Talk:Zionism/Archive 5

message: Could we have a translation of that poster in its caption?  I would if I spoke Romanian... :) --Spikey 03:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The first line says "Toward a New Life" in Romanian, and the second line says "The Promised Land" in Hungarian.   The fine print says something in both Romanian and Hungarian but I'm not sure what that something is.  I guess "Unique Palestinian talking movie" but it needs someone fluent in one of those languages to say for sure. --Zero 11:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fine print in Romanian says "The first Palestinian talking movie" --IulianU 09:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calm, nonpartisan issue - translation in caption 

message: Made a small correction. The article says the IDF took western Jerusalem in 1967. Uh, no...it was the EASTERN sector. Let's try not to make the compass political?:-) --Penta 04:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small, minor issue 

message: There really should be some mention of Moses Hess, Syrkin and the whole socialist zionist and labor zionist tradition particularly given its influence in the kibbutzim movement, the haganah and the labor party. AndyL 05:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialist Zionism and Labor Zionism

message: Why the self-contradictory definition? Why not:
"This article examines Zionism as a political movement among Jews, although the term Zionist can be applied to any supporter of Zionism. Some Christians support Zionism for religious reasons: See Christian Zionism.)"  - Mustafaa 06:23, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are wrong about "feminism" too.  The fact that most feminists are women is a fact about the feminist movement, not a defining characteristic of the movement.  Male feminists are real feminists, not just sympathetic outsiders.  I think such political movements encompass everyone of like mind, such as for communism, or fascism.  It doesn't make a difference as to who it was that first formed fascist organizations or developed fascist theory; anyone who supports the fascist ideology is a fascist.  Same with Zionist and feminist.  --Zero 14:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I can see no good reason to deny the label "feminist" to men who support feminism (except possibly bias against men.) Similarly, plenty of North African pan-Arabists have in fact been Berbers - and Wilfrid Blunt, though Christian, was a pan-Islamist. - Mustafaa 21:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "among Jews"

message: Please reinsert the dispute notice now. It has to be indicated that the current extremist and zionist propagandist version, where all opposition views are removed, is strongly disputed. This is Wikipedia, not us-israel.org. Zw 
I removed the notice because this is not a genuine neutrality or accuracy dispute, it is just Zw (a notorious crank) making his regular attempt to insert his illiterate propaganda into this article. If every article under attack from people like Zw had to have a neutrality notice Wikpedia would have no credibility at all. There is always someone who disagrees with every article, but genuine disputes must be distinguished from attacks by cranks. Adam 06:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Given your extensive contributions to the Zionism/anti-Zionism articles , and your very strong position in the present dispute, maybe one could ask you to declare what your personal views on Zionism and anti-Zionism are? pir 16:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  dispute notice 

message: Poll started on 13 June and will end on 20 June. 
Should there be a dispute notice on this article?
Yes
#Bk0 17:19, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Supermajority, not majority. This poll is designed to show everybody where everybody else stands as far as this dispute is concerned so that it can be resolved. It is not a referendum on the truth - whatever that is. Note the use of the word "article" instead of value judgements on the topic. --mav 11:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: The main page of Wikipedia displays an article about Zionism with a link to an article about Kingdom of Israel. The article about the Kingdom of Israel is based too much on Old Testament lore taken at face-value. For one thing, archaeology has shown that Jerusalem did not exist as a city in the period circa 1000 B.C. when Solomon was suppsoed to have ruled there, so the reference to Solomon as a king of Israel is pure fantasy. The story of Solomon is actually based on a king Sulayman who ruled in Arabia Felix.
I am especially sensitive to the inclusion of this kind of myth because I just read an argument about whether the dubious information about the Merovingians from Holy Blood, Holy Grail should even be mentioned in the article about them. Clearly, the myth about the ancient Kingdom of Israel has to be mentioned, because the myth is a powerful influence in Zionism, but at the same time the dubiousness of the Biblical account of the Kingdom of Israel should be discussed as well. Indeed, if fact is to be emphasized more than myth here as in the case of the Merovingians, the entry on the Kingdom of Israel should contain a high proportion of debunking. User:64.12.116.134----------------------------------------------------------------------
:You might care to look at The Bible and history, which points out that your statement "archaeology has shown" is probably a bit tentative. Of course there is discussion whether the Bible is historical, and whether the Jews can support it to advance claims on 
the present Israel. An authority like William Albright has been quoted to say that archaeology supports the bible rather than disproving it.
:For one thing, the myth of the Kingdom of Israel surely motivated the Zionists, whether it was true or not. JFW | T@lk 11:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From the Village Pump

message: User ZW must be banned immediately. I do not want to have to threaten legal action, but ZW has no right to post personal information about any Wikipedia users, whether it is correct or incorrect, especially in the context of a flame war. I already have received a death threat from EntmootsOfTrolls (verified by other members of the Wiki-En discussion list); I also received what many interpreted as a threat from John Goode, aka Mr. Natural Health, who explicitly stated that he knew I was Jewish, lived in NY, and that he was a Nazi who also lived in NY. The threat was clear. I am not willing to allow more such threats to be made. Wikipedia must not allow death threats, nor must it ever allow private personal information to be put online.  Wikipedia Sysops must purge this article's records so that such personal information is permanently removed. RK 00:25, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
:That's absurd. There's no need to be ridiculously dramatic, I've seen no personal information posted here. If you have proof of illegal death threats, present them to the relevant authorities. Otherwise stop diverting attention away from the real issues here and lets figure out a way to get this article NPOV. --Bk0 01:24, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, sysops can not remove individual revisions from page history. Secondly, you've used your name on the Wikipedia mailing list, so he wasn't telling people anything that you hadn't told the Wikipedia community yourself. Angela. 02:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  User ZW must be banned IMMEDIATELY 

message: :"Some liberal or socialist Jews outside Israel, as well as some Orthodox Jewish communities, still oppose Zionism as a matter of principle."
I don't agree with the above wording. I've met Jews from Israel who oppose Zionism as a matter of principle. Further, it is more than just liberals or socialist Jews who oppose Zionism. I think it would be less POV if it became:
:"Ethnic, Reformed, Conservative, as well as some Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism as a matter of principle."
While it's true that some liberal or socialist Jews feel that way, it's a much wider community than just that that holds such a belief. To only tell of one side is to not tell the Whole Truth. MShonle 07:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: While the community that holds such beliefs is wide, it is also extremely shallow; the vast majority of Jews of all stripes and persuasions are still Zionist. Jayjg 16:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too narrow 

message: What issues are currently under dispute at this article? What steps are being taken to resolve them? If there are no currently active disputes, when will the article be unprotected? Adam 22:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that things have calmed down, I'm going to unprotect the page. But should that situation change... -- Cyrius|✎ 23:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection