" me. What I said was that I had NPOV concerns about this article. |
|||
:I said that Pipes, and others skeptical of the Islamist movement and likely to make broad, unflattering generalizations about it, are quoted in [[Islamism]]. I said this, not because the quote "bothered" me, but because you cited [[Islamism]] as a parallel for this article, and implied that no such skeptical perspective existed in [[Islamism]]. |
|||
:I disagreed, and still do. No objective observer would ever imagine that an Islamist had composed the present [[Islamism]]. By contrast it seems possible to me that an objective observer might possibly be persuaded to believe that a Zionist had composed the present [[Zionism]]. |
|||
:To remedy the imbalance, and to follow through on your suggestion that we look closely at [[Islamism]], I'm suggesting that we find some common ground by quoting a prominent contemporary figure skeptical of Zionism. Who do you think would be the best candidate? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
OK. firstly I apologize for the tone of the "bothered me" line. |
|||
*Islamism and Marxism are both universal doctrines aimed at the whole world, where as Zionism is a movement concerned exclusively with Jews.<''REPLY -- agree -- BYT> |
|||
*Both Islamism and Marxism have strong currents engaged in revolutionalry activity and state overthrow. Neither of which are particularly relevant for Zionism. <''REPLY: Secular Islamists in, for instance, Turkey, would be surprised to learn about this. -- BYT''> |
|||
*Both Islamism and Marxism place a strong emphasis on rejection of personal wealth. <''REPLY: With respect, I don't buy this. Precedent for accepting lifestyles that include (legal) ample, even jaw-dropping wealth go back 1400 years in Islam. No vow of poverty, certainly no lack of wealthy Islamists. -- BYT''> |
|||
*both Islamism and Marxism reject (classical) Liberal values, which most Zionists embrace. <''REPLY: Huh? Necessity of rational inquiry? Tradition of acceptance of the scientific method? Respect for, and perpetuation of, teachings of great "classical" teachings -- say, Artistotle's? Acknowledging that females have a soul? Not sure which values you're referring to here. -- BYT''> |
|||
*Both Islamism and Marxism place a strong emphasis on anti-colonialism. Zionism worked with colonialism. <''REPLY: We agree here. BYT"> |
|||
I accept your point about Islamism having a strong nationalist current. |
|||
I don't agree with your final point "Zionism, like Islamism and unlike Marxism, emphasizes establishing one's personal and civic identities by means of a direct embrace of monotheism." Although religious Zionism does, much of Zionism is secular. The movement was in part about finding a path for secular Jews to an identity which did not require an active embrace of monotheism. However I accept that there was a religious content to the movement. In this aspect Zionism may have more in common with Marxism then with Islamism. |
|||
As for a critical view of Zionism. I have to go now so I will get back to you on that one. Do you have someone in mind or do you prefer it to come from me? |
|||
Shalom... |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 09:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks for the thoughtful post, Telaviv1, and for the apology (which wasn't necessary). Actually, I'd prefer to hear your ideas. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 12:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:In the article [[Islamism]], Pipes is not used to quote ''critics'' but to quote the rejection of Islam by the West... Critics section is 3 lines long... |
|||
:I don't see what could be added in the section ''summarizing'' the criticisms of Zionism. There are too much of them coming from too many different areas. |
|||
:Finding a "quote" will not be easy because Anti-zionism is not well-defined and can refer to several different things. |
|||
:[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 11:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Unlike Islamism, a monolithic, well-defined, perpetually unanimous movement with no dissenting internal voices? :) |
|||
:::I wasn't saying that Pipes was ''quoting'' critics, or summarizing them. I was saying that he ''is himself'' a notable critic of Islamists (however one defines them) and that he is, among other anti-Islamists, quoted prominently as an authority in the article. Telaviv was suggesting that that anti-Islamist perspective was missing from [[Islamism]], and I disagreed. |
|||
:::My question -- given that Telaviv1 raised the parallel with [[Islamism]] -- is this: what prominent critic of Zionism could we quote or make direct reference to within ''this'' article, in order to do a better job of adhering to [[WP:NPOV]]? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 12:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::But this article is neutral. It would even be more if the information concerning the support of some Muslims to Zionism would be put in back... (even if this is not very relevant and certainly a little bit undue:weight). |
|||
::::I don't see any quote that would improve its NPoV. On the contrary, choosing one among the different anti-zionist authors will generate debates. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 13:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Well ... you can't quote anyone, on any topic, without running at least the risk of generating controversy, especially when the subject itself is controversial, as this one is. Articles like [[Islamism]], as I have shown, somehow manage to include quotes from many skeptical contemporary voices. This one doesn't. |
|||
:It sounds like you're suggesting that our goal as editors should be to present material in the article only when we are certain that the material we are adding is unlikely to generate debate among readers. Is that what you mean to say? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::No. I say that if you want to add a quote, suggest which one :-) |
|||
::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 16:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I just lost a long edit... |
|||
Most of this article was written by [[user:JaapBoBo]] who doesn't like Zionism. |
|||
If you check the references, you will find many critics in the list including [[Joseph Massad]] who says Zionism is racist. There are several Arab authors quoted and the Arab league is quoted quite unfavourably. If we put in a quote from a critic of Zionism such as Chomsky (already quoted in the article) will you put a section in the article on Islamism on Islamic racism and antisemitism? There is nothing about it in the Islamism article yet antisemitism is very prominent among Islamists. Today Bin Laden called on his followers to attack Jews. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 13:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Always back to Bin Laden. (sigh). Baruch Goldstein wouldn't be our best article source on Islamism. Osama, a parallel idiot, may not be our best source on Zionism. |
|||
:With regard to "liking" or "not liking" Zionism, that really isn't the point. The guiding principle is ''neutral point of view,'' and it's supposed to be non-negotiable. Here it is again. I'm really not sure now whether people are actually familiar with this policy, so forgive the repetition, because it's important to our discussion: |
|||
::'''All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.''' |
|||
:What downside, starting from the vantage point of [[WP:NPOV]], would there be to the encyclopedia if we were to introduce an actual quote from a skeptic of the movement in the "Criticism of Zionism" section? |
|||
:With all respect, could I ask you to look at that section of the article now? |
|||
:As it stands, we've got a passage from an evocative poem (!) that purports to address the "potential of the Jewish people." (Huh?) I don't even know what that subsection is doing there. |
|||
:Then there's a paragraph making the vaguest reference to historical and contemporary opposition, an assurance that "some or all of the most vocal" opposition has come from Palestinians or Arabs (Chomsky? Gandhi?), a summary of some of Massad's ideas, and a largely detail-free fast-forward through the landscape of Jewish opposition, omitting, for instance, published authors such as Norman Finkelstein[http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Chutzpah-Misuse-Anti-Semitism-History/dp/0520245989], clearly notable. |
|||
:Then a helpful paragraph assuring us that "Zionists" (go to the footnotes if you want to know which ones) reject the charge of racism, and ''why'' they (all, presumably) reject that charge. Last word: Massad and the (unnamed) rest of the critics are simply wrong. |
|||
:This is neutral? This is "as far as possible without bias"? When we close the article with the comforting (and historically unsuccessful) Garvey analogue, and the ringing affirmations of the Zionist cause from the governments of France and China? Heaven help the reader who wonders: "Are there any governments that ''oppose'' Zionism?" There must not be -- this is the Wikipedia article about it, and there's no reference to such opposition, but there are glowing quotes from governments that actively support the movement! |
|||
:Yes, there is another article about opposition to Zionism. No, the existence of that article does not relieve us of our duty to comply with [[WP:NPOV]]. |
|||
:May I ask you to consider this issue more closely? |
|||
:* The wistful, aspirational poem that leads, incomprehensibly, the section called "Criticism of Zionism" ... |
|||
:* ... the cherry-picking of the French and Chinese quotes ... |
|||
:* ... the omission of direct reference to notable figures like Chomsky and Finkelstein, or indeed to any meaningful detail connected to the active, vocal opposition to Zionism of perhaps a fifth of the world's present population ... |
|||
: ...It all leads me to believe that the article may yet have a way to go before it can be said to adhere to [[WP:NPOV]]. With this issue in mind, I want to suggest that we try to fix the problem by adding some balance to the article, by means of a quote from a contemporary critic. Have you got any ideas about whom we could quote?[[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::The article is quite neutral (and already long) concerning the criticisms but if you have a quote to illustrate one of the point, why not to add this. Maybe one from Qu'ran should be good. Is there any in this book ? [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 16:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Ceedjee --re, above, I don't know what you mean by "considering the criticisms." Whose? |
|||
On the rest of your message -- let me clarify what I'm proposing. What I'm suggesting is that we work ''together'' to identify a quote from a ''contemporary'' critic who would add balance to the article. I think the collaborative process would have more of a chance of working here if the idea for the quote came from someone other than me. I'm sure you're not under the impression that quoting someone in an article like this is the same as agreeing with the person you're quoting. To the contrary, we are obliged to present multiple views in Wikipedia articles, regardless of our own feelings on an issue: |
|||
:'''If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.''' [[WP:NPOV]] |
|||
With this policy duty in mind, who would your nominee of a contemporary (i.e., post-1948) critic be? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 16:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Why post-48 ? [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Because 1948 was the year of the founding of the State of Israel, and the point at which criticism of Zionism became a matter of practical international interest. If you'd like to propose a second quote from someone who was critical of the Zionist movement before that year, we could also talk about that. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The article is already over "balanced" with criticism; further "criticism" will not do the opposite of "present[ing] competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." You keep mistaking this article for the [[Anti-Zionism]] article; however, it is not, and there is a whole big playground for you there to add your criticisms. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The material about Muslims who support Zionism belongs somewhere, and quite obviously, that somewhere is in this article. As for the Anti-Zionism section, there's a whole article devoted to [[Anti-Zionism]], and this article itself is quite long enough as it is. The summary is quite long enough, about the same size as most other sections. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
It is impossible to produce something on a Zionism related topic that people will consider NPOV. There simply is no neutral ground in this case. If this article has a problem, it is not its POV but its poor writing quality. |
|||
I agree that the Bialik poem (the poem incidentally is about a pogrom and was highly influential) does not belong under criticisms but the tone of the second section fits in, my opinion, with NPOV and I saw nothing in the Islamism article that could match it in tone. |
|||
In that light I will make changes to the criticism section and remove the poem. I agree that negation of the diaspora is hardly a criticism of Zionism. It could be construed as praise. |
|||
I would like to point out that I refrain from going to Islamic or Palestinian sections of Wikpedia and demanding that they change the content to be more "NPOV". I appreciate that many, like you, want to hear Zionim criticized and that option is available and clearly linked from this article. I didn't hear you volunteering to add a section about Islamist antisemitism. |
|||
I will consider removing the little pieces at the end which are of dubious relevance. |
|||
As-Salāmu `Alayka. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 12:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Shalom -- thanks for listening, look forward to working with you. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Despite what appeared to be quitting 8 days ago, BYT removed yesterday this paragraph, as "per talk page". From my quick reading of this wildly disorganized discussion, he is the only one who thinks so, thus I reverted the deletion. But I admit that you guys are far from clear on this issue. Keeping in mind that a poll is [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|not the ideal tool]] to resolve a dispute, I think it will be useful. Please answer the following: '''Do you want a paragraph called "Muslims supporting Zionism" in the article, yes or no?''' |
|||
* Yes. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Yes''' for crying out loud. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] ([[User talk:Gzuckier|talk]]) 15:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* if not, I would have removed this, like all others. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 20:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Criticism in the lead == |
|||
I notice that the leads of [[Socialism]], [[Capitalism]], [[Marxism]], [[Communism]], [[Palestinian nationalism]], [[Arab socialism]], [[Arab nationalism]], [[pan-Islamism]], to name but a few, have no statements about "Opposition" to the movements, despite the fact that all of them have been quite vociferously opposed. Why is the Zionism article singled out for this seemingly unique treatment? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Because these other articles are not respecting NPoV. :-) |
|||
:[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
hmmm neither do [[Feminism]], [[Nationalism]], [[Pan-Arabism]], [[Fascism]], [[militarism]], [[totalitarianism]], [[populism]], [[classical liberalism]], [[libertarianism]], [[Arab nationalism]], [[black nationalism]], [[serbian nationalism]] and [[ethno centrism]]. |
|||
[[Nazism]] and [[Ethnic-nationalism]] do. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:We could go a step farther and not restricting to the lead but looking at which articles talk about the "Opposition" or "critics" in their core... Not [[Fascism]], [[Arab nationalism]], [[militarism]], [[serbian nationalism]], ... But [[Communism]], [[Capitalism]] and [[feminism]] do. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 14:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Hello, Jay. Glad you've joined the discussion, and I'm looking forward to working with you on this. Hope we can keep things polite and make direct attempts to address each other's questions and comments. This last point is important, because in the past I feel we have not always done a good job of addressing each other's concerns directly. |
|||
1) I'm not sure whether you've discussed yet whether you feel [[WP:UNDUE]] connects to the material about the tiny fraction of the world's Muslims who support Zionism. You and I have had many discussions concerning Jewish groups opposing Zionism, and, as I recall, [[WP:UNDUE]] was an important part of your reason for excluding quotes from them, detailed discussions of their motivations, the names of their prominent members, etc. |
|||
2) Regarding the opening, I'm not wedded to specific "oppose" language there-- I'm not wedded to anything in this article -- and I think the narrow question of whether one actually uses the word "opposition" or a synonymous phrase in the opening of the piece is a bit of a red herring. I do think that any opening that implies that Zionism is somehow uncontroversial in academic circles, or in the region, is deeply troubling. |
|||
I know people have cited all kinds of WP articles (above) about various political systems, and examined the leads of those articles for parallels; it seems helpful to consider, in addition to the articles mentioned, [[Islamism]]. This opening does not reference specific "opposition" to the movement as much as to the term, but it does cite historical facts (Hezbollah's militarism) and organizations (al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad) likely to make it evident to virtually any reader that the movement has drawn its share of opposition and criticism. One may, of course, argue that this opposition is fully justified. |
|||
My point is not about the merit of the content, but rather that [[Islamism]] takes a diverse umbrella movement (like Zionism) and quickly, for the sake of context, draws attention to elements within that movement that most readers would find troubling. Without asking you for a moment to edit that article -- I'm asking you to work with me to edit ''this'' article -- I want to suggest that a precedent on an important article exists for acknowledging, early on, the manifest controversy that has attached to Zionism for most of the past century and all of this one. It's quite possible that an explicit acknowledgment of "opponents" or "critics" of Zionism in the lead is not the best way to give readers a sense of the controversial nature of Zionism. |
|||
There is another important parallel for us to consider. [[Unionism in Ireland]] makes direct reference, in the opening, to the home rule movement that has opposed this political movement since 1920, and acknowledges the belief that there is a "fundamental difference in perspective, beliefs, definition and culture between Irish Nationalists and Unionists." This article represents, I think, a model for a more nuanced and balanced approach to the opening of [[Zionism]] that we all may wish to consider closely. |
|||
3) I'm wondering if you can comment on the guidelines below, and share your understanding of how they might guide our approach to improving this article: |
|||
:'''A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that ''all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.'' ''' [[WP:NPOV]] (emphasis added) |
|||
:'''There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, ''and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.'' '''[[WP:CFORK]] (emphasis added) [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::1) Regarding whether mentioning Muslims who support Zionism is [[WP:UNDUE]], they do appear to be a very small number of people, so far as we know, but the individuals themselves appear to be notable. They certainly should be mentioned, and deleting any reference to them at all seems entirely outside of policy. Regarding Haredi anti-Zionists, they actually are mentioned in a number of places, and seem to have entire articles devoted to their views (see [[Anti-Zionism]], [[Neturei Karta]], [[Haredim and Zionism]] as examples). As for other Jewish anti-Zionists, well, for the past few months you've inserted ''their'' views into the very lead of this article. |
|||
::2) Regarding the "oppose" language in the lead, as has been pointed out, this seems to be almost unique among "ism" articles - certainly one doesn't find it in [[Palestinian nationalism]] or [[Arab nationalism]] etc. And, regarding the "manifest controversy that has attached to Zionism for most of the past century and all of this one", it certainly is no greater than the "manifest controversy that has attached to [[Communism]] and [[Marxism]] and [[Capitalism]] for most of the past century and all of this one" - yet those articles escape an "opponents" view in the lead. |
|||
::3) Regarding the guideline you mention, this article does indeed summarize the [[Anti-Zionism]] and [[Post-Zionism]] articles, so I'm not sure why you raise it. I hope you're not arguing that we should include those articles in this one; as has already been pointed out a number of times, those articles are far too large to include here, and in any event can be considered sub-articles of this one, just as [[History of Zionism]], [[Labor Zionism]], [[Christian Zionism]], etc. are. Also, if you're really concerned about [[WP:NPOV]] and all, rather than editing ''this'' article solely for the purpose of inserting negative information, why don't you head over to the [[Palestinian nationalism]] article, which, to this day, does not contain even one tiny bit of criticism in it - surely a more pressing concern. P.S. see also [[Anti-communism]]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 01:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Maybe we could start the lead by explaining the opposition to Zionism and then, anecdotically, explain what it is ? |
|||
::''Zionism is a doctrine that gathered a huge opposition against it since its birth. It nevertheless succeeded in imposing its views in Palestine with the proclamation of Israel (also called Zionist entity) in 1948. Most analysts nevertheless agree that this can only be temporar and that Zionism is condemned to disappear, like fascim and communism before it.'' |
|||
:BYT, would this satisfy WP:NPOV ? |
|||
:Isn't there something such as ''Lashon Hara'' in Muslim culture ? |
|||
:You should think about this. |
|||
:Rgds, [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 09:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC) <''REPLY: Thanks for the good note -- let me think about these points ...'' [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)> |
|||
Jayjg -- thanks for your quick reply. I think we've got the start of a good collaborative dialogue going. With regard to other articles we could be working on together, I agree that it would be a good idea for us to look at [[Palestinian nationalism]] as a team once we've established a working process here, and I commit to working on that article with you if you'll make the same commitment to working with me here. |
|||
In the meantime, could I ask you to address the following directly? |
|||
1) a) Are any Jewish religious figures who are or were associated with the anti-Zionist position "notable"? If so, are they, by definition, therefore worthy of mention by name in the body of the main text of [[Zionism]], as you are suggesting that Muslims who support Zionism are worthy of mention by name in the body of the article? b) I assume you don't mean to propose a standard whereby an individual's "notability" equates 100% of the time with his or her willingness to avoid criticizing Zionism. Having agreed on that much, can we identify someone whom you consider to be a "notable" figure from Judaism, past or present, who has opposed this movement? |
|||
2) With all respect, it seems as though you are simply restating your position here -- could I ask you to comment directly on the [[Islamism]] and [[Unionism in Ireland]] models I discussed in response to your last post, the parallels I drew, and the way these articles approach their opening sections? |
|||
3) a) Does Mahatma Gandhi's opposition to Zionism appear in [[Anti-Zionism]]? b) Is it summarized here? c) Would Gandhi's opposition constitute a "major point of view" that according to [[WP:NPOV]] should be "treated in one article?" [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi BYT. In response to your numbered points: |
|||
::1) a) [[Joel Teitelbaum]], the late [[Satmar]] [[Rebbe]], was probably the most notable Jewish religious anti-Zionist. He could certainly be mentioned in the article. b) I have no idea what you are saying; please don't hypothesize [[straw man|straw men]] on my behalf, it's at best unhelpful, and often insulting. |
|||
::2) Neither [[Islamism]] nor [[Unionism in Ireland]] have an "Opponents" section in the lede. What exactly are you proposing? |
|||
::3) a) I don't know - this is the [[Zionism]] article, not the [[Anti-Zionism]] one. b) Please don't ask rhetorical questions, they're also unhelpful. c) Not particularly, for several reasons. First, his statements about Zionism mostly advocating non-violence, and in general rejecting territorial partitions in favor of religious unity - they were an outgrowth of his vision for India. Second, his statements regarding Zionism were not particularly influential. Third, his views on Zionism were an insignificant part of his thought and speech. Fourth, he died before the creation of the State of Israel. |
|||
::And finally, in response to your first point, you've been editing the [[Zionism]] article since August 4, 2006, and are currently the fourth most prolific editor of this article. Your edits during this time have been solely and exclusively for the purpose of introducing negative information about Zionism or Zionists. In contrast, you have made 0 edits to the [[Palestinian nationalism]] article. It's time for you to focus your efforts on other articles that are clearly more in need of your editing abilities than this one. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi, |
|||
:You wanted a quote after '48. Now you would like to see Gandhi quoted ? What is the matter at the end ? |
|||
:Could you please write exactly the sentence you would expect to see added in the article ? It doens't seem you contribute to wikipedia to make article evolve but rather to win pilpul against alleged Zionist opponents... |
|||
:Regards, [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 15:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I don't think he knows what "pilpul" means. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 12:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry : "bilbul". |
|||
:[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 14:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Broader POV concerns=== |
|||
Hi Jayjg -- thanks for your note, above. I think we're definitely headed in the right direction. There are just a couple of places where I feel it would help us to get the discussion to reconnect to some of the issues that were originally raised, and that led me to flag the article. Note that this is a ''broad'' discussion about ''multiple'' POV issues in [[Zionism]], not a proposed edit on any single section. We have larger issues to address, I think. Obviously, I am trying to work toward specific edits that can attract consensus here, but my sense is we may not be there yet. |
|||
'''1)''' I am hoping we can recall that this one started out as a query to you regarding "whether you feel [[WP:UNDUE]] connects to the material about the tiny fraction of the world's Muslims who support Zionism." You answered that "they do appear to be a very small number of people, so far as we know, but the individuals themselves appear to be notable." I then asked specifically which ''Jewish'' religious leaders who ''opposed'' Zionism you considered notable, and you identified [[Joel Teitelbaum]]. What I'm trying to get at here can be expressed in two questions -- '''A)''' You seem to feel that it's important to have a section within the article whose headline points readers toward the fact that there are Muslims who support Zionism, some for religious reasons -- do you feel it's ''equally'' important to have a section within the article whose headline points readers toward the fact that there are Jews who oppose Zionism, some for religious reasons? If not, why not? '''B)''' In past discussions, when I have tried to introduce direct references to, or quotes from, religious Jews who have opposed Zionism at various points in history, or include a separate section about such people, you've cited [[WP:UNDUE]] as a reason not to do these things. Is that still how you feel, and if so, why wouldn't the same principle you have cited in the past apply to the section about Muslim support for Zionism? |
|||
'''2)''' I think I may be to blame for the miscommunication on this one. There really isn't specific language I'm proposing for the opening -- not yet, at any rate, because I know we need proposals that editors will find reasonable, and I don't think we know enough yet about what constitutes "reasonable" in other articles to make that a likely outcome. What I am asking you to consider -- and comment on, perhaps at length -- are the articles [[Islamism]] and [[Unionism in Ireland]]. To me, they represent possible models for the work we could do together here. They are both about major topics, and each article manages to incorporate direct or indirect acknowledgment that political controversy is part of the history of the topic in question. In other words, Islamism's lead isn't simply a couple of sentences proclaiming, "This is a broad descriptor that connects to the belief that Islamic values should guide society" -- and then on we go into the main article. No. We learn about some of the extremists within that (umbrella) grouping, and we get a sense -- indirect, of course -- that some people consider this system of thought controversial or even objectionable. Similarly, in the Unionism article, we get a sense of who the players are, what kinds of conflicts have arisen, and what gulfs still exist between them. Forgive me for quoting again, but the opening acknowledges ""fundamental difference in perspective, beliefs, definition and culture between Irish Nationalists and Unionists." Again, please accept that I am not talking here about adding or subtracting a sentence from the opening, but trying instead to open a dialogue with you about these articles. I guess if I had a question for you about the issues we've discussed here in 2), it would be this: '''A)''' Given these ways of approaching what appear to be analagous topics, what ideas do you have for ''structural'' (not single-edit) changes that would let readers get a better sense of the reasons Zionism, like Islamism and Unionism, is deeply controversial in some quarters? |
|||
'''3)''' Have to admit it: This last response of yours really confused me. Honestly, I think we may have lost track of the topic somehow, because of the complexity of many people posting, which I realize can be confusing. I apologize for this, and acknowledge that I am a contributor, quite often, to extremely disorganized conversations with multiple players on this page (and other pages, of course). Please forgive the repetition as I try to get us back on track. I cited these two guidelines: |
|||
:'''A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that ''all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.'' ''' [[WP:NPOV]] ''(emphasis added)'' |
|||
:'''There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, ''and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ..." article.'' ''' [[WP:CFORK]] ''(emphasis added)'' |
|||
I then asked for your comments on how those guidelines "might guide our approach to improving this article." You responded, so far as I can see, by discussing [[WP:CFORK]], but not [[WP:NPOV]], and suggested that [[Anti-Zionism]] was summarized here. I challenged this, by pointing out that Mahatma Gandhi's opposition to Zionism was not mentioned here, and I cited [[WP:NPOV]]'s "generally accepted policy" that "all facts and major Points of View" must be treated in a single article. |
|||
Here's where I got confused. There we are, discussing whether [[Zionism]] conforms to these two guidelines, and specifically whether it "contain(s) a summary" of [[Anti-Zionism]], which [[WP:CFORK]] says it should. I then asked you whether Gandhi was covered in [[Anti-Zionism]], the article we are supposedly summarizing here responsibly, and you answered that you didn't know whether he was mentioned in the article! I think we must have gone off line somewhere, because you had just acknowledged our responsibility as editors to summarize [[Anti-Zionism]], and had just claimed that we had done so in accordance with the guidelines ... and now you were claiming that you had not even ''read'' [[Anti-Zionism]]! |
|||
I feel certain this isn't what you meant to say. |
|||
I guess I was equally confused by your response to my question about whether Gandhi's position was summarized here in [[Zionism]], because you referred to that as a "rhetorical question." With all respect, I certainly didn't intend this as a rhetorical question, but as a question designed to elicit an answer. He's covered in [[Anti-Zionism]], and would be seen by most editors and readers as manifestly notable (inasmuch as he was, to use only one benchmark, in line to be named as a Nobel Peace Prize winner at the time of his death -- and, to use another benchmark, was identified by [[Time]] magazine as one of the most influential people of the 20th century.) [http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/runnerup2.html]. '''A)''' Since we don't want to violate [[WP:NPOV]] and/or [[WP:CFORK]], wouldn't his views have to be considered be relevant inclusions in any summary of [[Anti-Zionism]], regardless of whether his thoughts were "an outgrowth of his vision for India," and regardless of when he expressed them? After all, we have [[John Adams]] in the article as a notable authority on the subject, and ''his'' views were certainly expressed before the creation of the State of Israel. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 13:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi BYT. A couple of points to start; please do not revert to your previous habit of starting new sections for each of your comments, thus divorcing them of any context. Also, please strive for concision; it is unreasonable to expect editors to read and respond to 1,300 word comments, like your most recent. Now, in response to your numbered points: |
|||
:1) a) This is the article about Zionism - therefore it is the place where supporters of Zionism will be quoted. b) The [[Anti-Zionism]] article is where detail about opponents of Zionism belong. See also [[Anti-Communism]]. |
|||
:2) [[Nationalism]] and [[Unionism in Ireland]] seem very much the odd men out for Wikipedia's "isms" articles. [[Socialism]], [[Capitalism]], [[Marxism]], [[Communism]], [[Palestinian nationalism]], [[Arab socialism]], [[Arab nationalism]], [[pan-Islamism]], [[Feminism]], [[Pan-Arabism]], [[Populism]], [[Classical liberalism]], [[Libertarianism]], etc. seem much more the Wikipedia standard. [[Zionism]] should follow Wikipedia standards. |
|||
:3) a) The [[Anti-Zionism]] article is indeed summarized here in the [[Zionism]] article. I never said I hadn't read the Anti-Zionism article; do not attribute ''anything'' to me that I have not explicitly stated in this specific context - this has been a constant issue in the past. Move on from what I might or might not be thinking or believe or know, etc. Instead discuss only article content. b) You asked "Does Mahatma Gandhi's opposition to Zionism appear in [[Anti-Zionism]]?" and "Is it summarized here?"; you knew the answers, therefore the questions were rhetorical. Please don't ask rhetorical questions, they aren't helpful. As to why Gandhi's view might be appropriate for the [[Anti-Zionism]] article, but not the summary given here, please re-read my previous comments. Gandhi was a very well-known and influential figure in general, but that certainly didn't extend to every word he said on every topic. And, in general, a summary of a sub-article like [[Anti-Zionism]] will not provide any direct quotes (as that would be a violation of [[WP:UNDUE]]), but will instead give a broad overview of the material in the sub-article. |
|||
:Finally, regarding your concerns about [[WP:NPOV]], you are the fourth most prolific editor on this article, and for the past 2 years you have striven solely to add negative material about Zionism to it. That does not comply with [[WP:NPOV]]. Focus on other articles that are in far worse shape than this one; I recommend [[Palestinian nationalism]], which has neither a single solitary criticism of the movement, nor even a single footnote. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 05:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Jay -- I realize this is a controversial high-traffic article, and I can understand how easy it is to get editors mixed up. It happens to me all the time. When you write, above, "regarding your concerns about [[WP:NPOV]] ... for the past 2 years you have striven solely to add negative material about Zionism to it" -- this is simply not true, and I would appreciate it if you would consult these diffs and confirm as much for yourself: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=200566868&oldid=200566372] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=200039029&oldid=200037208] |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=186157250&oldid=186151455] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=116942785&oldid=116773140] Many thanks, [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I am not going to get involved in this or any other similar cesspool of incivility in this battleground area, but "this is the article on Zionism therefore it is the place where supporters of Zionism will be quoted. b) The Anti-Zionism article is where detail about opponents of Zionism belong" is quite incorrect. In an article on Zionism, we should discuss and paraphrase historical studies of the movement; to the extent that they discuss opposition to and criticism of the movement, it should be represented here, in neutral language, with perhaps one or two representative references to primary sources. In an article on [[Criticism of Zionism]], we should quote similar studies of organised opposition to the movement. Neither article should descend into quote-farming, and neither article is "the place where" supporters or critics "will be quoted". This attitude is partly why articles in this section of Wikipedia are among the worst in the encyclopaedia, the enormous amount of attention they receive notwithstanding. [[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|talk]]) 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Do you think a quote should be added in the ''criticism of Zionism'' section. If so, which one ? [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::The [[Anti-Zionism]] article is a sub-article of this one, just as the [[History of Zionism]], [[Labor Zionism]], [[Christian Zionism]] etc. articles are. Detail goes in the sub-articles, summaries go here. As to why articles in this area are "among the worst in the encyclopaedia" - well, they aren't, actually. [[Israel]] and [[Jerusalem]], for example, are Featured Articles, though they regularly suffer from people who feel they need to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=200921560&oldid=200611386 make some political point], and this one isn't terrible. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 23:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Jay, I watched the Israel FA, so pardon me if I say that it wasn't precisely regular. And as for articles like this and related, even more controversial ones, given that half of them are structured according to partisan quotefarms, they fairly accurately reflect that sort of source in their tone and level of encyclopedic value. Frankly, anyone who actually studies political science would think them laughable. At least some of the other battlegrounds look obviously amateurish. Here the finish is professional and the quality's - well, never mind. Not winning any converts on this talkpage, I don't think. 'Bye all. Remember what I said about "place where supporters of Zionism will be quoted" stuff. Not how we write non-terrible articles. [[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|talk]]) 23:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Do you think a quote should be added in the criticism of Zionism section. If so, which one ? [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 13:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Jayjg -- thanks for your comments, above, and I will try to keep this concise, as you request. You're quite right, I do ramble sometimes. In the spirit of keeping a good dialogue going, let's keep this brief, and keep on making the good headway we seem to be making. |
|||
I still am not sure, from your response above, what your specific take on the question below is. Maybe my long post made it tough to tease out my main points, and if so, we may be better off if I frame them one at a time. Of questions 1a, 1b, 2a, and 3a, I want to re-engage now with 1a (we'll get to the others later), and ask you to address 1a directly, so we can discuss it and start to edit collaboratively. |
|||
Your response above, <b>"This is the article about Zionism - therefore it is the place where supporters of Zionism will be quoted,"</b> seems like it's open to discussion from a number of angles, but I'm still not sure about your specific response to the query below. Remember, one of the issues that started this was the reinsertion of the "Muslims who support Zionism" content, and your defense of that reinsertion, even after we had appeared to have reached some kind of (unspoken, I suppose) consensus some months back that deleting such a section made sense. |
|||
:''1A)''' You seem to feel that it's important to have a section within the article whose headline points readers toward the fact that there are Muslims who support Zionism, some for religious reasons -- do you feel it's ''equally'' important to have a section within the article whose headline points readers toward the fact that there are Jews who oppose Zionism, some for religious reasons? If not, why not? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 12:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Do you think a quote should be added in the criticism of Zionism section. If so, which one ? [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 13:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)?) |
|||
::What Ceedjee said. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: And what happens to those who are NOT Zionists and are also NOT anti-Zionists. Are there only pro- and anti- sides?,- absolutely NOT. One word resting in the middle, somewhere in NPOV-land that editors should consider, but seem too entrenched to recognize, is the word 'NON-Zionist'. If you can see that side of the other 'sides', there might be progress. You know what I mean, it is that neverneverland where discussion of the difference between Eretz Israel and Medinet Israel takes place openly and honestly; it is that land where a post-Zionist can live in peace with a smile on his (her) face, with no worries of being a Gentile new-anti-Semite or a Jewish self-hating Jew. If Zionism could, or would, define itself in a fair, open and honest manner, and quit moving the goal posts, one would find that there is no reason for those neologisms in particular. But, then, we do not live in a perfect world. [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 16:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::alternately, if folks would stop erecting goalposts such as "zionism is racism" then zionists might not feel forced to move them. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] ([[User talk:Gzuckier|talk]]) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Huh? Zionism can't or won't "define itself in a fair, open and honest manner, and quit moving the goal posts"? What on earth are you talking about? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Huh? Did you forget that we have already had [[#Getting_ready_to_add_a_NPOV_TAG|this discussion]] higher on the page? Well I’ll be! Just because I only watch the edits, doesn’t mean that I am not here. I sadly note that the existing lede, which is a fine, fine piece of history-lacking POV, has again lost [[Palestine]]; the current lede is what the missing [[Zionism#Zionism today|Zionism today]] <!-- (can someone please make that the red that it is) --> section should be. That Zionism, the Zionism you seem to be POV-pushing, can very well have a full section describing all its glories and '''never''' mention Palestine, because it doesn’t exist to those minds. That is OK with me, that is inclusive, NPOV, and true. |
|||
:::::But, it is not that Zionism that goes in the lede on Wikipedia. Zionism is tied-at-the-hip, or maybe foot, or maybe trod upon Palestine. Now, Jay, [[Palestine]] can either go [[World_Zionist_Organization_%28First_Zionist_Congress%29|righteously]] at the top in the first sentence, or go unrighteously at the end, where we must note the second [[Palestinian_diaspora|diaspora]], which was created; the loss of that same [[self-determination]] and; the development of other [[national liberation movement]]s of the [[Palestinian people]]. Which of these would you prefer?- your choice, I’m easy. And while you are thinking about it, please see if you can fit in [[Greater Israel]] or [[Eretz Israel HaShlema]] and [[Movement for Greater Israel]]. Tivnan's quote, that you keep deleting from another page is highly illustrative of what I am talking about. This is not an April Fools thing. Regards, [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::CO48, I hardly know what your [[WP:SOAP|speech]] means. If you're concerned that the lead sentence has deteriorated from a previous verions, then just say so, rather than using bizarre circumlocutions like "If Zionism could, or would, define itself in a fair, open and honest manner, and quit moving the goal posts, one would find that there is no reason for those neologisms in particular." I hadn't noticed the mess a bunch of editors had made with that sentence, but I've restored it to the factual, NPOV, and sourced version. In the future, please speak straightforwardly, rather than elliptically, and [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Thanks. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I am just reading [[Yoav Gelber]], ''[http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/047203216X/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link History of Zionist Historiography]''. He explains the ''History of Zionism'' has evolved during time and was explained differently according to circumstances. The ''messanic'' vision of Zionism was just one of them and introduced in 1920-30. Other (Zionist !) historians saw Zionism as a political enterprise, a jewish cultural aspiration, a jewish liberation movement (in front of anti-zemitism), ... |
|||
::::::Answering CO'48, I would suggest we replace [[Promised land]] in the lead by [[Palestine]] not even to respect any Palestinian pov but to reflect these zionist pov's where the messianic vision is not the only one. |
|||
::::::I can understand that many people could give a bad interpretation of the word Palestine (that the land would have been stolen by Zionism) but historically, that were the name given to the region and the land to settle in was ''Palestine''. These are the words that were used when Weizmann, Balfour and the British establishment negociated. |
|||
::::::The optimum would be to add a few words explaining here Palestine refers to the historical area and not at all to the potential future state for the Palestinians but I don't have a solution... |
|||
::::::[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 06:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yup, sounds good, up front, simple and factual, just the way it is in NPOV, but I prefer to let Jay do it himself, since he seems to hold the article so dearly. Concerning a solution..., they have a simple one strewn all over Wikipedia..., it doesnt exist. [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 07:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Please see my comment above. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Thanks, [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 08:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::The lead got turned into sludge again; references removed, sentences no longer matched what their citations said, and a bizarre link to [[National Liberation]] was inserted. I've restored sanity to it once again. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== PoV tag == |
|||
Hi,<br/> |
|||
Given the comments given here above, it seems there is a ''consensus'' on wp not to discuss about ''the oppositions'' in the lead of articles dealing with political ideologies. I removed this. I expect this solves the pov-issue.<br/> |
|||
:"Opposition to Zionism has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections to competing claims of nationalism to political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical. <ref>Noam Chomsky, ''The Chomsky Reader'' {{page number}}</ref> Some critics believe that opposition to Zionism is a contemporary expression of [[antisemitism]].<ref>*[[Phyllis Chesler|Chesler, Phyllis]]. ''The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It'', Jossey-Bass, 2003, pp. 158-159, 181. |
|||
*Doward, Jamie. [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1278580,00.html Jews predict record level of hate attacks: Militant Islamic media accused of stirring up new wave of anti-semitism], ''[[The Guardian]]'', August 8, 2004. |
|||
*[[Warren Kinsella|Kinsella, Warren]]. [http://www.warrenkinsella.com/words_extremism_nas.htm The New anti-Semitism], accessed March 5, 2006. |
|||
*[[Jonathan Sacks|Sacks, Jonathan]]. [http://israel.jcca.org/articles.htm?y=620051118152416 "The New Antisemitism"], Ha'aretz, September 6, 2002, retrieved on [[January 10]], [[2007]]. |
|||
*[[Mark Strauss|Strauss, Mark]]. [http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=2791 "Antiglobalism's Jewish Problem"] in Rosenbaum, Ron (ed). ''Those who forget the past: The Question of Anti-Semitism'', Random House 2004, p 272. The term "new antisemitism" has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in [[Western Europe]], after the [[Second Intifada]] in 2000, the failure of the [[Oslo accords]], and the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].</ref>" |
|||
[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 15:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Having discussed some of this earlier, I think the question is whether you want a very dry introduction, or if you want one that gets into commentary of one kind or another. Talking about whether to include opposition isn't exactly right in my view; the question per [[WP:Lead]] is whether to include "notable controversies," as exist. These could be controversies about the term, or opposition, depending on the case. The other problem is the coverage of proponents that currently remains in the lead, which would also need to be removed if the idea is not to have positive or negative commentary. I think these are the main concerns with simply getting rid of the material on opposition. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 15:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I think you are right. |
|||
:::After recent correction, I don't have reason to keep the pov tag. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::A shorter lead would improve the article. Removing pro- and contra- perception of Zionism and leaving polemics for the core of the article better. |
|||
::This lead is too long (from my point of view). [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 15:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Does this inclusion of a section on Muslim Zionists raise problems with [[WP:UNDUE]] and/or [[WP:NPOV]]? Broad range of views concerning Zionism among the world's Muslims, only a tiny fraction accounted for here. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Brandon, there is a poll on this issue, above in this page. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Yes, but [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polling_is_evil polls are evil.] Quoting: "Don't vote on everything, and if you can help it, don't vote on anything. Or, rather, polling isn't evil in itself, but when you try to distill an essay's worth of thought into a single phrase, that's the sort of oversimplified, divisive statement that happens. A bit like trying to distill an essay's worth of thought into a single "yea" or "nay". |
|||
(Although Wikipedia has a Neutral point of view policy, this article seems to have the general consensus of the Wikipedia community.)" |
|||
This sort of situation is what [[WP:RFC]] is for. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 12:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Halas! enough empty arguments, here is my opinion/comment/poll answer: '''The chapter "Muslims supporting Zionism" belongs in the article'''. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 13:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Why do you feel that way? And how do you think [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:NPOV]] should be applied here? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Would pilpul go on ? Do you think a quote should be added in the criticism of Zionism section ? If so, which one ? [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Ceedjee, could you please take a clear position on this simple issue? |
|||
::Brandon, this point has already been discussed ad nauseum earlier. Now is not the time for further sterile arguments, it is the time to state clearly our opinion, something you have not done yet. In the meantime, stop deleting the paragraph until a clear trend emerges from this RFC. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Are they ''notable'' as supporters of Zionism? Do most studies of Zionism mention them? Do we have a reliable source saying "these are notable supporters of Zionism" (''not'' "notable Muslim Zionists", as this is not a [[Muslim Zionism]] article)? Do we have a reliable source saying "Muslim Zionism is a notable component of Zionism"? That is the only question you should all be asking yourselves. <span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 18:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Given the paragraph starts by stating "rare are the supporters of Zionism in the Muslim world : yes. In fact, I am happy to learn there can be nuance in that world - You don't need a source that state this is notable. You need a source that states it is true. Notability is our concern - You don't need a source stating that Muslim Zionist is notable. cfr just above. Regards, [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 20:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I don't think there's necessarily any problem with a section on Muslims supporting Zionism, if you can find material in a reliable source or two discussing the issue in reasonable depth. FrontPageMagazine, however, is [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#FrontPage_Magazine_and_WorldNetDaily|not]] a reliable source. Neither is "Islam-watch.org" (citations 30 and 32 respectively). So the sources need replacing, and if that's not possible, the content should be removed. I know Abdul Hadi Palazzi is a well known proponent of Zionism, so you should replace FPM with a credible source. If the issue of Muslims supporting Zionism is even significant, then I'd probably expect some reliable sources to be discussing it. Just my thoughts. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Emmanuelm -- obviously, as you've just reinserted the text, you've got an opinion on this. Since we're trying to generate discussion here, could you comment on Itaqallah's points above regarding reliable sourcing? Can you please directly address Relato's question above: '''Do we have a reliable source saying "Muslim Zionism is a notable component of Zionism?" ''' Also, again, why do you feel this needs a separate section (as opposed to, for instance, a well-sourced reference elsewhere in the article)? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::It is not needed. The information is source and this is notable because rare are the Muslims who support Zionism. |
|||
::Note you don't answer to question, so there is no reason you are answered. |
|||
::Cheers, [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 20:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I've moved the quotations to the footnotes, to deal with concerns about undue weight. It's now just three brief sentences. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::There is nothing wrong with including a section on muslims who support Zionism, however rare it may be, they do exist. '''[[User:Yahel Guhan|<span style="color: #008080">Yahel</span>]] [[User talk:Yahel Guhan|<span style="color: #000000">Guhan</span>]]''' 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I modified the title of the chapter to include Nonie Darwish and Magdi Allam, both Christian Arabs. As for the notability of this group, two points. First, the "weight" of this paragraph, only five lines in a large article, is proportional. Second, the difference between a "tiny" and a "significant" minority is clarified in [[WP:NPOV]] as such: ''If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.'' I easily found six contemporary imams and professional writers; it ought to be enough. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 15:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think it is good that way. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 17:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Jay, thanks for re-engaging. The page has gotten hectic, so I don't know if you missed my question above '''(1a).''' If you did, here's a quick summary of my concerns -- that query to you arose from curiosity over whether we may be inadvertently using the structure of the article to spotlight religiously justified support, and minimize any discussion of religiously justified opposition. And this leads me to a deeper question I wanted to share with you that connects with '''1a)''', above. I am still uncertain as to why we have to divide the whole article into "pro-" and "anti-" chunks in the first place. Some of the positions worthy of discussion don't fall easily into either category. Is there a downside, in your view, to reorganizing all of this "responses to Zionism" material under a broader heading of some kind? What kind of heading would you suggest? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 18:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:This article merely summarizes the [[Anti-Zionism]] sub-section, just like it summarizes all the other sub-sections. [[Anti-Zionism]] is a specific sub-section. Is there something you feel needs to be added to this article? If so, what, and why? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 01:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
''Quick recap department, compressed for the sake of conciseness, and updated to include points recently raised on this page: '''1A:''' Do Jews who oppose Zionism, some for religious reasons, merit a separate section or subsection? '''1B:'''Are we following [[WP:UNDUE]] in descriptions and discussions of people, movements, and organizations that have other religious responses to Zionism, and are the people, movements, and organizations notable? '''1C:''' (adding this because it is implied in my question above:) What structural changes to the article would allow us to incorporate a broader range of responses to Zionism, rather than simply assuming the discussion must be about "pro" and "con" camps? '''2A:)''' What changes, structural or otherwise, would make it more apparent to readers that notable people regard Zionism as controversial (compare [[Islamism]] and [[Unionism in Ireland]])? '''3A:''' Why would we exclude (for instance) the views of the notable figure Mahatma Gandhi in our summary of [[Anti-Zionism]]? '''3B:''' (I'm adding this explicity to the discussion now, but it has been implied all along:) What other major Points of View do we have a duty to describe responsibly when summarizing [[Anti-Zionism]], per [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:CFORK]]?'' |
|||
(We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming ... thanks for your patience. I just wanted to make it easier to keep track of everything.) |
|||
Hi Jay. Thanks for your question -- it's a good one. I guess at this point, I'm more curious about addressing larger questions of (re)organization than I am about adding or subtracting individual sentences to the existing structure. Following through on '''1A''' '''1B''' and '''1C''' above, could you see an advantage to incorporating the summary of "Anti-Zionism" as a subsection within a larger section called (just for the sake of argument) "Responses to Zionism"? This could, in theory, allow us to avoid the whole problem of spotlighting one group of (religiously driven) proponents, some of which may not represent notable movements within Zionism -- and at the same time inadvertently de-emphasizing another group of (religiously driven) opponents. We'd still summarize "Anti-Zionism" (and I have some comments on the best ways to do that collaboratively that connect to '''3A''' and '''3B''' above'), but we would be able to do so as part of a larger discussion of the varied, notable responses to the movement. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 12:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Byron and Jay, you are off topic. I understand from this that the discussion on the Muslims & Arab chapter is closed; Mazal tov! I removed the RFC template. Now, Byron, stop deleting the paragraph. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 15:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Opposition to x is a standard kind of section, and [[Anti-Zionism]] is a sub-article of that section. "Responses to Zionism" doesn't really mean anything, as it could include anyone who has ever said anything about it. Is there something you feel needs to be added to this article? If so, what, and why? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 22:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Hi Jay -- thanks for your post -- you may have missed my summary above, perhaps because the discussion has gone off in a couple of different directions. In terms of what should be added to the article, '''see my question 1a for you above'''; I think the article should contain references to specific, notable Jews who oppose Zionism for religious reasons, and I think this should be part of a fuller point-by-point summary of [[Anti-Zionism]] ('''see my question 3b for you above'''). I also think we should delete the present ''Muslims and Christian Arabs supporting Zionism'' section, inasmuch as this is neither [[Christian Zionism]] nor [[Muslim Zionism]], and because including this material appears to violate [[WP:UNDUE]]. I hear what you're saying about a section called "Responses to Zionism," though. Maybe there's some other way to do this. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 12:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Brandon, you seem to have added an "opposition" statement to the lead again, despite the strong consensus against doing so, per [[Socialism]], [[Capitalism]], [[Marxism]], [[Communism]], [[Palestinian nationalism]], [[Arab socialism]], [[Arab nationalism]], [[pan-Islamism]], [[Feminism]], [[Pan-Arabism]], [[Populism]], [[Classical liberalism]], [[Libertarianism]], etc. Please stop making these non-consensual edits. Regarding a quote in the Opposition to Zionism section, it in itself would violate [[WP:UNDUE]], since the section is a '''summary''' of the overall concepts, not an exposition of any particular individual's views. Regarding the ''Muslims and Christian Arabs supporting Zionism'' section, its only three sentences at this point, and there isn't any other article which could capture the information. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 15:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Hey there Jay -- thanks as always for the good notes, above, and you're right, there is a balance to strike between being [[WP:BOLD]] and finding consensus on a complex article such as this one. |
|||
I'm not sure you saw my question above on whether the section on "Muslim and Christian Arabs supporting Zionism" material -- whatever its length -- might conceivably raise problems with [[WP:UNDUE]]. I apologize if I might have formulated things in a confusing way, that happens to me a lot. This isn't a question of how long the material in question is, or whether it might better be placed somewhere else, but whether it violates [[WP:UNDUE]]. |
|||
Another round of apologies on my side is in order, too. It looks like I may also have flummoxed my response to your question about what, exactly, I thought should change in the article. In answering this, I suggested that we might be able to work together make a fuller point-by-point summary of major Points of View discussed in [[Anti-Zionism]], and you responded (above) as though the question was about "overall concepts." I'm not even sure what those are, or how they'd be determined objectively, but I'm sorry for the misdirection on my part, if there was any, that pointed the discussion to "overall concepts." I was really pointing us toward '''my question 3b for you above,''' namely whether [[Zionism]] as it is currently constituted can be said to be in compliance with these guidelines: |
|||
* '''A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that ''all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. '' ''' [[WP:NPOV]] (emphasis added) |
|||
* '''There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, ''and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.'' ''' [[WP:CFORK]] (emphasis added) |
|||
I think the collaborative process we're building up here could move forward even more quickly if you could identify the specific "major Points of View" (not "overall concepts," but attributable POVs connected to specific groups and individuals) now covered in [[Anti-Zionism]] that we are not yet covering in [[Zionism]]. You mentioned [[Joel Teitelbaum]]' s, above. Are there any others? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Brandon, please remember, '''brief''' statements, no reprises of the previous discussion, and please stop repeating the exact same boiler-plate material, thanks. Also, objections/questions raised based on your personal numbering system aren't relevant, in particular because those objections have been satisfied; in the future, edits made based on them will be reverted, and questions based on them ignored. Regarding your current questions, the ''Muslim/Christian Arab'' section is now 3 sentences, so it doesn't violate [[WP:UNDUE]], and there is no other article for the material. [[Anti-Zionism]] is a sub-article of this, too long for this one, just as [[History of Zionism]], [[General Zionism]], [[Labor Zionism]], [[Christian Zionism]] etc., so [[WP:NPOV]] is satisfied. And finally, is there any specific sentence you feel should be added to the article, aside from the "Opposition" sentence in the lead, which has been rejected by consensus and Wikipedia standards? If so, please state what it is, without asking interminable questions whose relevance and meaning are, at best, opaque. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 16:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Jay -- good point, we may get more done with concise responses. You mention, above, that my question about whether we have supplied actual, attributable references for "major Points of View" that appear in [[Anti-Zionism]] but don't appear here (see '''3b''' above -- sorry) "(has) been satisfied." It looks like I didn't do a good enough job of explaining what I was getting at here, because somehow it still feels unresolved to me. Are you saying that (for instance) Gandhi's is not a major Point of View? Or [[Lubavitcher Rebbe]]'s? Or [[Joel Teitelbaum]]'s? Again, [[WP:NPOV]] says "all facts and major Points of View" must be covered here, even if they connect to [[Anti-Zionism]]. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:BYT, please don't proceed to modifications of the article on the pov-issues you consider to have found ''before'' proposing them here on the talk page ''and'' ''before'' you get answers and/or comments concerning these. |
|||
:[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Regarding anti-Zionism, the major points of view are covered. Gandhi's view, as explained, wasn't "major", since he was not an important thinker ''in terms of Zionism'', nor was Zionism an important part of his philosophy. The views of religious anti-Zionists are pretty much covered (and, by the way, Schneerson wasn't one of them). I'll add a sentence regarding Teitelbaum to satisfy your concerns. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::And here we reach the heart of the issue, Jay, and the point where we really would benefit from directly addressing each other's issues. |
|||
::Gandhi's opinion doesn't go in because he is, in your view, "not an important thinker in terms of Zionism, nor was Zionism part of his philosophy." |
|||
::Yet one could say precisely the same thing about Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, and he, you are arguing, ''should'' be included. Are you really arguing that he's an "important thinker in terms of Zionism"? What reliable source identifies him as such? (I have other comments on this section, but will share them with you later, after we address these issues together.) |
|||
::What language, specifically, are you proposing for the Teitelbaum addition? Let's talk it over first. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 17:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Palazzi's views on Zionism seem to be an important part of his thought, and rather influential vis-a-vis Muslim Zionists, and in any event he's not quoted in the article text. Regarding the Teitlebaum material, it's already in there. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
"Seem" to whom? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4E73EA93-5E8C-492D-9EC7-716F1342DDC6 Palazzi and others]. In any event, he's not quoted in the body of the text, I already took care of that for you. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I'm not concerned over whether he's quoted in the body of the text. I'm concerned about whether any (for instance) scholarly or academic publication identifies his as a more relevant viewpoint than Mahatma Gandhi's, which is what you've been maintaining. You're saying Gandhi was not an "important thinker" about Zionism, and this gentleman is, correct? Have books or papers, for instance, been published on Palazzi's views on Zionism? [http://books.google.com/books?id=wELzivMr_-cC&pg=PA239&dq=Gandhi+Zionism&ei=KxH5R8KxDpSCjwGi3-3zCQ&sig=OOaK8FYHM6IBdvjLwLvYPPNHaKE] [http://books.google.com/books?id=lyVIAAAAMAAJ&q=Gandhi+Zionism&dq=Gandhi+Zionism&ei=KxH5R8KxDpSCjwGi3-3zCQ&pgis=1] Notice that Gandhi's ''Zionism and Anti-Semitism'' is an important entry in ''The Gandhi Reader''. [http://books.google.com/books?id=XpWO-GoOhVEC&pg=PA317&dq=Gandhi+Zionism&ei=KxH5R8KxDpSCjwGi3-3zCQ&sig=php6mi8LL6v8m10m1M401HO7F6g]. Again -- per my question '''1b''' for you, above, by what objective standard do you exclude Gandhi, but include Palazzi, in this article? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:If the argument being raised here is Gandhi's thought is an important component of Anti-Zionism, then that argument belongs on the talk: page of the [[Anti-Zionism]] article/sub-section, in which, I might add, Gandhi's views are mentioned. In addition, as I've said before, don't make any statements about my beliefs or arguments, since those statements are invariably incorrect; if you find your fingers typing the words "you" (e.g. "you've been maintaining"), then please delete that sentence and start again. Other than that, all issues raised have been addressed; as noted before, ''objections/questions raised based on your personal numbering system aren't relevant, in particular because those objections have been satisfied; in the future, edits made based on them will be reverted, and questions based on them ignored.'' See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=203794050&oldid=203786935 this recent edit], whose edit summary referred to a meaningless numbering system. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I would add that the section on Opposition to Zionism is now the single largest section in the article, aside from the History of Zionism itself; it is likely becoming [[WP:UNDUE|unduly]] large at this point. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 18:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Jay -- thanks for the good note, and for the detail of your response. I think I understand what you're saying; by the same token, it seems unlikely that you could know whether someone else's objections have been satisfied if you weren't the person raising the objections. BTW please feel free to ignore the numbers on the points below, but for consistency, and to make it easier for editors who may be following this, I'm going to retain them. |
|||
'''1A:''' Do Jews who oppose Zionism, some for religious reasons, merit a separate section or subsection? (We've added the material about Teitelbaum, but since we haven't got consensus yet to remove the Muslims and Arab Christians section, it seems like a fair point to explore further, since there are problems from both [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:UNDUE]] connected to that section. By the way, one of the guys in that disputed section is no longer a Muslim, which is weird.) This objection is not satisfied. |
|||
'''1B:'''Are we following [[WP:UNDUE]] in descriptions and discussions of people, movements, and organizations that have other religious responses to Zionism, and are the people, movements, and organizations notable? (Again, the inclusion of the Muslims and Arab Christians section is a real problem here. I believe I asked you for a citation from some academic journal or other published source regarding Palazzi -- did you notice that request?) This objection is not satisfied. |
|||
'''1C:''' What structural changes to the article would allow us to incorporate a broader range of responses to Zionism, rather than simply assuming the discussion must be about "pro" and "con" camps? (I suggested above that there may be other ways to accomplish this than a "Responses to Zionism" section, and am currently waiting for other ideas from you.) This objection is not satisfied. |
|||
'''2A:)''' What changes, structural or otherwise, would make it more apparent to readers that notable people regard Zionism as controversial (compare [[Islamism]] and [[Unionism in Ireland]])? (You removed my addition this morning of a reference citing such notable opposition, in the form of Norman Finkelstein, but did not propose any alternate language.) This objection is not satisfied. |
|||
'''3A:''' Why would we exclude (for instance) the views of the notable figure Mahatma Gandhi in our summary of [[Anti-Zionism]]? (I'm pretty sure I asked you specifically for reasons that we would omit references to Gandhi when summarizing all "major Points of View" in [[Anti-Zionism]], and you told me -- oddly -- that the material on Gandhi appeared in [[Anti-Zionism]]. I knew that; that's why I was saying we had a duty to summarize it here in [[Zionism]] under [[WP:NPOV]]. You may want to take another look at the provisions of that policy, which states explicitly that all facts and major points of view connected to a given topic must be covered in the article that addresses that topic.) This objection is not satisfied. |
|||
'''3B:''' What other major Points of View do we have a duty to describe responsibly when summarizing [[Anti-Zionism]], per [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:CFORK]]? (This connects to, for instance, Finkelstein, who is notable, is mentioned in [[Anti-Zionism]], and is not mentioned here. Point being, Gandhi is just one example, although the one whose absence is perhaps most difficult to explain.) This objection is not satisfied. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:BYT, these are all hypothetical questions, and in any event have been answered. As a simple example, there is no need to make the article conform with [[Islamism]] and [[Unionism in Ireland]]; rather, it ''already'' conforms with Wikipedia's standards, which are seen in [[Socialism]], [[Capitalism]], [[Marxism]], [[Communism]], [[Palestinian nationalism]], [[Arab socialism]], [[Arab nationalism]], [[pan-Islamism]], [[Feminism]], [[Pan-Arabism]], [[Populism]], [[Classical liberalism]], [[Libertarianism]], etc. As another example, Gandhi wasn't an influential Anti-Zionist writer, since he only ever wrote a few paragraphs on the subject. If you would like to propose specific article changes, then please do so. However, please desist from [[WP:POINT|tagging the article]] based on objections which have been answered, hypothetical questions, or issues on which the consensus disagrees with you. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Obvious problem of NPOV''' in current article re anti-Zionism. Mention of anti-Zionism may be in order per WP:UNDUE, I'm not sure. However, if it is to be included, then the current section is unfit. There is widespread resistance to Zionism amongst followers of Judaism, one source (JAZ?) consider there to be 1 million non-Zionists amongst them, with 150,000 anti-Zionists. Furthermore, these are often (invariably?) intelligent, literate people, often curators of significant evidence (eg tapes of survivors of the [[1929 Hebron Massacre]]), often excellently positioned to provide high-quality references to religious arguments and people, and with very significant influence in the wider anti-Zionist movement. It would be strange indeed not to highlight the work of people like Norman Finkelstein, who, from very personal experience and extensive scholarly work, consider that the Zionists abuse the source material that much of the modern version of their ideology is based upon (ie the Holocaust). It would appear that [http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com Jews Against Zionists] and [http://www.jewsnotzionists.org Jews Not Zionists] are hated by some parties - but no effort has ever been made to provide me evidence why they are not considered WP:RS. Or even whether their reliability has ever been properly dicussed in the project - all I see is accusations that they are "extremist", a position I'd think was impossible to defend (and judging by other sources often inserted quite happily, is not considered a serious obstacle anyway). [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 11:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Why they are not wp:rs was explained you no later than yesterday. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 14:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Anti-Zionism / Criticisms of Zionism == |
|||
I think ''Anti-Zionism'' is only one of the form of the criticisms to Zionism. And it is a wide subject. There is also Post-Zionism and Non-Zionism (whereas not described in the article). In this section is also described the "allegations of racism against Zionism", which is not an consensual anti-zionism position... So I suggest that the section is titled : "Opposition to Zionism". [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Does somebody disagree ? And better : would somebody agree ? [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 07:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Gandhi on Zionism == |
|||
Please see these links: [http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/mideast.htm] [http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0815-GandhiZionism.html], [http://www.geocities.com/virodhi2001/IndiaResistance2001.htm] [http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0828-01.htm] [http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1147098] [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-schaefer042803.asp] [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/buber1.html] [http://books.google.com/books?id=Jew-cYHPN5sC&pg=PA258&dq=gandhi+zionist&lr=lang_en%7Clang_iw&ei=RPr5R6HhNsPSiwGBn-zyCQ&sig=jIs0Y3_--oA49wIKblgAu04-PXQ#PPA259,M1] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 10:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Salam Yusuf, |
|||
:Here are roughly 20 (other) references to the same topic but maybe from more reliable sources (except inist) : [http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/writings_online/articles/gandhi_jews_palestine.html]. They are already in the article [[Anti-Zionism]]. |
|||
:I can only ask (for the 5th time) the same question than here-above : |
|||
:* Do you think a quote should be added in the criticism of Zionism section ? If so, which one ? And Why ? |
|||
:Please, apologize but I have to tell you that nobody understands what you want exactly... |
|||
:[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 10:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I'm sorry if I haven't been clear about this. I know he's covered in [[Anti-Zionism]]. Problem is, [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:CFORK]] say we should summarize all "major Points of View" that show up in [[Anti-Zionism]] in ''this'' article, [[Zionism]], and I believe Mahatma Gandhi's views on the topic qualify as a major Point of View, esp. given that they were controversial at the time and attracted global interest and concern from leading Zionists. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 10:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Salam Yusuf, |
|||
:The space devoted in Anti-Zionism to Gandhi is currently : 1 line. Maybe first step would be to develop his point of view on the matter there first. Then, we could see which one of his quotes, pov or analysis could be added here. It must just fairly summarize his mind. |
|||
:Because, else, execpt "Gandhi too opposed to Zionist entreprise", I don't see what to say. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 11:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Would that language work for you here at [[Zionism]], Ceedjee ? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 11:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Salam Yusuf, |
|||
:Of course. |
|||
:Do you refer to the recent add of material concerning [[Post-Zionism]] and [[Neo-Zionism]] ? |
|||
:If so, I suggest you behave exactly the same way : [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neo-Zionism&diff=203947544&oldid=182274053 this] was summarized by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=203733002&oldid=203712395 this]. |
|||
:NB: The space devoted in Anti-Zionism to Gandhi is currently : 1 line. |
|||
:[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 11:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Jay -- would Ceedjee's proposal -- "Mahatma Gandhi, too, opposed the Zionist enterprise" -- work for you? Would you, for instance, replace it if someone else took it out? I'd like to get your feedback on this before we proceed. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Salam Yusuf, |
|||
:This is not my proposal. |
|||
:My proposal is that we do not change anything until the article Anti-Zionist is developed. |
|||
:Eg, there would be a section in Anti-Zionist named "prominent historical characters who opposed to Zionism", then we could give some of them here. |
|||
:NB: I conclude from your absence of comment concerning my former answer to your question that you admit I worked with the policy I suggest while you purposedly ignore this. I think your attitude will be considered very disappointing by external observers. |
|||
:Could you please ''check as read'' the following sentence : |
|||
:"The space devoted in Anti-Zionism to Gandhi is currently : 1 line." |
|||
:Cheers, [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 12:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:BYT, please stop misrepresenting what other editors have said on the Talk: page, and please review [[Wikipedia:Summary style#Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised]]. By the way, Brandon, do you know how much Gandhi wrote about Zionism? Can you quantify it? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Excellent questions -- I'm filing them for now in the Great Not-Yet-Addressed Questions folder, and eventually we can get to every question everyone has posed here during the present dispute. I may have a couple of questions myself that have not yet made it to the top of your list ... let me doublecheck on that, though. |
|||
Hey, did you happen to see the movie ''Enchanted''? My girls fell in love with that film. Did you notice how they cast Idina Menzel in a non-singing role? This was mystifying to me, because ''Enchanted'' was a great new Disney musical (hasn't it been a while since we've been able to say those words with a straight face?), and because of Menzel's extraordinary work on the Broadway musical [[Wicked (musical)|Wicked]], which is now immortalized in a classic cast album. One of the great vocal performances in the history of the American musical theatre, in my view. I mention this in reference to [[Zionism]] because it seems important now to establish that anyone who wants to argue that the choice to cast Menzel in a role that did not allow her to sing had something to do with her views on Zionism, pro or con, would be hard-pressed to prove the point with a citation from a reliable source. I've scoured everything at my disposal, and have found nothing that supports such a claim. No one has made it yet, of course, but just in case it comes up, I feel it's a good idea to be prepared. Looking forward to the rest of the discussion of other matters, I remain, yr humble obdt [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I have no idea what you are talking about. Anyway, Gandhi appears to have written one brief letter on the subject. As I said, neither a significant part of his thought and writings, nor a significant part of Anti-Zionist thought. The mention in the [[Anti-Zionism]] sub-article seems about right. Please review [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 01:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi Jay, thanks for the good note, and do check out ''Enchanted'' if you get a chance. Great fun. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because Gandhi did not publish extensively on the topic of Zionism, he does not belong in the article. I'm not sure if I agree with you on that, but I just might, if it's a standard we can both come to rely on as a tool for helping us to work together to improve the article. To help me get a little bit clearer on the standards we're using for this article, are you suggesting that people who don't publish extensively on the topic of Zionism, and happen to be Muslims, former Muslims, or Christians, ''also'' don't belong in the article? [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 11:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Maybe it is more relevant to be pro-Zionist in Islam than anti-Zionist in India ? [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::"Gandhi did not publish extensively on the topic of Zionism"? No, Gandhi, in all his voluminous writings, penned one brief letter on the subject. In any event, his views are captured in the proper sub-article. Are you arguing that the views of Muslims on Zionism also belong in a sub-article? If so, which one? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::My mistake -- I am afraid didn't phrase the question properly. What I'm trying to resolve is not so much about Gandhi per se as it is the threshold we're using to establish notability. You're saying that Gandhi's published output on this topic is not enough to get him over that threshold. I might disagree and pose other standards for notability -- his ranking among published lists of the world's most important people, say, or the fact that his position was widely quoted and discussed in the media at the time, or the fact that he maintained the position persistently in the face of heavy opposition, or the historical relevance of his attracting high-profile attention from leading Zionists (like Buber), or the fact that he made sure his party, a major one, held firm to the same position of opposing Zionism until his death, and on and on and on. But you're saying that the publishing thing is the only thing we should look at in order to establish Gandhi's notability here. I'm open to using that as a standard, but I have some questions. What I want to figure out is whether that "publishing-on-Zionism" standard is one you plan to apply as our only standard to ''everyone'' we would consider putting in the article, or just to Gandhi? Does it, for instance, apply to Palazzi? Or Idina Menzel, for that matter? :) <BTW, if we moved the material on Muslims and Christians and Former Muslims Who Support Zionism to a sub-article that would work for me, but I have no idea what it could be called.> [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Salam once more Yusuf, |
|||
:::::>". What I want to figure out is whether that "publishing-on-Zionism" standard is one you plan to apply as our only standard to ''everyone'' we would consider putting in the article, or just to Gandhi? Does it, for instance, apply to Palazzi?" |
|||
:::::Unfortunately you never read what I am writing. This is disappointing. We cannot move this in another place because : "(...) it is more relevant to be pro-Zionist in Islam than anti-Zionist in India (...)." |
|||
:::::Regards, [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::BYT, there are no hard and fast rules; it depends on the material, the source, the location in the [[Zionism]] article, the structure of the [[Zionism]] article, among other things. Every case has to be judged on its own merits. In the case of Gandhi, he wrote only one brief letter on the subject, out of all his voluminous writings, so it's given the space it warrants, a mention in the anti-Zionism sub-section, and a full treatment in the Gandhi article. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Hi Jay -- thanks for the good note, above -- there may not be hard and fast rules, but there are hard and fast standards, and one of them is that we should be constantly trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm still not sure how omitting reference to the Gandhi/Buber controversy [http://books.google.com/books?id=-oUNAAAAIAAJ&q=gandhi+buber&dq=gandhi+buber&ei=3UP_R7H9CaayjAH1t52VDA&pgis=1] [http://books.google.com/books?id=yjM4PpJPNUMC&pg=PR27&dq=gandhi+buber&ei=3UP_R7H9CaayjAH1t52VDA&sig=rPKLbAPKLEwjnoj1L3wqdH2S2aI] [http://books.google.com/books?id=IE5B_0AjQjkC&pg=PA112&dq=gandhi+buber&ei=3UP_R7H9CaayjAH1t52VDA&sig=P4XyXo9ExbVNYhETi5m924YpM4A] [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/BuberGandhi] [http://books.google.com/books?id=rfa_CGBjVQIC&pg=PR18&dq=gandhi+buber&ei=3UP_R7H9CaayjAH1t52VDA&sig=ODLk_JhpuoQ0hcaCb4sF8A90mII] [http://books.google.com/books?id=8noJOaaVU6kC&pg=PA60&dq=gandhi+buber&ei=3UP_R7H9CaayjAH1t52VDA&sig=FVa5jVZyRpYUkEG3rBvDUrR5HWo] [http://books.google.com/books?id=hg1MqCeW7OUC&pg=PA218&dq=gandhi+buber&ei=3UP_R7H9CaayjAH1t52VDA&sig=5yeE0uKFrFARzZnr3aJFtRuLgh8] [http://books.google.com/books?id=18Vdma2XnDUC&pg=PA48&dq=gandhi+buber&ei=3UP_R7H9CaayjAH1t52VDA&sig=II2TxsGlc6bFBCQ4iXiiyer2rBM] [http://books.google.com/books?id=Fz-3QNP43bMC&pg=PA36&dq=gandhi+buber&ei=3UP_R7H9CaayjAH1t52VDA&sig=byrHCBpuEhc1MJQxpbBeTrwZtvY] [http://books.google.com/books?id=lFDHip8LoAYC&pg=PA236&dq=gandhi+buber&lr=&ei=e0X_R-iKNae6jgGI0d2UDA&sig=WbfrpmNmheGu1DHEW830nEeNmvY] (for instance) accomplishes that. |
|||
I'm also not entirely sure that we are applying notability standards in a consistent way here, and I'm a little mystified by our inability to directly address the question of whether Palazzi is "notable" in the sense that you are saying Gandhi is NOT "notable". They are both under discussion for the same article, after all, and certain standards are set out by [[WP:PEOPLE]] that are meant to apply this article. I think I must have posed my question to you in a confusing way, and if I did, I apologize. Perhaps the best thing for us to do at this point is to look directly at the guideline: |
|||
:'''A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent.''' |
|||
Where I need help is here: Are you saying that Palazzi is notable, under the "less stringent" reference above, and, if so, why isn't Gandhi also notable under the same "less stringent" reasoning? I don't see anything above, or anywhere in [[WP:PEOPLE]] about the person having had to publish on the topic in question. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 11:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:As I said, each item deserves its own evaluation; we're talking about Gandhi. The citations you have brought are mostly about Buber, not Gandhi - in fact, a number of the sources are the writings of Buber himself. Most of the mentions are at best passing - one is just a footnote. Perhaps the incident should be mentioned in the Buber article, but if you feel Buber's response should be mentioned in the [[Anti-Zionism]] sub-article, I'm fine with that. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 23:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Move paragraph == |
|||
Yusuf would like to move [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=204434672]. I think it makes more sense at the other place. Could you explain why ? [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 12:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes -- I think we should finish clarifying the received meaning of the term before jumping to a discussion of how people may be using the term, then back again. Also, I think the territorialism vs. Zionism distinction should be dealt with early in the section, because a lot of readers are likely to get the two mixed up. You didn't ask about the style edits I did, but I think "should" in the version before I edited it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=204433446&oldid=204428572] is unencyclopedic. Also, I wasn't trying to move a section, but rather trying to move an (edited) paragraph. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 14:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Salam Yusuf, |
|||
::The section you moved doens't define what is Zionism but rather what it is not. So we could wonder about the due:weight to talk about this in the article. Territoralism is anecdotical. |
|||
::On the other side, both other contexts of use of the word are well-known. |
|||
::Wouldn't it be better to introduce matter in by decreasing importance of due:weight ? |
|||
::Nevertheless, I agree the style of your edits is better than the other one. So, from my point of view, you can keep your version but at the current place. [[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Okay -- works for me. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 11:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== zionism == |
|||
Not all jews live in israel yet all are in favor of israel..as not all italian americans live in italy but are in favor of italy .zionism is the in favor of a jewish state. |
|||
++It seems correct to most cristians that its correct natural normal to have 26 cristian countries but just 1 jewish country, |
|||
In a fair world today there would be more jewish countries as THERE ARE more cristian or catholic or protestant or muslem countries. |
|||
To say jews are greedy or want everything is opposite REALITY |
|||
jews want ONE country only ONE |
|||
while cristians already have 26 and muslems have 11.The cristiand got THEIRS by conquering entering and converting by force. |
|||
jews have no superpowers nor want more than a fair shake. with jews ALWAYS in israel ,the european jews reentered international agreement after WW2 |
|||
They never try to convert anybody. |
|||
26 to O N E . whos the greedy person here??? |
|||
raquel samper comunidad judia murcia http://comjudiamurcia.googlepages.com/home |
|||
jewish center murcia spain <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Comunidad judia murcia|Comunidad judia murcia]] ([[User talk:Comunidad judia murcia|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Comunidad judia murcia|contribs]]) 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Hola Raquel, the fate of Israel and of Jews will not be decided by Wikipedia, so please try to keep a cool head. Oh, and [[WP:WELCOME|welcome]] here, we need new fresh faces like you. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 13:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I'm sorry, but there are many Jews who disagree with Zionism and the state of Israel, Noam Chomsky being just one example. Look at how the USA treated blacks in the 1940s and 1950s, look at how South Africa treated blacks until the 1980s, the look at how Israel treats Palestinians NOW. If you can't see the similarities and how wrong all three are, then I'm afraid you're not looking very hard. But whatever, you'll just say I'm antisemetic and close your mind to the idea that you might be wrong. [[Special:Contributions/82.15.27.109|82.15.27.109]] ([[User talk:82.15.27.109|talk]]) 23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:disagreeing is not being against the existance of a state of jews. I may disagree with israel on a spec policy but id die for its survival Im a zionist. A nonzionist might disagree as i might on policy but would not care about its survival.i disagree within wikipedia but i want wikipedia. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Murcia fluent|Murcia fluent]] ([[User talk:Murcia fluent|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Murcia fluent|contribs]]) 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::I want to remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bodega. You may write what you want in your personal page but Talk pages should be about the contents of the article. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== MedCab Request == |
|||
Is mediation still required? [[User:Thedagomar|Geoff Plourde]] ([[User talk:Thedagomar|talk]]) 04:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Non-aligned movement == |
|||
I've moved the following text to her for further discussion: |
|||
<blockquote>The Non-Aligned Movement, representing 55% of the world's population, rejects Zionism.[http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/castro/1979/19791012][http://www.pakboi.gov.pk/I_Agreements/pakistan___non-aligned_movemen.html][http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/00358538008453428]</blockquote> |
|||
There are a number of issues with this material: |
|||
# Material in this section is supposed to summarize material in sub-articles, yet I see nothing on this in the sub-articles. |
|||
# The text makes the claim the claim that the movement is "representing 55% of the world's population". It's not clear what the relevance of that 55% is, and in any event, given that most of these countries (aside from India) are dictatorships of one kind or another, while the governments of these countries may ''rule'' those populations, it is unclear that they ''represent'' their views (or their wishes, or anything else). |
|||
# The references used are weak at best. The first is a speech by Castro in 1979, hardly relevant today, and certainly long precedes the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86, supported by many of the non-aligned nations (including India), that rescinded the "Zionism is racism" claim. The second is a dead link, and the third dates from 1980 - see the issues with the first link. |
|||
Let's discuss this issue further here. Thanks. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:#An equivalent section can be added in the daughter article. Not really insurmountable. |
|||
:#The section should be rewritten to indicate that the NAM claimed to represent 55% of the world's population, not that it was the case. |
|||
:#The point of the statement is not to distract attention from the passage of 4686, but to indicate a major source of support for that sort of thinking historically; there are nuances between "reject" and ZiR, of course, which is what the NAM statements trace out. Which is also why it being an "outdated" reference is hardly relevant. The primary source need not be retained as a cite, but with supporting secondary sources, it doesn't hurt IMO. |
|||
:In general, the context of these statements - and similar ones by the OAU and, indeed, the Commonwealth - are extremely helpful as an aid for a reader, in that it locates the ideological context of various objections to Zionism. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 10:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I cannot really find objective support for "the non-aligned movement rejects zionism". The best I can find is support by the NAM countries for UN [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379|Resolution 3379]] equating zionism with racism, which implies (but does not state) that Israel is an illegal entity. This resolution was sponsored (in part) by Cuba and voted by the other NAM members. It was [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86|rescinded in 1991]]; Cuba voted against. The many other anti-Israel UN resolutions cannot be seen as a clear rejection of Zionism and of the right of Israel to exist. |
|||
::I believe that, in the spirit of [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:VER]], the article should merely quote sources, leaving the conclusions to the reader. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 13:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Most NAM sessions from the 1950s till Oslo included categorical statements about Zionism, some of which went further thn 3379 and some which were more modulated. That in itself is an interesting graph of international reactions to Zionism, though obviously out of the scope of this main article. More to the point, there are several secondary sources that describe those statements, and place them in context. An interesting, if brief, summary is {{Cite book |
|||
| publisher = Cambridge UniversityPress |
|||
| pages = 272 |
|||
| last = Geldenhuys |
|||
| first = Deon |
|||
| title = Isolated States: A Comparative Analysis |
|||
| date = 1990 |
|||
}}. |
|||
:::I quite agree that the section should be re-written closely following a secondary source. I'll wait to hear from Jay before I attempt that. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::O.K., which up-to-date secondary sources do you propose using, and what do they say on the topic? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::See above, Jay, for my answer to that question. I hardly think a scholarly, peer-reviewed article published in the 80s is out-of-date in the same way that a political speech is... --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 07:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Abdelkader Amlou deleted== |
|||
I deleted the reference to Abdelkader Amlou in "Muslims & Arabs supporting zionism". I Googled his name and all I found were blogs, many written by him. The discourse was very blog-like, not academic. I could not find a single secondary source. I looked in Amazon.fr and found no book by this poet. Therefore, despite my declared sympathy for this guy's opinions, I cannot justify his presence in this article. See [[WP:SOURCE]] for more details. |
|||
PS: he is Moroccan and writes in French; for the record, I was born in Morocco and French is my mother tongue. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 18:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== POV, UNDUE issue == |
|||
This text appears to me to violate [[WP:UNDUE]]: |
|||
'''Muslims & Christian Arabs supporting Zionism''' |
|||
<i>Sheikh [[Abdul Hadi Palazzi]], the leader of Italian Muslim Assembly and a co-founder of the [[Islam-Israel Fellowship]] and Canadian [[Imam]] [[Khaleel Mohammed]], find support for Zionism in the [[Qur'an]].<ref>Glazov, Jamie. [http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={AD363EAC-228E-432A-9F15-8702D7765792} "The Anti-Terror, Pro-Israel Sheikh"] ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'', September 12, 2005. "I find in the Qur'an that God granted the Land of Israel to the Children of Israel and ordered them to settle therein ({{cite quran|5|21|style=ref}}) and that before the [[Qiyamah|Last Day]] He will bring the Children of Israel to retake possession of their Land, gathering them from different countries and nations ({{cite quran|17|104|style=ref}}). Consequently, as a Muslim who abides by the Qur'an, I believe that opposing the existence of the State of Israel means opposing a Divine decree."</ref><ref>{{cite news |first=Chris |last=Cobb |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=The scathing scholar |quote=despite what Muslims are taught, Islam's holy book, the Koran, supports the right of Israel to exist and for Jews to live there.|url=http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=604855a0-7b9c-4519-a841-f4736d59eaa1 |work= |publisher=[[The Ottawa Citizen]] |date=February 6, 2007 |accessdate=2008-03-26 }}</ref> Other Muslims who have supported Zionism include Bengali journalist [[Salah Choudhury]] and Pakistani journalist [[Tashbih Sayyed]].<ref>Neuwirth, Rachel. [http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Tashbih-Sayyed-A%20Fearless-Muslim-Zionist.htm "Tashbih Sayyed ― A Fearless Muslim Zionist"], ''[[The American Thinker]]'', June 24, 2007.</ref></i> |
|||
The article currently emphasizes (as above) the positions of individual Muslims and Arabs who support Zionism. These are fringe viewpoints, at best, and if we feature a section on individuals in these groups who support the movement, it is incumbent upon us to offer a similar level of detail and attention to the (far more numerous) individual Muslims and Arabs who oppose Zionism. Simplest option, I think, is to delete the section. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:It's just two sentences, and it cites notable individuals. We've already discussed this at length, and the consensus was to leave the material in. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:the fact that a large percentage of muslims/arabs are against zionism is well established and does not really require us to delve into the individual reasoning behind each proponent. on the other hand, the fact that there are responsible prozionist muslims/arabs is a fact which does deserve noting for anything more than a shallow gloss on the subject. this is not comparable to fringe opinions in science, for example, where there are solidly objective reasons to downplay the views of those who believe the earth is flat or perpetual motion is achievable. this would be more comparable to playing down the opinions of americans who were originally against invading iraq, as a fringe group of little significance; when in fact it provides an important perspective on the actual degree of linkage between two points of view which tend to be conflated in the absence of information. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] ([[User talk:Gzuckier|talk]]) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not talking about "delving into individual reasoning behind each proponent" -- which the article text under discussion doesn't seem to me to do -- but instead offering the same level of analysis, at least, to mainstream views if fringe views are quoted (which is a dubious undertaking anyway). And yes, these are definitely fringe viewpoints in the Muslim and Arab world. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
BYT, you argue that this group is too "fringy" to be mentioned. I disagree. As I wrote earlier, the difference between a "tiny" and a "significant" minority is clarified in [[WP:NPOV]] as such: ''If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents''. I easily found six public figures, including five published authors; it ought to be enough. I reverted your deletion. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<br/> |
|||
Hi BYT,<br/> |
|||
I will write again what I said before. The support of Zionism is Arab and Muslim world is extremally little. That is why I think it is not undue:weight to point out the "little minority" who support this. The Arab and Muslim majority point of view is developed in the article about antizionism.<br/> |
|||
[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 09:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, there is a phenomena of pro-zionism among minorities who feel oppressed by arabs and arabism. a widely known example of such is kurds, although the phenomena manifests itself with other minorities such as the amazigh. I've encountered this several times, but i'm not sure what sources would be the best to describe this connection. In particular, this (http://www.agraw.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1161&forum=3) has a well-written anthropological article quoted from somewhere, i'd rather point to the source. and there's this (http://israelkurdistannetwork.blogspot.com/2008/02/zionist-kurdish-connection.html) for another example, but again i'd prefer a more formal site than a blog of an NGO. anyone with ideas? [[Special:Contributions/80.179.69.194|80.179.69.194]] ([[User talk:80.179.69.194|talk]]) 17:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:how about this? http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/august/israel_kurds_11804.shtml <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.67.250.218|132.67.250.218]] ([[User talk:132.67.250.218|talk]]) 12:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::CeeDjee, Arab support for Israel is not "extremely little", just little. No matter the idea, five published authors justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. Anonymous, about Kurdish support for Israel, could you find a published source and write a short sentence about it? Thanks. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 14:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Emmanuel, what do you think about the two published links above? looking at the edit history, it's been inserted, yanked out, inserted and yanked out again. better have someone back it up, than have a revert war. [[Special:Contributions/132.66.201.181|132.66.201.181]] ([[User talk:132.66.201.181|talk]]) 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
We are summarizing the PRO view at a level of granular detail, and with a focus on fringe viewpoints, that is not in balance with our responsibility to summarize more mainstream contemporary and historic CON views (as they appear, for instance, at [[Anti-Zionism]]). [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] ([[User talk:BrandonYusufToropov|talk]]) 14:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== why choose Palestine == |
|||
Palestine have good place in Middle east...so Zionists seems so clever!!!.A lot of problems help to make Palestine convenient to be the home of israel.One of the most important problem is the poverty and the need for money.The second standing problem is the incoherence which make it easy to go into the land as a new part.The problem which make it so easy to use military tool that weakness of the sovereignty of the government of Palestine.(Volks For Volks) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/41.233.106.205|41.233.106.205]] ([[User talk:41.233.106.205|talk]]) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Added section on Jewish American Zionism == |
|||
The material for this new section was taken from the bio article on [[Ben Hecht]]. Because of its length and detail, it did not seem appropriate in that article in its complete form. It was therefore shortened with a link added to this section for more details. |
|||
Should any editors decide to either rename this section, or otherwise remove it, please make any corrections to the link at the Ben Hecht article also. Thanks.[[User:Wikiwatcher1|Wikiwatcher1]] ([[User talk:Wikiwatcher1|talk]]) 02:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The following were in the "see also" section in the Ben Hecht article. I'll leave them here if anyone wants to add them to this article |
|||
*[[Rudolf Vrba]] |
|||
*[[Rudolf Kastner]] |
|||
*[[Stanislav Szukalski]] |
|||
*[[Irgun]] |
|||
*[[History of the Jews in Hungary]] |
|||
*[[Fortean Society]] |
|||
[[User:Wikiwatcher1|Wikiwatcher1]] ([[User talk:Wikiwatcher1|talk]]) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I think this section should be removed. While Ben Hecht is interesting we can't start having forty lines and a picture for every prominent (more or less) American Zionist. Wikipedia isn't big enough. [[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 12:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Opposed''' to total removal. Please wait for a consensus before removing it entirely and unilaterally. If it is too long, please consider condensing it a bit. Section is not just about Hecht - it concerns Bergson group and a highly significant period historically. Thank you. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk:Hertz1888|talk]]) 12:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support''' its removal. Ben Hecht and the Bergson group are hardly representative of the American Zionism; and I say this as someone who wrote most of the [[Malchiel Gruenwald]] article, and cited Hecht extensively in it. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Jayjg, I am willing to withdraw my objection and defer to your judgment on this, as I perceive you know far more about the subject matter than I. However, I find no other reference to American Zionism in the article; removing the section would leave a void. Would you consider developing a more representative section to take its place? [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk:Hertz1888|talk]]) 00:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
If the Bergson group belongs in here then perhaps we shold restore the History of Zionism to this article? |
|||
Nearly everything in this article is already in History of Zionism and that is better written. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== This is so not serious (how can you avoid the topic of transfer completely?) == |
|||
I'm new to participating in Wikipeida. But this article... it's just beyond. Totally. |
|||
I mean: Zionism had two major effects. 1: The creation of Israel. 2: The creation of the Palestinian diaspora. |
|||
Today we KNOW a lot about what happened in 48, and how the expulsion was in accordance with the wish for a pure Jewish community, with as few arabs as possible. We KNOW that Zionist leaders dreamed about transfer of the Palestinians. That was an integral part of Zionism as an ideology. |
|||
It's not bias. It's not politics. It's history. It's facts. |
|||
I see that there have been stuff about this is in the past, and that it's now edited out of some reason. It's time for a reality check. An encyclopedia should represent facts, not distort them. But this article is just that: Distortion. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/89.139.84.195|89.139.84.195]] ([[User talk:89.139.84.195|talk]]) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) o.e. |
|||
:While the creation of a Jewish state was a publicly stated Zionist goal (but only from about 1942 to 1948), expulsion of the Arab population of Israel was never an objective of the Zionist movement. In contrast the publicly stated objective of the Arab league in 1948 and of the PLO (from its foundation until 1995) was to expel the vast majority of the Jewish population. The objective of the Palestinian leadership in 1948 (Haj al-Husseini) was genocide. The Zionist movement had a democratically elected leadership and no leadership was ever elected on the basis of a promise to expel the Arabs. Zionist ambitions were based on forecasts of Jewish migration. Before 1948 and 1967 the idea that Jews could create a powerful army was seen as laughable - not the least by the Arabs themselves. Only a tiny minority of Jews believed that a Jewish army could be created that would conquer Palestine. |
|||
:The conspiracy theory you refer to only relates to the 1948 war which was not initiated by the Jews, and whose end could not be foreseen. The Palestinian exodus in 1948 is mentioned here but this article is not about this (controversial) issue. |
|||
:Hope this is helpful. [[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 13:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Telaviv1, I respect that you have your opinions about what the goals of the Zionist movement were. But quite frankly: You are not up to date at all with what's been happening among historians for the last 15-20 years. You're even not up to date with the internal debates about this that are going on in our country Israel. I know that this sounds terribly arrogant, but I suggest that you start reading more history. For example Benny Morris - nowadays a freaked out war monger, but still a reliable historian. "1948" or "Righteous Victims" will get you a long way. Or the works of Tom Segev, for example "One Palestine: Complete" ("Yamei Kalaniot" be ivrit). |
|||
::Very shortly, to your arguments: you're right that the Zionist leaders never publicly vowed to expel the Arabs. On the contrary they tried NOT to say anything about this in public. But we know from diaries, letters, minutes from internal meetings and so on, that the idea of Transfer was very much alive in Zionist circles. Ben Gurion wrote in his diary in 1937: "With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 177) |
|||
::What you claim about Arab and Palestinian attitudes and political strategy is also wrong. And what you claim about the initial (lack of) military might in the Yishuv is as wrong as it gets (reading list: "The Iron Wall" by Avi Shlaim). But that's not the subject here. The pro-palestinian site Palestine Remembered has gathered a lot of quotes from Zionist leaders that are clearly pro-transfer. Browse through and see for your self: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html |
|||
::Yalla bye, achi. [[Special:Contributions/89.138.162.59|89.138.162.59]] ([[User talk:89.138.162.59|talk]]) 23:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)o.e. |
|||
:::I regret to inform you that wikipedia will not adopt the new historian version but rather report it as what it is, a research theory, with lots of debateable research. the debate between new historians and "old" historians rages on, and wikipedia is the last place to push a POV over the other. do consider that the group of 'new historians' is rather small (although vocal) and is met with fierce opposition - something wikipedia can't ignore, and so shouldn't you. you are quite correct in declaring that your attitude towards the subject is arrogant indeed - Telaviv1 isn't "wrong" - he has a different view on the subject, and you should respect that. [[User:MiS-Saath|MiS-Saath]] ([[User talk:MiS-Saath|talk]]) 07:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Dear offended anonymous, one of the pillars of Wikipedia is [[WP:V|verifiability]]. In a nutshell, ''The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth''' ''. If you know about published information or opinions that belongs to this article, [[WP:BOLD|be bold]], insert it into the article with proper sourcing. I warn you, however, that you picked a difficult article to start with. At the end of the fight, the most [[WP:RS|reliable source]] wins. |
|||
::::I will also point out other articles directly related to you complaint : [[1948 Palestine war]], [[1948 Arab-Israeli War]], [[1948 Palestinian exodus]], [[Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus]], [[Palestinian refugee]]. Welcome to Wikipedia! [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 16:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::One last thing: make sure you read the report of the 1937 [[Peel Commission]], especially the part about the so-called "population transfer", how they thought it was perfectly dandy, had worked beautifully between Greece and Turkey and was the very most elegant solution to Britain's embarrassment in Palestine. Many, including Ben Gourion, agreed. [[User:Emmanuelm|Emmanuelm]] ([[User talk:Emmanuelm|talk]]) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
As it happens I'm reading the iron wall and have Benny Morriss's latest book on order. I don't consider Pappe to be reliable, I think Stalinists are as bad as Neo-Nazis. I havn't read the Israeli archives but I've read the British ones and I've read the Peel Report which is a great intro to the conflict. I read/own Segev's book and it says nothing of what you describe actually its mostly about the 1917 - 1929 period and only devotes a single chapter to 1939 -1948. Beware of Palestinians quoting Zionists out of context, a lot do. Their own record is hardly impressive. Don't believe everything you hear even if the source is left-wing. |
|||
I have a lot of expereince of this stuff and there's a lot of half-truths flying around. Finalyly, achi, allow me to say that I too respect your opinions. I suggest you learn about Jewish history in Europe - perhaps try reading about the pogroms in poland 1945-1948 (Jan Gross) or the Jewish escape from Eruope (Brichah). |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Or perhaps try the [[Farhud]] or [[Shafiq Ades]] - in the discourse that encourages seeing Mizrachi jews as "Arab Jews" and "brainwashed" "victims of zionism", it's among the factual events cast aside. [[User:MiS-Saath|MiS-Saath]] ([[User talk:MiS-Saath|talk]]) 14:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Telaviv1, |
|||
I'm very happy to hear that you're reading Shlaim and that Morris is on the way! I'm sorry if I assumed things about your level of reading that were not correct. |
|||
Concerning Segev: Yap, he doesn't say much about 1948. But what he shows is how the Zionist leaders, for example Weizmann, had political goals that they didn't pursue in public. For example: They publicly accepted the dogy "national home" formulation, but were explicit in private that what they wanted was a fully fledged state. This is just to show that your argument concerning what Zionist leaders were saying in public is off the mark. |
|||
I haven't read the Peel Report. On the other hand I've spent quite a lot of time in the Israeli state archives reading original documents in Hebrew and English. And I'll be glad to learn more about Jewish history in Europe. |
|||
Some final words about "history": Of course history can never be 100% accurate. Every historical timeline will to some extent be a "research theory", as EmmanuelM says. BUT: It is still the case that some things either happened or did not happen. Either there was a holocaust, or there wasn't. Either Napolean tried to conquer Russia, or he didn't. The same thing applies to Zionism. On some issues there are still legitimate debates - we're just not sure what the evidence tells us. (or we don't have sufficient evidence). But when it comes to the concept of transfer, then there's just no doubt - we KNOW that Zionist leaders, especially since the 30s and onwards - thought that it would be a good thing. Then there is the separate issue of what happened in 1948, if there were formal orders for expulsion and so on. |
|||
And EmmanuelP - I might very well enter new sections into the article later on! Just have to do it properly, so it will take some time. |
|||
kol tov, |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/193.217.19.236|193.217.19.236]] ([[User talk:193.217.19.236|talk]]) 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC) o.e. |
|||
:You're confusing several things together. It doesn't take real science to understand that transfer is some form of a solution to the israeli arab conflict, although a one-sided one that has severe moral issues and other reprecussions. it is quite natural that some zionist leaders would ponder about it privately. the converse is also ofcourse true - dissolution of Israel and spreading the jews back into the diaspora would also be a one-sided solution with severe moral issues and reprecussions. i would be surprised if no arab leader ever thought of that. the issue at hand, however, is whether it is endemic to zionism and to what extent. this is one issue that is hotly debated and still will be, one that has the revisionist "new historians" claiming one thing and most of the other historians claiming the other. as far as this article should be concerned, the issues are not seperate. one would also need to consider the amount of evidence and the prominence and numeric significance of those particular leaders. and remember to consider the converse: is dissolution of israel endemic to arab nationalism or to islamism? should it be part of those articles? [[User:MiS-Saath|MiS-Saath]] ([[User talk:MiS-Saath|talk]]) 06:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom]] == |
|||
A link to the above has just been added to this article. If you follow the link you will find an article that seems to violate NOR and NPOV. Perhaps people who watch this page are better informed - could you look at this and comment on its talk page? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Obsolete information == |
|||
Much of this article discusses Zionism as it was practised before the second world war. In particular the "types of zionism" and the issues relating to language and exile. They should refer to the movement as it is now. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Nationalism?== |
|||
CJCurrie, a Zionist may be a Jewish nationalist, but not necessarily. Jewish nationalism is certainly not the source of Zionism. The source of Zionism is in Jewish beliefs and traditions that connect the Jewish religion and people with the land of Israel. Zionism would continue even with every trace of nationalism removed from the equation. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 12:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Malcolm, |
|||
:I'm aware that some people regard Zionism as having its source in the beliefs and traditions of Judaism, and in connections between Judaism and the historical Land of Israel. I'm also aware that this perspective is not universally supported, and that its critics include both Zionists and non-Zionists. I don't believe that our article should either endorse or reject the position. [[User:CJCurrie|CJCurrie]] ([[User talk:CJCurrie|talk]]) 02:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
CJCurrie, there can be no doubt that Zionism is rooted in religious tradition. That tradition was present in the thoughts, and acts, of even the most socialist inclined Zionist leaders: |
|||
<blockquote>Today, more than ever, the "religious" tend to relegate Judaism to observing dietary laws and preserving the Sabbath. This is considered religious reform. I prefer the Fifteenth Psalm, lovely are the psalms of Israel. The Shulchan Aruch is a product of our nation's life in the Exile. It was produced in the Exile, in conditions of Exile. A nation in the process of fulfilling its every task, physically and spiritually . . . must compose a "New Shulchan"--and our nation's intellectuals are required, in my opinion, to fulfill their responsibility in this. --(David Ben-Gurion, letter to the writer Eliezer Steinman, 12 June 1962)[http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/israel_studies/v004/4.2zameret.html]</blockquote> |
|||
Perhaps, if it were not there, todays problems would be easier to solve. But religious belief is tightly interwoven with Zionist politics. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, there's doubt that Zionism is ''partly'' rooted in religious tradition and ''partly'' rooted in 19th century nationalism, which is what our article should convey. I'm sure you could find several quotations like the one above, but that's not really the point; the view that Zionism stems from, or is a fulfillment of, Jewish religious tradition is very much disputed -- including by some within the Zionist movement. (Btw, Ben-Gurion was not the ''most'' socialist-inclined of the early Zionist leaders. I suspect that some Mapam or HH leaders might have held differing views.) [[User:CJCurrie|CJCurrie]] ([[User talk:CJCurrie|talk]]) 02:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Btw, I've adjusted my wording again in a bid to find consensus. Could I request that neutral-but-informed parties offer their views on the matter? [[User:CJCurrie|CJCurrie]] ([[User talk:CJCurrie|talk]]) 02:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Sure. The modern movement was largely secular, at least for its first few decades, though it also had roots in Jewish religious belief. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 02:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
An obscure quote from a letter doesn't seem to me to be strong enough evidence but I agree that zionism has its origins in religious ideals. I think that saying that "the concept of Jewish nationhood arose 3000 years ago" is problematic as many theorists (though not all) regard nationalism as a modern phenomenon (dating from the French revolution roughly) and Zionism is above all a nationalist movement with all that implies (ie the desire to have a sovereign state, a flag, an anthem etc. which all theorists agree is what a nationalist movement desires). |
|||
TBy definition anyone who is a member of the Zionist movement is a Jewish-nationalist supporting a Jewish state in one form or another. |
|||
I think Jews who think Jews should live in Israel are not Zionist if they oppose Jewish sovereignty in Israel. That is their thinking is not a product of a nationalist philosophy but purely religious. I accept that the boundaries between religion and nationalism are a little blurry here but Zionism is absolutely 100% a nationalist movement. That is what its founders were creating (and Herzl was completely secular). Ben-Gurion was aware of his orgins in religion but he always described Zionism as the the national movement of the Jewish people and his aim was to create a sovereign state. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Telaviv1, if you think what I wrote needs adjusting, please make any changes you think would make it more accurate. Or, if you, and everyone else, is happy with are CJCurrie's edit (which I consider highly POV), leave it as it is. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 12:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::As Jayjg has told you, and as everyone knows, the first Zionists in Palestine were secular, and this continued for decades. |
|||
::What he's not mentioned is that Zionists attacked the Jews of Palestine - in fact, the first clear act of Zionist terrorism was in 1924, assassinating the leader of the Palestinian Jews, Jaacob de Haan, before he could get to London and make a separate arrangement with the Mandate. In August 1948 the Israelis bullozed synagogues (Kletter "Just Past? The Making of Israeli Archaeology," 2005). [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 10:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
PR, what you're saying is incorrect. The first Zionists are widely considered to be the hovevei zion and the biluim who were all orthodox to some degree. In addition secularism does not mean rejection of religion. Secular Zionists may still have been moderately religious so religius factors played a part. The socialist zionists were more opposed to religion but they did not arrive until later. |
|||
As far as I can recall Jacob de-haan was Dutch and a zionist who changed sides becoming an orthodx jew in Palestine. He also published homosexual poetry. The cause of his murder and its implications are hardly as clear as you suggest. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=="Secular in its origins"== |
|||
Whilele the Zionist mvoement was largely secular in its objectives I am not sure if it was secular in its origins. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 13:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: I agree. I don't see that in the referenced material. [[Special:Contributions/24.17.52.87|24.17.52.87]] ([[User talk:24.17.52.87|talk]]) 01:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I disagree and someone else reverted it. Zionism had religious roots to be sure, and grew as a result Antisemitism, but it was secular Mr.Herzl, who is credited with its initial political form. There is also the [[Rise_of_nationalism_in_Europe#Nationalism_exported|nationalism]], another secular movement. Certainly in America, its great growth prior to Balfour must be credited to [[Louis Brandeis|Brandeis]], although I admit, one couldn't state that using Wikipedia alone and his name is yet to occur on the article page. [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 05:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I think is depends what you mean by "origins". The 19th century origins were secular but the foundation on which those were built was obviously religious. [[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 08:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Perhaps its time to remove this ambiguous statement. [[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 09:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't see the problem Telaviv1. The article makes it clear there are strong religious traditions, but surely it is also true to say that as a movement it was mainly secular in its origins. All of the key early thinkers and activists were secular. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 09:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Maybe it should say that the founders were secular, rather than "secular in its origins". [[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Sounds fine to me. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The meaning of 'origins' is a valid point, and religious points are by far the most ancient and Judaic. On the other hand, there were non-Judaic groups, which developed similar concepts, based on their own reading of other, newer, versions of the same RS, and for different reasons. This does not necessarily mean that they were Zionists, because the RS'd terms for them are different, and there are RSs that indicate these have been retroactively accepted and subsumed as being Zionists. I will readily admit that the roots of Zionism are religious, but it was definitely not the religious-based Zionists that introduced Zionism to the wider world; they were a small minority, especially in the early days. It was absolutely true the secular crowd brought the movement to the fore. That said, the post-1967 land acquisition and the post-1977 Likud political alliances are certainly the most direct causes of what the right-wing Zionists think and consider Zionism to be today. Please be careful how neutrally this is stated. How about something like; Although the roots of Zionism emanate from religious tradition, political Zionism grew and has been dominated by secular Jewry, until recently. [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 16:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I changed it to say "mainly founded by secular Jews" and linked to "secular Jewish culture". I think that is sufficient. The boundaries between the religious and the secular are not simple, espcially in the Middle-East. |
|||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 09:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
From what I understand there is difference between political and religious Zionism. Political Zionism is secular in its origins, and has its roots in rise of nationalism in 19th century in Europe, and establishment of many free nation states at that |
|||
time. Religious Zionism, on the other hand, has its roots in Judaism and Jewish religious traditions. |
|||
So, in late 19th century, political Zionist would argue that Greeks, Bulgarians,Italians, Serbians and other people created their |
|||
own independent states, so to solve the problem of antisemitism Jews must also have their own independent state and "to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state". Religious Zionist,on the other hand, would argue that Land of Israel is promised to Jews by God, and they have religious duty, mitsva, to settle in it.[[User:Igorb2008|Igorb2008]] ([[User talk:Igorb2008|talk]]) 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:As TelAviv1 says, line is v blurry, and I would be wary of editing along these lines. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Viewpoint:King Abdullah bin Al-Hussein== |
|||
To balance things up a bit, I would like to see a link to: |
|||
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html |
|||
Particularly interesting is this quote: "Only once, during the empire of David and Solomon, did the Jews ever control nearly—but not all—the land which is today Palestine. This empire lasted only 70 years, ending in 926 BC." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/213.162.66.188|213.162.66.188]] ([[User talk:213.162.66.188|talk]]) 10:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Which land is "today Palestine?" [[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 07:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Edits == |
|||
=== Terminology === |
=== Terminology === |
||
Rmv large amount of text in footnotes. (Summary: Quotes in cites are to verify the claims of the text that they cite. They are not footnotes. Rmv massive swath of text per WP:FORUM, that additionally, fail to cite the assertion in the main text)<br> |
Rmv large amount of text in footnotes. (Summary: Quotes in cites are to verify the claims of the text that they cite. They are not footnotes. Rmv massive swath of text per WP:FORUM, that additionally, fail to cite the assertion in the main text)<br> |
||
Line 1,338: | Line 123: | ||
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 14:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
[[User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ([[User talk:Telaviv1|talk]]) 14:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Wiki is jewish with jewish supremacy agendas? |
== Wiki is jewish with jewish supremacy agendas? == |
||
WiKi must be jewish, what a trick for people with an agenda to create their own dictionary? |
WiKi must be jewish, what a trick for people with an agenda to create their own dictionary? |
Revision as of 05:27, 27 March 2009
Zionism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Software: Computing Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
terrorism and violence
using the word terrorism to describe the PLO seems to take a pro Zionist view. I recomend using violence because it is more neutral than the word terror and basically is the same thing.I will change it for now but discuss it on the discussion page if I am wrong. Thank You! (Ssd175 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC))
- This confuses me, as I don't see how it should be any more pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist to describe terrorism as terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.107.4 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Zionist plan (well documented) to ethnically cleanse the natives is by definition "terrorism". --Fourtildas on 9 February 2007.
- There is no Zionist plan to ethnically cleanse anybody and even if there were, it is not the definition of terrorism. Don't make up bullshit facts please. GHcool 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Palestinians are not "natives" of Israel and historic Palestine. They are merely descendants of Arabs immigrating in the late nineteen century and beginning of the twenty century into Israel-Palestine, under the Ottoman (Turkish) occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.231.88.75 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Have you ever heard of plan Dalet? That is a zionist plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to make it completely Jewish.202.147.182.226 (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Plan DaletEggball (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Get real. The article doesn't even mention the evil terrorism commited by Zionists against the British military in Palestine (Zionists funded and trained mainly by Nazi Germany if truth be told). This is a puff piece for Ashkenazi extremism. Don't cover up reality. Mixino1 03:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- It wasn't Terrorism, and there is no Palestine. Palestine is defined as a stateless nation, and you can hardly blame the Jews for wanting they're land back, they've been shunted from corner of the globe to corner of the globe. Zionism is not terrorism, Zionism is basically the Jews saying "No, were not going to give you our land." Also, It is impossible for people of our background to understand the causes behind Zionism, as we haven't been shunted around, persecuted, and generally treated like s@#$ for our existence(thats only been happening since we got involved in the middle east!). The Jewish society is much older, and when it comes to the middle east, theres a lot of history that goes undocumented by our so called neutral historians, but is still remembered and well known by the people. These ancient feuds between religions, nations, and ideals has been going since before the first Pharaoh sat on the throne, and it is not our place to judge the acts of Zionism as "Acts of Terror" because A). We do not fully understand the motives and reasons for these actions, and B) a good deal of violence in the Middle East has been the West's Fault. We've stirred the pot and added fuel to the fire so many times that its a wonder ANYONE in the Middle East still talks to us. And people wonder why so many of the Middle Eastern Peoples hate us and want us dead. I want you to think on that next time you want to make wild generalizations about Zionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The whole concept of zionism centers around racist ideals and was strengthened with the use of terrorism. These european jews who have arived back into Palestine are not semites. They are europeans who have imposed themselves onto the original inhabitants of that land. Many of these jews are even africans. This was never the land of ashkenazis to begin with let alone trying to justify the absurdity of "getting their land back" after two thousand years. The Palestinians have EVERY right to defend their land and get back what the Jews have stolen from them.202.147.182.226 (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is a Palestine. It's the place at the far eastern end of the Mediterranean where the People who call themselves Palestinian have lived for thousands of years, as recent DNA profiling has shown. They have been there much longer than the Zionists because they never left. They weren't keeping the place warm for Zionists for when they decided to wander back. It's thier country. It wasn't an empty land when the Zionists arrived. The Zionists knew that they couldn't play the victim if they were perceived to be doing what they were doing, namely stealing other peoples land, so they lied. Do you see how that works?Eggball (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not blind, and unlike many here I have visited Palestine seeing both the Zionist and Arab sides of Hebron and other disputed territories. I have also visited perfectly happy Arab neighbourhoods inside Israel and talked to Arab Israeli citizens. Granting citizenship to Arabs sounds nothing like ethnic cleansing to me. It is offensive in the extreme to compare the IDF's over zealous defensive tactics with the clearly genocidal acts of Nazi Germany. The question that must be asked is this; If the West Bank (Palestine) was still under the control of the Kingdom of Jordan as it was before 1967, would we still be crying foul about the lack of a Palestinian state? Is this pro Palestine or anti Israel? I am not Jewish by the way because I know if I do not declare that I will be accused of Zionist propagandising. Fyfman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyfman (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit less blind than the previous guy! I have also been in Palestine and I clearly saw how Palestinians live. They don't have any freedom of movement inside their own country, they can't use the airport, they have to pass check-points, they are trapped by that horrible and non-human wall into small disconnected areas, they live in extreme poverty, and each day of their life for more than 60 years they have been forced to see military tanks, soldiers holding guns, at every corner. It is a very hard life for those Palestinians that are not terrorists to be treated like terrorists! I think that any kind of state is a very bad (not to say also criminal) state if it decides to fight criminality by putting in jail all the population! This means Zionist way of thinking and dealing with problems is completely wrong! and it is also criminal! I have also been talking to many Israeli-Arabs and they tell me that Israel offers them a lot of money to sell their lands and move to the USA giving them an American citizenship in exchange of signing a contract in which they and their children must never return to Israel again! and this is just because they are Arabs.. i think this is Zionism!! A very horrible thing! So, in my reply to the previous guy I would like to respond: please open your eyes more! you are not blind, but you see just what you like to see and not the truth. Nur ('82.75.250.252 (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)',,)
Only proponents view?
The introduction of the article cite only proponents definition of Zionism. I think to be neutral we have to tell the reader the other's POV on Zionism exists (and from very important organizations and thinkers). This is needed because the "introduction" have to provide and overview of the topic, the reader do not have to read the full content of the article. We all know that there are controversies around Zionism and this is important to note also. I tried to add the United Nation view on Zionism which considers it "a racist movement" (someone has undone my edit; I hope for structures reasons and not for bias: he/she is User:Jaakobou). I hope he will answer why? Bestofmed (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You're out of date. the UN general assembly retracted the resolution several years ago. The resolution is mentioned in the article. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously the UN resolution needs to be mentioned and discussed in the opposition section.Haberstr (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the introductions of the Communism, Socialism, Marxism, and Capitalism articles. These movements all have "controversies" around them, yet all the articles have "only the proponents definition", none are defined by their opponents. I also looked at the Palestinian nationalism article; not only is there nothing in the introduction about how its opponents view it, but nothing at all in the entire article. David Sher (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since the proponents' viewpoint on Zionism is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the lead section, fairness dictates that the opponents' view should be mentioned there too, immediately afterward. Or, better from my point of view, the proponents' and opponents' viewpoints should be taken out of the lead section.Haberstr (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Zionism is an ideology. Ideologies are defined by the beliefs of those who follow them. 76.191.177.233 (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- David -- Re: whether there is precedent for the prominent inclusion of opposing views. I believe there is.
- Islamism describes a complex labyrinth of "internal" controversies about that movement from its second paragraph onward. The article then goes on to detail the reservations of "external" critics of "Islamism" by both referencing, via quotes and footnotes, people who hold such reservations, (i.e,, Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis) and by mentioning such people by name within the article (i.e., Fred Halliday and John Esposito).
- The Islamism article features such eyebrow-raising headings as "Shelter of the mosque" (and then quotes Lewis, a vocal opponent, about the danger of providing same) and "Attacks on civilians" (at which point one begins to wonder, purely for the sake of argument, whether "Zionists" have ever "attacked civilians"). The article includes photographs of attacks by people the article labels as "Islamists", and features, in the upper right-hand corner, a helpful template connecting the whole vast, messy topic to the portal "Controversies related to Islam and Muslims."
- Now, then. Some people (not you) have been known to get hot and bothered when an editor wonders out loud about questions such as whether "Zionists," like "Islamists," have ever attacked civilians, or whether there may, very occasionally, actually be disputes that fall into the category of "Controversies related to Israel and Zionism." So I'll make everyone who is reading this a deal: I definitely won't wonder any further about anything like that, or advocate for such photos in this article, or suggest a new template, because I believe those would be errors that would degrade article quality. Perhaps I could point out, however, that contentious ideologies like Zionism do make waves, too, from time to time, and that WP:NPOV is still supposed to be our policy, There really are points of view other than "pro-Zionism" that are relevant to the opening section here, and precedent exists, in Islamism and elsewhere, for the practice of prominently mentioning those points of view. BYT (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Edits
Terminology
Rmv large amount of text in footnotes. (Summary: Quotes in cites are to verify the claims of the text that they cite. They are not footnotes. Rmv massive swath of text per WP:FORUM, that additionally, fail to cite the assertion in the main text)
I didn't even like to leave the cites that were there, as the quote from one of the books, which one would hope was the most appropriate to citing the assertion, "the label "Zionist" is in some cases also used as a euphemism for Jews in general by apologists for antisemitism", failed to do so. Hopefully someone can find those books and determine whether they actually cite the material. I believe that the phrase itself is correct, but of course what we need is verifiability. The irony of WP, in cases such as this, is that those most capable of verifiability (in this case, alleged anti-semites who read the sources that use Zionist as a euphemism) are the least likely to employ it in the service of a case such as this.
I will continue rewording the large quotations that do not verify the material. Anarchangel (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
the intro has been irritating me for months so follwoing your comments I removed almost 5000 bytes worth of unnecessary referencing from the intro.
Telaviv1 (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Support for Zionism among non-Jewish groups
Suggest changing the title of 'Non-Jewish Zionism' to the above, as most of the groups discussed are not Zionist as such. Anarchangel (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(Summary: Rmv 'Evangelical'; All Christians supporting Zionism were not Evangelicals, nor is D.Lloyd George empirically observed to have been an Evangelical. Rmv discredited cite)
As the below cite shows, the previous cite was in error.
Original text removed: W. E. B. Du Bois was an ardent supporter of Zionism, (summary: Rmv WE du Bois; see Talk.)
As the below cite shows, du Bois was nothing like ardent in support of even Jewish resistance to Nazism, let alone Zionism. He was not opposed to either, but he is most certainly not notable as a supporter. The sentence, "W. E. B. Du Bois spoke about against Nazi persecution of Jews" would be verifiable, but not notable in this context.
Google Books search for quote: W.E.B. Du Bois by David L. Lewis.
I will continue finding cites for, or refuting the inclusion of, the other non-Zionists included. Anarchangel (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Loyd George was a nonconformist. http://www.jstor.org/pss/565044 his parents were baptists. I understand that this a type of evangelical. check your facts before you question what is written.
Telaviv1 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wiki is jewish with jewish supremacy agendas?
WiKi must be jewish, what a trick for people with an agenda to create their own dictionary?
1) The definition of zionism by wiki is what any jew would say and nothing like most people who use the term. It is mostly used as a term for jewish supremacy. 2)The defintion given for "the 13th tribe" a book by arthur koestler, a jew, who explains how jews are not biblical israelites goes way out of its way to make claims of the book being false which is no more than common propaganda in jewish and zionist circles.
I know of 2 more equal points that show that wiki may be jewish and perhaps several more that I will find. Ive only been noticing this a documenting jewish bias definitions in wiki on a per chance and coincidental basis for a month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.119.242 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
And stating that WiKi is with "Jewish supremacy agenda" and writing it with no facts behind that statement, isn't that a bit Anti-Jewish agenda ?
"WiKi must be jewish" - can you hear yourself? It this the kind of talk allowed in an Open-liberal-world round Encyclopedia ?
Do your homework, read the article, it's surrounding articles and some books, then, you'll have the permission of "jewishing" an Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.111.251 (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- 67.77.119.242: I can tell you one thing about Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox for you to argue your point of view.WackoJacko (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I totally agree, but note the article does suffer from excessive conflation of Zionist ideology as being completely congruent with Judaism as a whole. See my recent edit concerning population in the lede section. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
'Opposition, critics and evolution' big problems
Expansion, sourcing, and NPOV needed. Criticism of Zionism is multi-faceted and has changed in character and content over time, as Zionism has changed. It began before the 1920s, of course, and Zionism's first critics need to have their viewpoints stated. Criticism of Zionism changed drastically and fundamentally after a specific place, Palestine, was decided on and serious and concrete efforts at establishing a Jewish/Zionist state there began. There are numerous unsourced statements. There is an unsourced accusation of association with anti-semitism without rebuttal.Haberstr (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I most heartedly agree. These aspects come from many different sources, and absolutely have varied over time; these should be discussed generally to facilitate an ordered presentation[1]. Much criticism is intramural, religiously speaking, while other is religious, evolutionarily speaking. It should be noted that Zionism is a non-assimilationist expression of Judaism and a break from the assimilation trend that was previously dominant, and continues. In light of other historical events, no derogation is implied or intended. Much criticism came from assimilationist American Jews particularly in the earlier pre-state period, including Isaac Mayer Wise and the American Jewish Committee, who were strongly anti-Zionist, although I sadly note one cannot say that, based on their current wiki-articles. Jewish anti-Zionist statements were made at the time of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference[2]. The clash between Brandeis and Weizmann in the early 1920’s is another historic incident of import, but is similarly difficult to discuss, since Brandeis' name isn’t even noted on the page, let alone his contributions to Zionism. There is also the ACJ from 1942; it is currently listed in ‘Other’.
- The general evolution of Zionism, as well as increased anti- or non-Zionism, is somewhat indicated here, but is unreferenced for 1967 events. Latter events, which tend to indicate Zionist evolutionary trajectory are better referenced, but deal more with politics and territory than religion, although the growth of certain religious groups in this period stands out. These more recent evolutionary developments, particularly since 1977 and Likud power may be best characterized by differences initially between Zionism and Post-Zionism ideologies and more recently between right-wing Neo-Zionism and post-Zionism. Other sources[3] characterize differences in identity as being “Eretz Israel versus Medinat Israel”, and are similar. These impacts on Israel, Jews and Zionism have effects in Israel, in the Diaspora, as well as in the rest of the world. Yes, there seem to be problems with the current version.
- I will delete the unsourced accusation for lack of NPOV rebuttal. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that Zionism is an expression of Judaism. Religious Zionism is relatively minor part of Zionist movement historically, while mainstream Zionism is secular national movement, unrelated to religion. Many early Labor Zionists were Marxists for example, and considered any religion " opium for the people". Igorb2008 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)