Talk:Zionism/Archive 9

message: I changed the order of the definitions. Since nobody denies that Zionism is a political movement seeking to bring back the Jews to Eretz Israel, and since that fact doesn't exclude the other definitions, I placed that - neutral and indisputable - definition first. Within that sentence, I replaced the old non-neutral references with the scholarly ones that Jayjg was kind enough to provide, and I changed the wording to reflect their content (see talk page section "The Jewish nation originated in the Land of Israel?". I put the Gellner description next, because it is also relatively uncontroverisal (few Zionists would deny that Zionism is a nationalist movement), and because it is a description by a neutral scholar. I placed the "national liberation movement" bit last, because it is the only one that is subject to POV disputes. I also indicated that that is the way its proponents describe it, because that seems to be the case, and because all the links provided as references are to Zionist sources. 
I hope nobody feels that these changes are POV or otherwise unreasonable. --Anonymous44 16:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes are reasonable to me and well explained here. Thanks.Giovanni33 20:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll accept your edits, but I've fixed the ref formats, and taken out the links more appropriate for Anti-Zionism, where, rather unsurpisingly, they already existed. Let's keep the articles about the correct topics, and ensure they don't duplicate each other. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've also restored the part about "and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE", because the fact of Jewish nationalism and the fact of Jewish states are different ideas. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very glad that you believe my edit in the introduction to be appropriate. That aside, I still totally disagree with your idea about the External links. While I am not especially enthusiastic about those particular links, and I don't think they make much difference (so I wouldn't like to participate in another edit war about this, for the time being), I believe that the principal essence of your stance is absolutely incompatible with, and can be extremely detrimental for, Wikipedia's policies and its spirit. The steps of the Dispute resolution process must be followed until this issue is resolved. Hopefully, neutral Wikipedians will see the situation more clearly. --Anonymous44 19:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: The addition of the article about "Left wing support of Zionism" and it's claims that support fell out of favor only because of the move away from socialism without an article discussing present right wing support for Zionism is completely POV and needs to be balanced.
Since no one has offered to put up a counterbalance to the clearly POV statements in this particular section of the article I have removed all POV statements from the section on "left wing support of Zionism".
: I guess nobody bothered because 1) you misunderstand WP:NPOV, 2) your idea of "counterbalance" is WP:OR, 3) as you can see, this page is often inundated by anonymous trolls and 4) new topics go to the bottom of the talk page. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Jpgordon, I am pointing out the fact that the analysis is factually incorrect. Your claim that I am requiring documentation only to serve what I can only assume you believe are political ends shows that you are clearly biased on the situation.  If this article is going to be considered a reliable source of information it is important that there are no unsupported POV statements contained within the article. If you were unaware, encyclopedic entries are supposed to contain only facts, not baseless assertions. Contrary to what your comments seem to imply, disagreeing with your (incorrect) unsubstantiated beliefs does not indicate a POV bias, but instead does exactly the opposite.  I am going to be once again marking this page as disputed and removing the obviously POV information until the article is cleaned up or the incorrect section is removed.  If vandals continue removing the disputed tag, I will report this to the moderation staff of Wikipedia so that the situation can be resolved without one side resorting to obviously political motivations in attempt to portray a biased, anti-left, picture of the topic as is currently being done with the revisions that have been made to this article. Law82 13:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your use of the term "vandals" indicates either an ignorance or a deliberate misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies. You are engaged in a content dispute. It is not vandalism to be on either side of the content dispute, and removing disputed NPOV tags called "editing". Feel free to "report this to the moderation staff", if you can find one, since such doesn't exist. The place to discuss this is here on this talk page, as you are doing; if you can establish consensus for your proposed changes, they'll stay in the article; otherwise, they won't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am going to be marking the article, once again, as NPOV if Humus Sapiens continues vandalizing the article by adding political POV bias, not to mention linking to a an extremely biased wikipedia "article" which serves as little more as a forum to bash the politically left.  Since he seems to be content to simply change the content of the article without offering any supporting evidence, not to mention not even trying to take part in the discussion of the controversy of the "left wing support of zionism" section, I have been left with no other choice. I have reverted the POV corrections and will continue to do so until documentation, not hearsay, is provided as support for the supposed "facts". Law82 09:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've updated the POV statement about left wing support for Zionism to remove POV bias from it, while still giving service to the fact that some believe, correctly or not, that the shift away from left wing political support of Zionism is due entirely to the shift away from socialism. Law82 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoever you are -- I'm certainly inclined to agree with you. You'll get further with these kinds of discussions, though, if you adopt a username and sign your comments. BYT 12:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: While I won't post under my main account for these revisions BYT, due to the fact that the one time in the past that I corrected a factual error on a Wikipedia article regarding the middle east, and more specifically Israel, vandals tracked down my email address and flooded my inbox with hate mail (not to mention my computer was subjected to a dedicated denial of service attack), I am creating a new account to deal with subsequent corrections to this article.  Law82 13:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can defend against this sort of criminal attack by editing via Tor (anonymity network).  Please don't refer to good-faith disagreements as vandalism. Somegeek 16:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Please do not remove sourced information because it does not reflect your POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I did not remove sourced information because it didn't reflect "my POV", I removed a link to an article that claimed that any opposition to Israel or Zionism is equal to antisemitism, which is clearly POV.  For this same reason I updated the incorrect paragraph to remove POV bias.  If you continue to abuse your administrator position, and continue to remove factually correct edits, I will continue to update the article with NPOV information and, if required, mark it as disputed if you continue to vandalize it with blatantly POV articles.Law82 09:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus is not "abusing" his position. He'd have to protect 
the article or block you for his actions to be considered abuse. Right now, you're just intimidated by the fact that he's an admin. Well, get over it. "Vandalism" is deliberate and blatant damaging of Wikipedia, POV pushing is, well, POV pushing. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he is threatening to block me for removing the POV bias in the article, so I consider that abuse of his administrator privileges.  In any case, in an effort to get this dispute over and done with, I have added a link to the article he cites as "proof" that those who oppose Zionism are inherently antisemitic with a statement that more information on the belief that European (and the political left's)  increasing lack of support for Israel is wholly due to the move away from Socialism can be found there. This removes the POV bias from the paragraph as he had written it, as well as allowing people to research Humus' particular POV if they so desire.Law82 14:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he's threatening to block you for violating the three revert rule. Any admin will do exactly the same thing if you violate 3RR. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the content, other than the repetition of it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So he can arbitrarily undo factual corrections to put the article in line with his POV beliefs without participating in the discussion on the talk page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, but it is against policy if I correct his revisions? Law82 14:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'll block him if he violates 3RR also. You already have, but since you weren't warned, you're being given a little bit of leeway. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to see that there is at least some semblance of neutrality in this discussion, since it seems Humus is not entirely familiar with the rules surrounding the 3RR, primarily "Except in cases of vandalism, if an administrator has personally been involved in a content dispute on that page, that administrator should not block the user for 3RR violations. Instead, the administrator in this situation should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard if they believe 3RR has been broken."  In any case, I have tagged the article as disputed until a solution can be reached as far as the content in the "Left wing support of Zionism" section Law82 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Humus well enough to know that he'd actually simply post a report on WP:AN/3RR and let some other admin do the blocking. That's how we usually do it, so as to avoid exactly the situation you're suggesting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So he would go around the rules and do it by proxy?  Interesting to know. Law82 15:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Go around the rules"? The rules don't say an admin involved in a content dispute can't call attention to a 3RR violation; anyone can call attention to a 3RR violation. That's what WP:AN/3RR is for. If Humus committed one (which he hasn't -- he stopped at 3 to avoid exactly that), then you yourself could get him blocked for 24 hours (if you documented his violation properly). It's hardly "going around the rules" to ask other admins to review a situation and take action if appropriate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will keep this in mind in case this becomes an issue again.  For now, however, I'm going to sleep.  Hopefully we can actually get a discussion going on the POV statements in the article, instead of just edit wars, soon so that we can get this situation resolved amicably.Law82 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have reviewed the article and do not find it particularly biased against the Jewish people nor the state of Israel, nor does it provide support for Zionism in any way.  Zionism is a more activist subculture of worldwide Jewish culture with long roots in lobbying for various goals and aims which have differed not only throughout time but also due to loosely affiliated Zionist organizations and thinkers whos opinions may differ from eachother and change throughout history.
If this article were written about Hawkish Zionist ideologies vs. Dove everyone else then the concern of bias may have been warranted.  This is not the case. User:Taylor Bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.0.218 (talk • contribs) 
It's sad to see that nothing has been done to try to provide a POV-free version of this article. I'd try for a revision, but seeing as there are a handful of people who are, apparently, intent on keeping a politically-slanted viewpoint on this particular topic (sadly enough some of these people are Wikipedia moderators) I am going to withdraw myself from the discussion. Law82 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political POV bias 

message: How do I go about getting an article protected from vandals or unregistered users? --יהושועEric 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: One by one, I am going to provide very nice sources.
;Satmar
Now of course, claims are going to show up saying 'Satmar and the like are not notable, since they are only tiny sects'. Let's start with that lie.
I quote from http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/jewish_anti_zionism.htm :
:"Jewish anti-Zionists today consist of a several very small and very vocal group - .... tiny groups of reactionary ultraorthodox Jews ....  the Satmar "
Now, I would like to invite the reader to watch the following videos. (As background information: Satmar has split up into two parts - one part is led by Rabbi Aharon Teitelbaum, one by Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum. The war between the two is very strong and not a single Satmar Hassid would go to the celebrations of both rabbis.)
Now, watch this:
* Rabbi Aharon, two weeks ago
* Rabbi Zalman Leib, a few months ago
Now, look at the words quoted above and judge the reliability of a website which defines Satmar as a 'tiny group'. Also notice that both of these videos show only the New York department, and that Satmar has similarly huge groups in London, Antwerp, Jerusalem and several other cities. Their total number is well over 100,000.
Now, I am sure most of you will bring this website as a source for showing that Satmar really isn't relevant for this article.
Okay, now that we have established the size of Jewish movements opposing Zionism, let's work on the sources. For starters, look at the Wikipedia articles on Satmar and on its greatest leader ever, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum.
* Now let's take http://www.zionismontheweb.org/antizionism/Against_Zionists_not_Jews.html this site. As that site says: "The web site www.jewsagainstzionism.com claims that True Torah Jews are anti-Zionist. It belongs to the Ultra Orthodox Chassidic Satmar sect. The group numbers about 124,000 and believe that the Jewish homeland can not be created until the messiah comes."
* Next we have this one http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/LandIsrael/modern_landisrael/QuestioningZionism/Neturei_Karta.htm .
As it says, "Reprinted with the permission of The Continuum International Publishing Group from The Encyclopedia of Judaism, edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green." That sounds reliable, eh?
I quote:
:"The anti-Zionist world-view of the ultra-orthodox groups Neturei Karta and Satmar Hasidism perceives Zionism and the estab­lishment of the State of Israel as an anti-messianic act, conceived and born from sin. These groups vigorously deny the very legiti­macy of the collective political return to the Holy Land and to Jewish sovereignty. For them, this is the handiwork of humans, violating the Jewish people's oath of political quietism."
We have also this one http://www.newzionist.com/2006/05/in-other-news/ which says: "The Satmar sect is also staunchly opposed to any forms of Zionism, and won’t even approach the Western Wall because they believe it has been soiled by Zionism, which they feel is an abomination."
* Next we have http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1820242,00.html this one, saying (about the previous leader of Satmar): "Similar numbers had greeted him when he visited Israel in 1999 - notwithstanding the fact that Satmar is the most anti-Zionist of all Hassidic groups."
* Then we have http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1439 this one. "The Satmar chassidim in New York are at the extreme end of the anti-Zionist spectrum." And also about Munkacz: "One of the strongest and most vociferous opponents of Zionism in pre-war Europe was R. Elazar Shapira, Rav of Munkacz, and author of Minchat Elazar."
;Belz
Next we get to Belz. 
* http://www.revisionisthistory.org/warren.html says "It seems that the Haredi (i.e. Hasidic) Belz rabbi, Yisachar Dov Rokach, speaking one recent Saturday night at the conclusion of the Simhat Torah, and in the wake of the mass shootings of Palestinian rioters in September by the IDF, warned against Jewish violence. He said the injunction to live by the sword was a "blessing which had been granted to the descendents of Esau, and not the sons of Israel." He warned of the danger which the Zionists were in as a result of Likud policies. Yisrael Eichler, a follower of the Belz rebbe, pointed out that the rabbi's talk was in keeping with the sacred admonition of "not provoking the gentiles.""
* Then we have http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Summaries/V96I2P58-1.htm which notes that " the Belzers resisted emancipation and were particularly opposed to Zionism on the ground that a reestablished Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel must await the coming of the Messiah..." (And note that the same website says "it is estimated that, despite their rising profile and high birth rate, Israel's haredi population just barely exceeds 100,000 souls". A nice example of why NOT to trust such websites (FYI, the normally held figure in all censuses is about 600-700,000 people.)
;Satmar, Belz, Tosh, Skver, Pshevorsk
* http://www.cjnews.com/pastissues/99/mar31-99/front2.htm "The protesters, garbed in traditional black, included members of virtually all the chassidic groups based in Outremont, including Satmar, Belz, Tasch and Skver." And "The lengthy release, issued by a group called the Central Rabbinical Congress of the U.S.A. and Canada, condemned the continued incarceration of the three without charges, and referred to "all forms of Zionism [as] inherently antithetical to the teaching of our faith."" For what the CRC means, see http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbinicalcourts/crc/documents/callfromcrc.pdf this and http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbinicalcourts/crc/statements/nytimes093082.cfm this.
Anyone need more sources regarding Satmar being anti-Zionist? I will keep adding some more throughout the evening, perhaps. *in the meantime, adding and adding* --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this affected Zionism, it's history or philosophy in any way and therefore, if it belongs anywhere, it would be anti-Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You remove my section on Orthodox anti-Zionism, then every mention of Orthodox Zionism disappears as well. Face it. You cannot have it both ways. Either you place my section back, or the section on Religious Zionism disappears as well. The section is specifically about 'Jewish opposition to Zionism'. These movements represented (and represent) a HUGE number of extremely involved Jews. Your removal of this section borders on vandalism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haredi opposition to Zionism 

message: I was wondering if anyone could explain me what were these "jewish kingdoms and self-governing states" that existed up to the 2nd century, because I am not aware of them. As far as I know, in 63 BCE the Romans conquered the jewish kingdom and from them on what you basically had was a puppet kingdom that had to ally with Rome. --213.190.195.101 10:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Few people know that the Romans gained much of their territory without force, and their control of Israel was an example of this. They placed Herod on the throne but left him mostly independent, it was only after he died shortly before the birth of Jesus that they took a more direct role in the governing of day-to-day affairs. However we extend the date to the second century because of the two Jewish revolts that created independent states for short periods of time (it was actually three revolts but the second one wasn't in Judea).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See History of ancient Israel and Judah and in particular Bar Kokhba's revolt. Do these articles "manage to keep that information hidden"? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states  up to the 2nd century CE. 

message: Hello, all. I am on a campaign to rid this article of Citation Needed tags. Does anybody have a source for this sentence? "Chomsky says he supports a Jewish homeland, but not a Jewish state, and claims that this view is consistent with the original meaning of Zionism."
I tried to find one on the 'Net but my knowledge of the subject is not broad or deep enough. Lacking a source, I propose to delete this sentence in a week or so.
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky 

message: I am doing a copy of my Discussion with User:Daniel575:
Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicussion between Users 

message: Not all Jews are Israelis (and vice-versa) and not all Jews mindlessly agree with the government of Israel's every action. To imply that all Jews must agree with your political views is as racist as the sort of anti-semitism some are condemning in this article. I've edited out some of the 'citation needed' statements, and hope they will only be returned with a citation, and with less blatently political phrasing. - Kyle543 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the section to which I believe Kyle543 is referring:  In recent years the term Zionism has been adopted by anti-Semitic groups as a way to avoid the stigma associated with the outright hatred of Jews [citation needed]. These groups make use of the existence of non-Jewish Zionists to mitigate their standpoint when under scrutiny [citation needed]. The author should find somebody else making those or similar statements and quote or cite that person; otherwise, there is an implication that Wikipedia itself is stating those assertions as fact. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 01:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations provided. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an example of the tunnel vision and all-too-eager ideological chloroforming of principles of basic neutrality that land WP in hot water. If you must appeal to a desire of anti-Zionists to camouflage their alleged "outright hatred of Jews," it is incumbent upon you to address, without evasion, the obvious question of whether contemporary (and historical) Jews who have opposed Zionism thus have an outright hatred of themselves. And if so, whether they are aware that they have this hatred. BYT 04:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no discussion, I've removed this blatantly POV text. (Did so while I was logged out unawares, immediately before posting this note on the talk page.) Please remember that talk pages have a purpose, and that the proper place to engage in discussion about controversial edits is right here. Please do not reinsert this blatantly POV text without gaining consensus (see WP:Consensus) to do so. BYT 10:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted. Behave. Your screaming is highly inappropriate and will not gain you any support. There is a source. There is no POV issue. The subject is a very well known issue, even Martin Luther King mentioned it. Discussion finished. --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: When a Muslim called Yusuf comes in to deny that antisemites (a very large percentage of whom are you coreligionists) use 'anti-Zionism' as a 'legitimate' form of criticism of the Jewish people, yes, I decline to discuss. A source was provided. You have nothing to base yourself on but your own lies. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Confirmed. And sure, you're not an anti-Semite, you're just an anti-Zionist, right? I HAVE explained this before. (Why am I going to do it again...) It is a plain, known fact that numerous groups, both Muslims and neo-Nazis, hide their anti-Semitic message and nature behind a veil of 'anti-Zionism'. There are two sources. Don't like it? Too bad. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couple points. 1) Clearly, some people use Anti-Zionism as a smokescreen for Anti-Semitism. I think the Laquer quote is excellent, in that it makes the point that not all Anti-Zionists are Anti-Semites as well. Daniel, I respectfully ask that you tone your rhetoric down a bit. You've been editing here long enough to know that's not okay. Also, you undermine your own position when you post as you have. I'm sure you don't want to do that, right? IronDuke 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IronDuke's purported evenhandedness here is not supported by fact. All manifestations of anti-Zionism are hostile to Jews and Judaism. The problem is that some forms of christianity and all forms of mohamedism are theologically repugnant to Judaism. The mohamedan claim that the Jewish Prophet Moses bows to hubal of Mecca, (i.e., is muslim), or the Vatican imagination that it is the "true" Israel are both manifestations of a completely repugnant and discredited "replacement theology." To the extent that muslims or christians come to this page to impose their repugnant theology on this article must be resisted with full force.--Lance talk 11:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is repugnant anti-Muslim statements which must be resisted with full force. I care not what editors' personal POV's, religious beliefs, etc. are, I only care that editors follow the rules. There are some editors here who, in their anti-Islamic statements, are dangerously close to violating WP:NPA, if they have not done so already. Criticize the edits, not the editors. IronDuke 20:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Zionism is simply a movement embodied by the actions of a disgusting state - there is no 100% correlation between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism and this article should reflect the opinions of writers who state the same. BhaiSaab talk 04:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism? 

message: Humus, why did you delete this cited material  about RSS? If the KKK were to issue a press release opposing Zionism, would a reader who had never heard of the KKK be entitled to some information about its history and motives? BYT 10:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See guilt by association and poisoning the well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Frankly I don't have a clue what RSS really is. I will let others speak about removing it. I don't mind, as long as the phrase "many sections of Indian society" stays. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to all -- Inadvertently, I made this edit anonymously ; did not realize I had logged off. BYT 14:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting information about RSS being banned in India and its fomenting of riots 

message: We have lately reinforced the principle  that putting a "spin" on facts that is not supported by external research constitutes WP:OR. There is no such external research that I've seen to describe these entities as "self-governing states."
If you feel the text should go back in, please provide, and discuss here, responsible references from reputable sources, so we can all reach consensus before you revert. Thanks. BYT 20:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all described in the wikilink provided. No need to copy-paste references from there. Amoruso 20:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't personally care for that sentence. Jewish kingdoms existed is enough. Amoruso 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states" in intro 

message: In the section concerning the rise of Nazis its pretty clear there has been an act of vandalism, someone should restore it. jordan 06:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for spotting. Amoruso 10:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: Danile575 unilaterally created an article about the Haredi position on Zionism, and removed all of that material from this page. I disagreed with that move, and I still think it was a bad idea. My sense was that folks on this page were happy to be rid of him and did not protest. He has been banned from Wikipedia due to his abusing editing and comments. I think the time is right to revisit this issue in a more civil manner.  Since the article Haredim and Zionism covers a topic that is integrally linked to the history of the Zionist ideology (at least as much as many of the other sections of this article), I think it belongs in the Zionism article, and not as its own separate article.  Any objections?--Meshulam 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't belong in this article at all as there's already too much of it here Zionism#Anti-Zionism and post Zionism. What you're suggesting is not a merger but an WP:AFD for Haredim and Zionism and then if there's something minorly important that's not here already or in Haredim it could be added.  Amoruso 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not at all suggesting a WP:AFD. The Haredim and Zionism article is imperfect, but it covers a genuine subject that I believe is relevant to this article.  Indeed, it used to be covered in this article until Daniel575 moved it.--Meshulam 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO, that material belongs to Anti-Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, except that not all of it is anti-Zionist. --Meshulam 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger