Talk:Zionism/Archive 8

message: Given that the 'Jew' Judaism template has a link to this article, surely the template belongs in the article? Zionism is undeniably connected to Judaism; yes, even secular Zionism. Nomist 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It didn't look too good, so I moved the Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar into the section Zionism#Jewish reaction to Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the Israel template go under the heading "Zionism and Israel" further down (as done with the Judaism template)... there is probaly enough content to start a Zionism template if people wished? Oboler 13:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism template 

message: there is no such thing as anti-zionism it is a made up word, and should have no place in wikipedia which is an encyclopedia
all elements that cite factual sources on the concept of zionism - whether they are supportive or not supportive should be under the category of zionism
I really do not understand your point or how it even makes sense.  Anti-Zionism is a term that is recognized by mainstream scholars and is used to denote a few specific types of opposition to Zionism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. The amount of hatred towards Israel was out of proportion long before that. See Arab-Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics for comparison. As for "racism", even the UN revoked this false charge. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: He's right you know.  Just look at Kappo. 87.242.143.17 00:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-zionism

message: Since Zionism is such a varied and significant family of ideologies, I propose a Zionism template along the lines of templates such as Socialism and Liberalism, which feature in the Politics series of Political ideologies. What do people think? Nomist 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionism Template? 

message: Zalani 05:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from the western perspective, that Palestinians lived in Palestine before the Israelis ethnically cleansed them is irrelevant, and so that bit of reality gets dismissed. The Palestinians are darker skinned, and most of them don't speak english; hence they don't get alot of Western sympathy in any real sense. Not even on anglo-Wikipedia. It's racist, it's wrong, but it's true. And by the way, what scientific evidence is there to prove the Jews lived in Israel for 3200 years? Amibidhrohi 21:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lies. Half of Israel are Mizrahi Jews. Both of you, stop soapboxing and trolling. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what is that you want. Psychomelodic (people think  edit) 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest you read Cultural Zionism and Religous Zionism, forms of Zionism. Also, Chaim Weizmann's Synthetic Zionism (the mainstream Zionism after Herzl's death) had Cultural Zionism elements in it (it was a mixture of Political, Activist and Cultural Zionism). Psychomelodic (people think  edit) 12:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Or for that matter I suggest you read any neutral source that discusses Zionism at any length, or anthing describing Judaism at any length, and by neutral I don't mean the official history of Saudi Arabia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was a people of Palestine before Israel was created 

message: Would it be safe to say Zionism is a theocratic theory since it promotes state rule for people of a certain religion?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.235.125 (talk • contribs) 
Umm, no, because it doesn't support "State rule for a people of a particular religion", also Zionism is not religious in nature.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theocracy 

message: Where should  go? Is there a way to put templates on the left side of an article?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template placement 

message: Sorry, but article reads POV to me. I support the idea of having a template, because this is a family of ideologies. Also, this article is not the place to go into the ancient history of Judaism in the Levant, except to describe as accurately and neutrally as possible what Zionists believe. I would change introductory sentence to saying that Zionists believe there should be a Jewish homeland in "the Levant" rather than either "the Land of Israel" or "Palestine". "The Levant" is neutral. But is this in fact accurate, or have there been varieties of Zionism that did not think that a Jewish land had to be specifically in Palestine? Following a shortened introduction, the history of Zionism should be started from when it actually started as a movement - 19th century? Not go into ancient history which is not relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs) 
:Hello Itsmejudith,
:I believe that the relevance is in that while Zionism is a political movement, it developed out of a much older religious-cultural ideal. And while I acknowledge that at first glance the first two paragraphs seem too lengthy, there is a direct connection between their information and (1) the lack of a political movement in the pre-Zionist ideal and (2) the pragmatics surrounding a Jewish presence in the land sought by the movement. That said, if you could present a more specific critique, it might be easier to accomodate. To answer your other query, various phases discussed places like Argentina or Uganda as alternatives to Palestine - they are dealt with in detail in the main article. Cheers, TewfikTalk 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still POV 

message: The [Jerusalem Program] is the Zionist definition of Zionism. Its absense from this article is a major oversight, akin to, but more serious than, an article about the U.S. Declaration of Independence without mentioning John Locke. The Jerusalem Program is important, among other reasons, because it is emphatically the right of Zionists to say what Zionism is; because it lays out the aims and foundations of Zionism; and because it shows the pluralism of Zionism: Zionism is not just political; it has cultural, spiritual, and moral dimensions also. Anomalocaris 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem Program 

message: I most certainly do not want to get dragged into some sort of flame war and so I will (cowardly) leave to someone else the task of failing this for good article status. However, I think that it will and should fail because
# the article is not that stable (even when disregarding the inevitable vandalism). There are continuous disputes on the talk page about POV issues, about acceptable external links and so on.
# the article seems to me lacking a serious section on critics of zionism. I don't think the Anti-zionism section has due weight, especially since it's focused on the jewish critics of zionism. There are 3 miserable lines about the opinion that zionism is inherently racist (which one has to agree is widespread regardless of anyone's take on the matter) followed by 15 lines debunking the argument.
Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the GA nomination 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:Since no one seems to volunteer, I will fail the nomination for GA myself. The article is unstable and has NPOV concerns as explained above.
 Pascal.Tesson 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: Reliable source, not a personal website, about only Zionism.
What's the reasoning, please? If it's because you feel this link "belongs" at Anti-Zionism and only there, please show me the policy that says that's the way we have to go here. BYT 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. It was about Anti-Zionism, not Zionism. See above. BTW, it was also a personal website - in this case, Eliezer Segal's personal website.  The fact that he works at a University is interesting, and makes him somewhat more reliable in general, but it's still clear that it's his website, no-one else's. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, the link that hit all the marks was just reverted 

message: The halachic discussion is incomplete in that it does not mention the important distinction between individual and communal aliyah. All modern halachic authorities I know of (including Rav Moshe Feinstein in Iggrot Moshe) agree that there is an individual requirement and there is a communal prohibition of aliyah. So the article's discussion is completely misrepresentative of the currently accepted halacha when it discusses whether it is among the 613 mitzvot. The debate within halacha is whether the communal prohibition mentioned in the Talmud was nullified or it is Aggadic as opposed to halachic, which are the positions of religious Zionists. 75.3.193.243 21:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Halachic discussion

message: * Not asking about people's opinions of me or my communication style.
* Not asking about what appears, or should appear, in other articles.
* Not asking about any article other than this one.
Asking, rather, about this edit on Zionism.
Do people support it? If so, why?
Do people oppose it? If so why? BYT 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think starting a new section every day means the previous discussions never happened? Jayjg (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you think posing disembodied questions from on high is the same as addressing the issue under discussion? Once somebody has actually jumped through all the hoops, you develop a strange aversion to simple declarative sentences.  BYT 12:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He published it in 1958, in VaYoel Moshe. By the way, about 20% of Satmar Hassidim live in Israel, in Jerusalem and B'nei Brak. Teitelbaum himself lived in Israel for a year, in 1947, before emigrating to the States. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. In that case, the addition doesn't really belong there; that paragraph is entirely about the pre-holocaust positions. It might fit somewhere. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deafening silence on quote about Satmar Chasidim founder's opinion of Zionism 

message: [Jay], You're not making edits without discussing them, I hope. BYT 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brandon, I hope you're not making edits with deceptive edit summaries - that's just another proof of tendentious editing. There is no indication that a quote from that particular person is notable, and it certainly doesn't belong in that section. It's a detail better suited for the anti-Zionism article. In any event, you've already used up the good faith on this page, and you're latest deceptive edit summary cements that, Brandon. You need to go edit other articles for a while, so that people can learn to trust you again. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can request whatever you like. It would be helpful if you actually read the content of the section you were trying to insert information into, rather than desperately shoving it in wherever you thought it would be most prominent.  The section you were putting it in was about Jewish attitudes to Zionism before the founding of Israel; why you would shove a quotation from 1958 into a paragraph talking about the 1930s, unless you hadn't actually read what the paragraph and section was about? I've clarified the subject of the section, just for you. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a significant step forward, inasmuch as it constitutes direct commentary on the edit I was proposing. (It sounded for a while there as though you were saying it constituted original research, which was mystifying.) This, anyway, is precisely the feedback I have been asking you (or any other editor) for. I am sorry I got the date wrong. A properly cited 1930s-era quote would be more appropriate for this section, and the 1958 quote should go elsewhere, yes? BYT 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because the section doesn't need quotes, nor does the article need the 1958 quote, nor does it need you editing it. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BYT, stop your innuendos. Intentionally or not, this article is being turned into a clone of Anti-Zionism as the efforts to add anti-Zionist quotes and arguments here continue. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As long as this article is incessantly attacked, it should be guarded. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And in what sense was the carefully cited quote about the Satmar Chasidim founder's opinion of Zionism "original research"? 

message: The term is not accurate for early Zionism. It implies something like the FRETILIN, which is already in the national homeland and conducting military operations against the percieved imperial power. Although that comparison is accurate for the Mandate-period armed groups, it would apply that early Zionists were fighting a war against the Ottoman Empire or intended to fight one. Its use after 1948, for the State of Israel, is non-standard since states are not considered liberation movements. The post-1948 claims on territory are properly described as irredentism.Paul111 11:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've provided 8 additional citations for this fact; please stop removing well-cited facts, even if you disagree with them, and let's let Zionists speak for themselves. Jayjg (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Paul111, it appears that 9 sources were unacceptable for you until you reframed the definition to malign the subject. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A national liberation movement? 

message: :Zionism is a national liberation movement.
It doesn't matter if the term "national liberation movement" is sourced; it's still biased, and many would disagree with that label. I can give you dozens of sources accusing zionism of being "racist" or "racialist," but that doesn't really mean shit.
:Certain individuals and groups have seized on the term "Zionism" and have misused...
English is governed only by its speaker, so there is no authority to declare which uses of a word are "incorrect." (Just consult Humpty Dumpty from Alice :) POV..
:..used it to justify attacks on Israel.
uh.. what? Do you mean "attacks on jews?"
:In some cases, the label "Zionist" is also used improperly
Guess.
:as a euphemism for Jews in general by those wishing to whitewash anti-Semitism (as in the Polish anti-Zionist campaign and Zionology).
"Whitewash" is POV. JayW 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's let Zionists define what Zionism is, ok? Jayjg (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's exactly what you can't do. You can't let Bill Clinton define Bill Clinton, or George Bush define George Bush, or Hitler define Hitler, or Lenin define Lenin, or Al Qaeda define Al Qaeda, or the US define the US. When I am trying to qualify this stance, words like "absurd" and "unspeakable" come to my mind, but they are just too mild. I hardly dare mention the word (N)POV when commenting on it, because the Wikipedian concept and the stance in question seem to belong to two different realities. --Anonymous44 15:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh.

message: Paul111, your "principles" section appears to be an original research summary of one specific article, though not really properly sourced. The article doesn't need one specific summary of this complex movement, nor does it need the specific one you have chosen. Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul111, it seems that you are trying to prove some WP:POINT. The official principles are covered further in the article, search for "Jerusalem program". ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul111, you must realise that quoting the same source seven times doesn't make its position more mainstream. And think about it, if the only way for you to make the case is with a 7 times quoted source, maybe something is wrong with the position. Cheers, TewfikTalk 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to have a specific need to re-write Zionism into your own view of nationalism.  However, Zionism is quite adequately described in the existing article. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul111's "principles" 

message: The fact that Zionism advocates migration to Israel is so central, and so distinctive, that it deserves mention in the introduction. The formation of the   State of Israel was dependent on that migration, even with natural growth the 1850 Jewish population in Ottoman Palestine would never have achieved a sovereign state. Further on in the article, the demographics should be mentioned. Around 1890, 98% to 99% of Jews lived outside Ottoman Palestine. The article should also indicate where Jews lived: in eastern Europe. That is also relevant for the historical background of early Zionism, as an eastern European (and largely German-speaking) movement.Paul111 14:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionism is a diaspora nationalism 

message: I asked for a citation for 'national sovereignty' as an aspiration of the Jewish Revolt and of Jews in the succeeding centuries. This is another anachronism, the concept 'national sovereignty' is at most early-modern.Paul111 11:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The First Jewish-Roman War aimed to achieve political and religious independence from Rome. See also Bar Kokhba's revolt#"The Era of the redemption of Israel". ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see anything wrong with "national sovereignty". ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: By your logic, the Jews had to wait for the British, French, Germans and Spanish to appear on the historical scene to strive for their own national sovereignty. Let me remind you what Weizmann said to Balfour: "We had Jerusalem when London was a swamp." . And again, WP:RS please. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'National sovereignty'  at time of Jewish Revolt 

message: I've changed the description of Zionism as a "national liberation movement" from being stated as a fact to being attributed to Zionists, for two reasons. Firstly, all the citations are partisan opinions rather than factual sources. Secondly, it is fundamentally a matter of opinion and not of fact. Moopiefoof 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All sources are "partisan sources" in these matters; no-one has "the facts", but Zionists at least know what their movement is about. And just about every description in this article is "fundamentally a matter of opinion". Wikipedia works on the basis of verifiability, not fact, and 9 sources for a claim is good enough here. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other descriptions of Zionism describe objective characteristics of the movement; "national liberation movement", on the other hand, is a politically-loaded term. Citing opinion pieces does not make it a fact; you could support any claim on the basis that it's somebody's opinion. Furthermore, the page the phrase "national liberation movement" links to describes conflicts fought by indigenous peoples against imperial powers, which certainly does not characterise the foundation of Israel. Moopiefoof 00:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth makes you think you can distinguish between "objective characteristics" and "politically-loaded terms"? Everything stated about Zionism is an "opinion piece".  And the Jewish Zionists did indeed see themselves as an indigenous people fighting imperial powers; your opinion that it was not is just that, your opinion. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is irrelevant. The fact remains that it's just that, an opinion. Are you really trying to say that there's absolutely no distinction to be drawn between opinions and facts? Why can't we attribute opinions to the people who hold them? Moopiefoof 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moopiefoof, the term "national liberation movement" is descriptive. You (or others) may not like that they wanted to liberate what they did, or that they saw it as liberating, or saw themselves as nationalists, or whatever it is you object to; in the same way, many people regard the animal liberation movement as wrong-headed, or wicked, or absurd, and believe that animals don't need "liberating," but that phrase is nevertheless an accurate description of what motivates the movement, and what it seeks to achieve. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: They were fighting for liberation (and the Jews had a lot of liberation to accomplish), not necessarily against. The rest is in your head. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Zionism didn't seek to improve the position of Jews in non-Jewish societies, which it considered to be a goal doomed to failure (Herzl himself stated "In Paris... Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism."); rather, it sought to liberate them from oppression by removing them from those societies, returning them to their national home. Thus "national liberation movement" makes perfect sense. Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Zionism is indeed unique in many ways; regardless, our little debate here is not particularly relevant to article content. I found 9 good sources for the claim, and I could find 9 more, but I'm not going to. Jayjg (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionism as a "national liberation movement" 

message: The Holocaust accelerated migration to Israel, and established the Zionist option as the only realistic option in the eyes of many European Jews. Without the accelerated immigration, it is unlikely that the British Mandate would have accepted a Jewish state as early as 1948.Paul111 10:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is surely hard to imagine Zionism without Jews. During the Holocaust, the British severely limited Jewish immigration: see White Paper of 1939. Let's not guess what "would have" happened. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The British gave in because, after World War II, they were tired of fighting, and the increased levels of violence from both sides made their position untenable. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust a setback for Zionism? 

message: Zionism is not an ideology in the most-used sense of the word, i.e.,
#: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
#: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
or "an organized collection of ideas." It is rather a political movement based on the perceived needs of a specific group. The referenced article does not seek to prove anything different but uses rather the term "ideology" in the sense of a conceptual framework. --Leifern 15:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is Judaism also an ideology? Etymologism is a shaky ground. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: The word wrongly implies that Zionism ceased to function with the establishment of the State of Israel. The intro should note its continued role, but also distinguish between its status inside and outside Israel.Paul111 10:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionism did not 'culminate' in 1948 

message: Although the exact text can be debated, the intro should give what is missing in this article, a theoretical and comparative perspective (nationalism theory especially).  It should include these points:
*Zionism is first and foremost a nationalist movement and ideology
*it is a political movement for those goals
*its innovation was to assert that Jews are a nation, with a national homeland, and to make claims on that basis
*it claims territory, claims self-government, and claims a state
*it claims a nation-state, that is, in this case, a Jewish state (exclusivity of territorial claim)
*it claims a very long historical continuity for the Jewish nation
*from the start it advocated mass migration, making it an unusual form of nationalism.
The need for a neutral perspective (insofar as that is possible) overrides the preference of users who want to see this article present Zionism from the Zionist prespective. Paul111 09:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you think your POV and original research is a more "neutral perspective" than the cited information already provided in the article. Jayjg (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that you keep inserting stuff that is your own point of view, and attributing it to others. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The template has been moved to Talk, see history. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sigh. Here's an idea, BYT. Why don't you go to the :Template:Peerreview page and see which Categories it's in. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the template because I have always seen it on the talk page and never on the main page and assumed that it was put on the main page by mistake.  As Jayjg pointed out the template is in :Category: Article talk header templates, and it belongs there. In general, I think that as much as possible should be off the main page.  Cleanup tags are on the main page because the also indicate to the reader that the page has problem.  Think about how it looks to a new-commer to wikipedia who just want to read an article to be told that the article is undergoing a peer review.    The main page is for wikipedia readers; the talk page is for wikipedia editors.  Jon513 17:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspective for the article and the introduction 

message: I just wanted to let editors here know ahead of time that I'm going to be making what I feel to be an important edit here on the Zionism page, an edit that takes into account all of the specific requests for improvement that I've received over the past week or two.
If you disagree with that edit, I'd really appreciate if you discussed, with me and other editors, the grounds for your disagreement on the talk page before reverting my work. That way we can get some back and forth going on the talk page about these important issues and help build a more balanced article. I hope we can begin to bring about more examples of collaborative editing among people with differing viewpoints here. BYT 10:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a thought: why don't you post The Edit you are planning to make on the talk page first? That way, there will not be a need for reverting your work when you integrate it into the article.--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi everyone