Talk:Zionism/Archive 10

message: Jayjg, I'd like not to be contentious, and I'm open to the idea that there is a better way, but I think the first paragraph needs to be changed.  To be well written, I think the first sentence should be as simple as possible, in stating what the movement is. What we have instead is moderately awkward and POV, by attempting to throw the historical justification into the first sentence.  This is confusing, in addition to giving the article an immediate flavor of bias.  It's particularly confusing, because it refers to the nation evolving two millenia ago, as if this nationhood had been continuous. If you're going to throw in the historical basis, don't you have to acknowledge that some other things happened in between?  The first sentence, as written, seems quite unnatural for a neutral encyclopedic article trying to clearly explain exactly what Zionism is.  I looked back to some previous versions which were in fact better, but I tried to make the most modest change I could to fix this.  Mackan79 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with your edit is that it makes it seem as if the area where the concept of Jewish nationhood evolved is in question. In fact, the area in which it evolved is not in question, it is the timeframe in which it evolved that is disputed; was it as early as 1200 BCE, or as late as the first century BCE, or somewhere in between? Jayjg (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Jayjg has strong religious and political beliefs, but I wish he could try to be a tiny bit objective and provide a tiny bit of evidence that Jews were any more than a religion with a connection to the "Holy Land" no different than what the Xtians or Muslims have. References please!!!! (For example, would you say the Sunnis or Shiites in Iraq today are religious sects or "nations"? How are the Jews nations but not them?)Fourtildas 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I see that, but is there a better way to address it?  I simply think it's in everyone's interests to have the first paragraph look as neutral and clear as possible.  For me, at least, reading the first sentence as it was made me really not want to read the rest of the article. Mackan79 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph on zionism found under [zion] is much more clear for a first paragraph:
Zionism is a national liberation movement[1], a political movement and an ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE. While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the modern movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in Europe during the 19th century. After a number of advances and setbacks, and after the Holocaust had destroyed Jewish societies in Europe, the Zionist movement culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.  
(I think that after this and whatever else you think is relevant to the history before 1948, like quotes from zionist leaders from way back, we should fairly discuss the proponents and opponents of modern day zionism and legal citations from the UN and others, without continuously going over the same historical grounds)   The subcats do not flow well as it is Pco 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other thing that occurred to me is that if we are discussing a variety of zionist movements (i.e. christian, african) then why do we start with Jewish zionism, rather than simply stating the common aspects of the term to all groups and Jewish Zionism was perhaps the first known zionist movement, if that's the case, and then go on to have a topic for each sub and further subs for history, modern, pro and anti).  This would also require us to remove the Israeli flags and make it be a more generic article for all zionist movements. Pco 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph 

message: This section is clearly POV, because it mentions the viewpoint that zionism is racism, but mentions nothing about the viewpoint that anti-zionism is antisemitism.--Sefringle 07:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every jew I know consiters them to be traitors to Judiasm. But we are not here to discuss whether zionism is antisemitism. What is important is that we include the opposing viewpoint to the claim that zionism is racism, which is clearly POV. If we include that, we must also include the viewpoint that anti-zionism is antisemitism.--Sefringle 07:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious: what does "anti-zionism" mean?  Do some people say that unless you're a Zionist, you're necessarily a racist? Mackan79 08:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If you are opposed to zionism, you are an anti-zionist. If you are neutral to the topic, you are neither a zionist or anti-zionsit.--Sefringle 08:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: According to Random House Webster's College Dictionary, Zionism is "a worldwide Jewish movement for the establishment and development of the State of Israel." An anti-Zionist, therefore would be someone who is against "the establishment and development of the State of Israel." This excellent NPOV definition does not mention anything about any race.  --GHcool 18:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That definition is inaccurate and pov. Zionism is the movement for the creation of a Jewish state - not necessarily in Israel. Zionists considered Uganda for a long time and almost decided on there instead of Israel. KazakhPol 19:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to dictionary.com, zionism is "a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel."--Sefringle 02:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Zionism and post-zionism section

message: This is just a rough draft that I posted here in TALK last night and Jay decided he would delete it, while I am in the midst of trying to work on it and discuss it with people not including Jayjg who were participating cooperatively)  Please comment constructively, this is not a final draft of what will be in the article. See  Pco 07:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck are you talking about? Read what I said: I've never edited Wikipedia under any other name. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And stop deleting other editors' comments or I guarantee someone other than me will take action. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop calling people liars and sockpuppets or you're likely to be reported and blocked from editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're saying Netsnipe called Jayjg a liar? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Zionism (in progress)

message: If you want to vote for or against any of the content above,  state specifically what sentence you oppose and why.  Thanks. Pco 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "for temporal sake" mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess he means to take time into consideration or something, but its a rather odd way to say it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for the translation. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Pco, I think you should keep trying.  If I saw correctly, I strongly agree with some of the material you included, but also see why some of it would have been removed, like the stuff comparing Bush and Olmert (was that it?), which seemed political.  Unfortunately, many people here seem to be profoundly unhelpful in allowing or participating in any changes which they, presumably for political reasons, do not like.  They are clearly violating Wikipedia policies with these blanket reversions, but unless you persist, it seems they'll simply keep chasing newcomers away.  They're doing the same thing to me, but I'm going to keep trying, at least for now.  Mackan79 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Zionism

message: So I'd like to renew my question: can someone please explain exactly what the historical facts in the first sentence are trying to say?  It looks to me like it's suggesting a historical basis for Zionism, based in a Jewish presence in Israel for 3000 years.  Yet, the statement about Kindgoms seem to suggest that the major presence ended in 200 AD.  Is this correct?  All in all, the sentence seems unnecessarily complex, unclear and confusing.
Would it not be better to simply state what Zionism is, and then to explain the various bases below?  The first paragraph could be very sharp and clear without that historical information.  It would give a strong flavor of neutrality, by resisting the urge to try to score points in the opening paragraph, and by giving no impression whether we think Zionism is good or bad.  For this reader at least, the sentence as is leaves the pointed question: well, what happened after 200 AD?  Honestly, the real impression it gives, though is: "Ok, expect a lot of awkward and biased material to follow; they couldn't even get through the first sentence before piling it on."  
Shouldn't clarity and the appearance of neutrality be a priority?  If it is, I simply don't see the need to single those two facts out in the first sentence, where any skeptic will immediately see bias.  As a hypothetical, if we had three people -- one zionism proponent, one neutral person, and one zionism opponent -- is this the compromise they would reach?  Mackan79 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit to not reading much of the discussion on this page.  I just want to say that in my opinion the first sentence is not good.  The first half is ok but the second half feels like an argument in favor of Zionism and not like a neutral description.  I think that arguments for or against don't belong so close to the start of the article. It isn't enough to reply that the facts stated in the second part of the sentence are true, since that argument would equally justify changing the second half to something like "which had an Arab majority for about 1500 years". --Zerotalk 05:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is a historical basis for Zionism. You may disagree with it, but it exists, and that's what our lead indicates, just as the Encylopaedia Britannica does, for example. Their article on Zionism begins: "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')." SlimVirgin (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zero, an Arab majority was not a basis for Zionism. The ancient homeland of the Jews was. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To call it the ancient homeland for the Jews doesn't sound nearly as contentious, though, as asserting somewhat off-handedly that Jewish nationhood evolved there three thousand years ago and that Kingdoms persisted thereafter. For one thing, it's much clearer as to what point it's getting at, by stating the conclusion up front rather than three lines of facts which merely suggest the conclusion (again, especially odd in a first sentence). Ok, so that was also another thing, that Britanica doesn't drag the sentence to the breaking point simply to cram in that extra fact. It's the clarity of purpose, though, that's the most important. In the version here, in addition to the fact that it's an argument, we're simply not sure exactly what the argument is. That it's the Jewish homeland? That the Jews owned it all along? That the Jews are entitled to it? That it was originally Jewish? Ambiguity like this is the hallmark of biased writing. In any case, I would certainly be happy with a substitution here to ", the ancient homeland of the Jewish people," though I think even that's unnecessary (and in the distinct minority among dictionaries and encyclopedias). Mackan79 06:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the difference between saying it's the ancient homeland of the Jews and that Jewish nationhood evolved there. What exactly is the difference as you see it? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying Jewish nationhood evolved there at a specific time is unclear as to what it's trying to get accross.  Is it suggesting a continuing claim to the territory from that time forward?  Apparently, that's what you think it is suggesting, from our discussion on your talk page.  If that is the implication, however, and if that is an appropriate statement, then it should be made clear.  As I said, you are having Wikipedia state facts from which a conclusion is to be drawn, but it's simply not clear what the conclusion is.  That gives it the appearance of bias.  Particularly in the first sentence, if there is a point, it should be made entirely clear, as the ancient homeland statement does. Mackan79 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mackan. I believe this is about the tenth time now that you've associated sources describing Jewish nationhood with a sentence describing a Jewish religious connection to the Land of Israel. I've explained about 6 times now why it's not appropriate to use sources backing up one claim, and move them to instead back up another claim. Your edits have moved from contentious to WP:POINT; if I see you make this specific edit again, I will summarily revert you, regardless of the merits of any other change you might have made. I hope this is clear. Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether we say "ancient homeland" or "nationhood evolved there" is surely the same point. The point being made is that there's a reason (whether you regard it as a good or bad reason) that Zionists focused on the Land of Israel and not on, say, Paris, France. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Mackan, I have definitely not understood you, particularly the point you keep trying to make about these sources presenting some sort of "bias". I know you've explained it many times at length, but I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say, nor can many others here. Would it be possible to explain how it is biased in one sentence? Preferably under 100 words?  Perhaps your other explanations are just saying too many different things, which confuses people, and they need to be distilled down to their essence. As for the sources, they only support the idea of Jewish nationhood, not of there being a religious connection. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Mackan, as far as I can tell the only person who sort of agreed with you on this subject was Zero0000, and even he said he hadn't closely read your Talk: page comments, but merely thought the sentence was somewhat POV. Have I missed something? Also, I haven't "decided I don't like you", I just don't understand your objections to the current material, and don't agree with your edits. In particular I don't agree with edit comments like "Ref 4 removed for Jayjg", which seems deliberately provocative at best. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationhood and First Sentence 

message: As GHcool says above "Without a doubt, Israel practices racial discrimination......Therefore, proponents of the "Zionism is racism" campaign should equally insist that Hindutva, Kemalism, and pan-Arabism are all racist or "undemocratic" ideologies."  
We are not talking about other articles right now, we are talking about zionists.
The racial discrimination is based on religious principals stated by zionists and proclaimed as 'ZIONISM'.  Discriminatory laws are promoted by ZIONISTS such as Haim Druckman.  Separatist policies are initiated by zionists such as Olmert.  You don't want to mention these things regardless of the citations from BBC and elsewhere that I inserted, but they are the basis for the controversy and they are the most important things to point out about Zionism.  It only takes one sentence to say that Zionists support a homeland for the Jews in Palestine and Zionism is a religious doctrine with political motives.  The rest of the story is based on why people criticize it, whether you want to state it or not.  Pco 17:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: President Olmert recently said that he wishes to "dilute" the meaning of zionism so that it will appeal to jewish citizens of both left and right wings .  
Gush Emunim is an Israeli political movement that sprang out of the conquests of the Six-Day War in 1967, though it was not formally established as an organization until 1974, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War. It encouraged Jewish settlement of land they believe God has allotted for Jews.  Gush Emunim was closely associated with, and highly influential in, the Mafdal - National Religious Party (NRP), the party which is identified with religious Zionism. 
Rabbi Haim Druckman is a member of the National Religious Party.  http://www.sas.upenn.edu/penncip/lustick/app1.html
In 2002, Zionist Haim Druckman gained the support of 17 Israeli Parliament officials in an effort to pass a law that would deny Arabs the right to live on State land.  BBC World News.
- 	In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 was passed. It stated that "zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination"[28] The resolution 3379 was rescinded in 1991 by the Resolution 4686[29]
PCO, if you can be clearer about exactly what you'd like to include, exactly where and why, it might be easier for others to respond.  Also, based on my brief experience, I'd recomend avoiding accusations, whether justified or not, which go against Wikipedia principles, and which simply give people a pretext to disregard you.  Just my two cents.  Best, Mackan79 18:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Pco, you can't add personal essays to Wikipedia, no matter how well sourced. Please read our content policies very carefully, particular WP:NOR, which your edits violate. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FW - The fact that my statements are well sourced proves that they are not personal essays.  Maybe you need to read the policies. Pco 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Real Issues

message: Dear Slim Virgin:
If you have a reason to delete this section, then state what it is, don't just revert it.Pco 18:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if your comments remain civil. "Any idiot can see that" is too close to a personal attack for comfort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Zionism