Talk:Zionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 15, 2003	Featured article candidate	Promoted
November 10, 2004	Featured article review	Demoted
July 26, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 28, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
Current Status: Former featured article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zionism article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects
Click [show] for further details

Israel Portal

Zionism is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.

Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Jewish history. An attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.

Project Jewish history To-do:

Zionism is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Numbered archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 terrorism and violence
2 desire of Jews to emigrate to where they can get rich
3 "Jewishness" is a religious concept
4 Lengthy quote in the Anti-Zionism section
5 RFC concering Rabin quote ...
6 Another attempt to turn this article into a clone of anti-Zionism
7 Misuse of {{fact}}
8 Arab/Muslim Opposition
9 two references needed
10 Opening paragraph
11 Chomsky's notability

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))

The Zionist plan (well documented) to ethnically cleanse the natives is by definition "terrorism". -- the preceding slur was written by 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)

desire of Jews to emigrate to where they can get rich

"The desire of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland has remained a universal Jewish theme since the defeat of the Great Jewish Revolt, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire in the year 70,". - This is a total lie - you can't have a desire to return if you left voluntarily (after profitably selling your property to Palestinians) and there is nothing to prevent you from returning (except that the money is better in Rome or Florida or NYC). Fourtildas 06:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your claim is ridiculous. --GHcool 04:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Jewishness" is a religious concept

If your mother's mother's mother was "Jewish" then you are "Jewish". Even if you never heard of "Jews" you are "Jewish" according to WP and fundie Judaism and fundiXianity. And Zionism is Jewish supremacy - ask any Nazi - they will recognize the similarity. I've been thinking of writing an article on ethnic/racial/religious/nationalist/supremacist movements, but these articles seem to get deleted by people who are uncomfortable with the obvious comparisons.

you have a very wrong view of jew identity, the idea that jewishness is not an ethnicity is a reform(as the reform judaism article states:"Early Reform Judaism, in order to assimilate more into European culture, held that Judaism was no more a peoplehood, but was only a religion"). and take your anti-zionist bull**** elsewhere. Varcety 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy quote in the Anti-Zionism section

BrandonYusufToropov keeps trying to introduce, without discussion, a lengthy quote into the Anti-Zionism section:

In the modern period, certain elements within Orthodox Judaism remain anti-Zionist, some vehemently so. Yakov M. Rabin, a professor of history at the University of Montreal, argues in his book ‘’A Threat Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism,’’ that Haredi Jews who publicly criticize Zionism do so for two religiously-based reasons:

“The first of these is to prevent desecration of the name of God. And since the State of Israel often claims to be acting on behalf of all the world's Jews, and even in the name of Judaism, these Jews feel they must explain to the public, and primarily to non-Jews, the falsehood of this pretension. The second commandment is to preserve human life. By exposing the Judaic rejection of Zionism, they hope to protect Jews from the outrage they believe the State of Israel has generated among the nations of the world.” ^[1]

BYT is well aware of how controversial any additions to this article are, and particularly, given the history of his lengthy and sustained disruption here in the past, how controversial his additions in particular are bound to be. More specifically, as has been explained to him numerous times in the past, the Anti-Zionism section is merely a summary of the lengthy Anti-Zionism article; as such, it should not contain quotes from any individuals, much less one-sided quotes like that. Please keep in mind the section should be a brief summary of the other article; the quote does not add any specific knowledge not already summarized in that section. BYT, it's quite disappointing that you tried to slip this in without any discussion, and then continued to revert it; if you would like to insert it, please explain why, and then get consensus. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone interested in actually reading the archives (or perhaps re-reading them) will conclude that the quote was in fact discussed here, at length. [2] [3] [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT] 21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In don't see this particular quote mentioned there; where is it? I also note that the discussion you linked to was from August 2006, whereas you first slipped that quote into the article in January 2007. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, it was August of '06. See this diff. [4]. As a direct result of the discussions on talk page that I cited. People asked me to come up with a cited reference from an authoritative source, remember? Not sure why it's so important to you to roll back the clock here. The quote is not "lengthy" by my lights. Do you have some philosophical problem with the content? BYT 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The absurdly long sub-section was cut down to a reasonable size on December 26. Not sure why it's so important to you to roll back the clock here. The quote is lengthy and one-sided, and certainly not appropriate for a summary section, as detailed above. The quote can be found in the Anti-Zionism article, where it belongs. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's where you want it to go. I disagree. Could you clarify for me -- what WP policy compels us to segregate properly documented, reputably sourced criticism of this political philosophy to another article? BYT 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BYT, you're repeating months-old arguments, and please review straw man. Do you have any other response to my points above? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, the fact that you've dodged this question for months without answering it directly (and are dodging it now) does no great credit to your position. On your other points, I'd like to direct you to WP:OWN. You may benefit from taking a break for a while here. Signed, Editor Distinctly in the Minority Here. BYT 12:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've explained the reasons over and over; usually when I do that, you just start a new section, pretending that you haven't read or seen or understood the reasons. I'll repeat them one last time for you:

The Anti-Zionism section is merely a brief summary of a lengthy article on the topic. Therefore, it should briefly summarize, rather than containing lengthy references to and quotations from your own preferred author.
The current summary fully encompasses the various viewpoints captured in the Anti-Zionism article.
The quote itself is one-sided, and would only invite "counter-quotes", which also don't belong in an article summary section.
Gathering consensus for controversial edits is extremely important.
The people in question, Anti-Zionist Haredim, encompass perhaps 100,000 of the 14 million Jews in the world (under 1%), and 100,000 out of hundreds of millions of anti-Zionists (1/10 of 1% at best). Overemphasizing their specific beliefs is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

As for your other ideas, WP:OWN is just a link you brandish whenever your specific agenda doesn't gain consensus, and you would undoubtedly benefit from your "break" advice far more than I would. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC concering Rabin quote ...

... see link here. [5] BYT 13:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(Rfc comment) I don't see any need for a lengthy 4-line quote in the anti-Zionism summary. There is a whole page for that material. The anti-Zionism section needs to be a general summary of the other article. Adding a quote from one person tips the balance, invites further unneccessary additions and is against the preferred article guidelines which state "..those sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the sub-topic covered in that section". So no, I don't believe this article should carry the quote.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 13:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Question is whether the intensity of some Jewish opposition to Zionism has been covered adequately.
Must such content (quote or no quote) be segregated to the Anti-Zionism article?
The circle we've got now is, "There's a special section for Anti-Zionism, this topic is irrelevant elsewhere in the article..." leading inevitably to "This section is too long" and thus to "Anti-Zionism is where such material must go." Has anyone noticed that, by an extraordinary coincidence, the effect of this cycle over a period of months is to protect the Zionism article from reality-based critiques, in a way that we don't protect, say Communism or Feminism? BYT 14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Answers: 1. According to guidelines - Yes it has been covered correctly per guidlelines. 2. This article is about Zionism, not anti-Zionism. Therefore detailed material should really go on the other page. 3. Criticism of communism is treated in the fashion outlined above. In summary style and a link to the relevant articles.See. There appears to be no coincidence nor protection going on by editors wishing to have a standard summary section here.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 16:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In summary

The Anti-Zionism section is merely a brief summary of a lengthy article on the topic. Therefore, it should briefly summarize, rather than containing lengthy references to and quotations from your own preferred author.
The current summary fully encompasses the various viewpoints captured in the Anti-Zionism article.
The quote itself is one-sided, and would only invite "counter-quotes", which also don't belong in an article summary section.
The people in question, Anti-Zionist Haredim, encompass perhaps 100,000 of the 14 million Jews in the world (under 1%), and 100,000 out of hundreds of millions of anti-Zionists (1/10 of 1% at best). Overemphasizing their specific beliefs is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
Asking whether such content "must (quote or no quote) be segregated to the Anti-Zionism article" is a straw man. There is no specific policy about which content must go in the main article, and which must go in the summary, and there never will be. However, both the Zionism and Anti-Zionism articles are quite lengthy (Zionism is 71k, and Anti-Zionism is 50k), and Anti-Zionism really is a movement and phenomenon in its own right. In general, this kind of division is extremely common; see, for example, Marxism and Criticisms of Marxism.

Hope that helps. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you saying the section should only be a summary of the Anti-Zionism article? And why did you remove the material we had previously discussed without comment? I'm replacing the two paragraphs you removed; can you please discuss these matters before deleting material? It seems you're asking others to show this kind of respect. Mackan79 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll add more sources shortly. I would really love to have a dialogue here, because I have no intention of inserting something inflammatory or inappropriate, but simply think we should have a concise, sourced section which effectively summarizes the criticism in a fair way. I have a hard time understanding how we can have an article on Zionism that barely mentions, for instance, the Muslim criticism. If there are issues with the current phrasing, or if certain points seem inappropriate, I will not fight for something unreasonable. Otherwise, I'm currently looking for more sources, since a couple editors were concerned about original research. Mackan79 23:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding sources. It's a summary section, so add the sources to the main articles instead. There certainly shouldn't be anything in a summary section that is not found in the main articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt to turn this article into a clone of anti-Zionism

Mackan79, the content you are trying to add here may belong to anti-Zionism or some other articles related to the conflict. Please reread the title of this article. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Humus, are you aware that this material has been there for several months, and discussed previously? This is not another attempt to add material; I'm suggesting that the material should remain as it previously was. I did read the title of the article, which is Zionism. It strikes me that anti-Zionism and post-Zionism, being responses to Zionism, are relevant to that topic. Can I ask why you disagree? Also, if you oppose specific material, can I ask that you remove only that material? Blanket reverts don't suggest good faith and cooperative editing. I'll be adding sources as I find them, and would ask that you not continually revert me as I do this. The material is extremely brief and summarized; if you'd like to remove it, at least get concensus first. I think it would be much more productive to try to work towards an acceptable, sourced, and fair section, though, which is all I would like to see. Mackan79 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many if not most articles related to Jews are under constant attack. "It was like this for a long time" is a frequent but a lame argument. There are separate articles on anti-Zionism, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc. Please review WP:SUMMARY. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Humus, you have to pick one or the other. Either people should discuss before making bold controverted changes, or its ok to change anything you want whenever you want. WP:BB#Reverting suggests we should wait, and I have heard many people argue this on this very page, including Jayjg right above. Also, please check out WP:POVFORK. The existence of another article is not an excuse to gut any criticism on this page. Several policies make clear that criticism of a topic, if noteworthy, should be mentioned within that article itself, not divided into other articles. If you disagree, can I ask you to provide the policy to which you're referring? The idea that we should not discuss criticism of Zionism in the article on Zionism seems very strange. 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Just as I said, another attempt to turn this article into a clone of anti-Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed two points: 1. I did not add the material, which has in fact been here since 2003. [6]. 2. This criticism, anti-Zionism and post-Zionism section is somewhere less than 5% of the article. I'm sorry that the article is constantly under attack, but this material was not part of such an attack.

Also, please try harder to be Civil. We should be able to discuss content without insulting each other. I am making every effort to do this for you. Mackan79 04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To explain my last revert further, I'm not sure that another 6.5k of text in a 71k article is appropriate for what is essentially a summary. Also, Mackan's version raises concerns of POV and undue weight. GabrielF 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, all of the footnotes make it look very specific, but I'm not sure it is. Also, I'm not sure how you got 6.5K of text, but I imagine it includes the extensive footnotes I'm including to show it's not original research. The text of those could be removed. In any case, can you explain how focusing less than 10% of the article on Zionism on criticism and competing theories is undue weight in any case? Again, we're talking about material which has been here for over three years. I would think we should discuss this and reach concensus before simply removing it. I appreciate your explanation, but I believe continuing to remove the material is also inappropriate, per WP:BB#Reverting. Can I ask that we discuss this first, and make changes as appropriate? Mackan79 17:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the Zionism article. The Anti-Zionism and Post Zionism articles are eager for this material. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, can you explain how what you are advocating is not a WP:POVFORK? Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism are both subissues of Zionism, defined in their very names by Zionism. What is your policy basis for removing this material? Mackan79 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79, all this has been discussed here at length. Please use search, read this page & its archives. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked and I can't find it. Could you please point where? This material has been here for 3 years before Jayjg decided to remove it on February 1 without inviting comment or explaining in talk. If there were previous discussions, it would seem they must have resolved to keep the material, no? Mackan79 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't even understand your point. Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism are different topics than Zionism, alternatives to them (or possibly opposition to them), and really movements in their own right. Since the amount of material on all these topics is very great, and there is no way they could be kept in one article anyway, separate articles have been developed to discuss these differing topics. At a very simple level you could compare it to Marxism and Criticisms of Marxism. Alternatively, you could look at it as the difference between Capitalism and Socialism. The Anti-Zionism article has been around since Sept 2002, so it's hardly a new thing. And, regardless of whether you view them as different movements or sub-topics, the main articles are elsewhere, so the primary information should be there, and a brief summary here. This has all been discussed at great length many times in the past, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up yet again. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I didn't bring it up; you chose to remove material that has been here for more than three years. You also haven't been able to come up with a policy to support your removal of relevant, sourced, and under-weighted material. Now you're claiming not to understand WP:POVFORK, even though you cite the policy all the time?

In any case, I'll see if I can find some additional compromise. The main problem is the complete failure to even mention Muslim criticism. Is that not somewhat relevant? Also, please note that the article has a substantial section on "international support". This means the article has chosen to discuss not just the ideology, but responses as well, doesn't it? Mackan79 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I understand WP:POVFORK, but your argument seems unrelated to it. Indeed, you insist on creating a POVFORK, which is baffling. As for the rest of your argument, please review straw man. I don't have to repeat myself, I've explained very clearly why detail that isn't in the main article should not be placed in the summary. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried again, with basic explanation in the edit summary. I appreciate the thought that we shouldn't get into details about criticism here, but the existence of Arab/Muslim criticism seems pretty huge. As to the other parts, I removed some details, but think it's appropriate in a section on Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism to at least give post-Zionism its own paragraph. I hope we can work with this; I'd like to make a few more changes, but thought I'd put that up for comment. Mackan79 03:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. When you insert into this section material not found in the main article, the result is a POV-fork. Beit Or 19:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you may have misunderstood the policy. As it states,

Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

What this says is that if you want to remove material from this article to the anti-Zionism page, then you "must" summarize that material on this page. It does not say material on one page must be limited to what appears on another page. Could you clarify what you mean? Mackan79 20:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure which part you're talking about. Anti-Zionism discusses Muslim and Arab opposition in detail. Mackan79 21:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Content forking, this is a summary article. As there is an article on Anti-Zionism, a summary of that article needs to appear here. Any additional information should be added to the Anti-Zionism article and summarized here on the appropriate section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you please stop removing all reference to Arab and Muslim opposition? Even if you were correctly representing the policy, that material is discussed at length in Anti-Zionism. In any case, you're not correctly representing the policy, as I just laid out. Would you please quote the policy section you're referring to? Mackan79 21:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review straw man. Also, you keep pretending you are simply inserting "reference to Arab and Muslim opposition", when, in fact, you continually insert far more than that. If you were only inserting "reference to Arab and Muslim opposition", and the main article did indeed already have a copy of that information, then you might have a chance of getting somewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never pretended anything of the sort. In fact, from the beginning, I've made clear that I think you are actually doing a whole number of things here which are inappropriate, including the deletion of long-standing material without discussion or concensus immediately after chastizing someone else for exactly that. Nevertheless, one of your continuing actions has been to delete any and all mention of Arab and/or Muslim criticism. I wasn't sure if you were aware of this. If it wasn't your intent, I'm glad to know. Mackan79 05:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For 19 years, the W. Bank was occupied by Jordan, Gaza - by Egypt. I wonder if your theory can explain why were there no Palestinian intifadas to resist this "invasion of Palestinian land." Moreover, the Soviet post-1948 "anti-Zionism" was not any less furious than the Arab kind today (actually, the latter reused the Soviet terminology and imagery). Did Israel occupy a part of the USSR? Please stop promoting some kind of Dar al-Islam. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I really wasn't trying to promote anything. It simply seemed odd to say "Many in the Arab world oppose Zionism," when at least in the current age, that opposition stands far above all others and is nearly universal. Interestingly, if you saw the Karsh quote I provided below, it makes the same point from the very pro-Israeli perspective: arguing that Arab anti-Zionism is so much stronger clearly based on some underlying personal hostility (antisemitism). Meanwhile, the English pro-Palestinian literature actually seems to minimize and gloss the extent to which the Muslim man-on-the-street is anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. I found dozens of sources talking about Arab anti-Zionism before 1967, but most of the authors seem to avoid discussing it thereafter. Needless to say, finding the right way to discuss the issue is rather delicate. I'll try to find a way to avoid the language, based on your concern, but have simply found it difficult to do so effectively. Mackan79 14:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of {{fact}}

An editor as recently added a large number of {{fact}} (almost every sentence). That tag is not a "weapon" to assert a POV. An {{unsourced}} tag at the top of the article, and endeavoring to find sources (there are many, by the way...) is the preferred approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to assurt a POV. I added the tags, because many of the historical statements are unsourced. I just wanted to clarify which statements were unsourced.--Sefringle 23:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Arab/Muslim Opposition

I'm not sure why people are continually reverting any mention of Arab/Muslim opposition to Zionism. An argument is being made that material in this section must first appear on the Anti-Zionism or Post-Zionism page, per WP:POVFORK. There are simply two problems: 1.) WP:POVFORK doesn't say that, but also 2.) This material is discussed on Anti-Zionism at great length.

For reference, I had reduced the material on Muslim and Arab opposition to Zionism to four sentences:

The most vocal critics of Zionism tend to be the Palestinian and Arab peoples, many of whom view Israel as occupying the Arab land of Palestine.[32][33] Generally opposed to the initial creation of a Jewish State in Palestine or the Arab world, these critics sometimes assert that Zionism is a form of racism.[34][35] These and other critics view the changes in demographic balance which accompanied the creation of Israel, including the displacement of some 700,000 Arab refugees,[36] and the accompanying violence, as negative consequences of the Zionist movement.[37] For Palestinians, opposition to Zionism is often said to lie in their own competing claim for nationhood.[38][39]

This section is being reduced to two sentences:

Critics of Zionism, such as Joseph Massad of Columbia University have asserted that Zionism is a form of racism,[32] both in its support of Israel as a Jewish State, and in its continuing policies such as the Law of Return. These critics view the changes in demographic balance which accompanied the creation of Israel, including the displacement of some 700,000 Arab refugees,[33] and the accompanying violence, as negative but inevitable consequences of Zionism and the concept of a Jewish State.

Is there a reason we are not mentioning the opposition of Arabs and/or Muslims? Ironically, in the extended "International Support for Zionism" section above, we state that King Faisal I of Iraq supported Zionism. Mackan79 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep pretending you are simply inserting "reference to Arab and Muslim opposition", when, in fact, you continually insert far more than that? If you were only inserting "reference to Arab and Muslim opposition", and the main article did indeed already have a copy of that information, then you might have a chance of getting somewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I said you are reverting any reference to Arab and Muslim opposition because that's exactly what you and others are doing. First you deleted the material altogether on February 1, and now I have been blanket reverted several times in trying to replace it, without any sort of explanation, specific objection, or proposed alternative. (I happen to think this is inappropriate, but I digress). I guess now you're saying you would actually be open to additional material from the Anti-Zionism page. So that's my fault again for not reading your mind?

The problem, secondly, is that your request seems nonsensical. Are you saying the section should simply be a definition of Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism, completely divorced from the article? "Anti-Zionism is the opposition to Zionism, defined as [definition here]. Post-Zionism is [definition here]." This would strike me as very strange. I took what we had and reduced it to a 4-sentence summary of Muslim and Arab opposition to Zionism. It strikes me as a very fair and appropriate treatment. Could I ask, if you'd like to see something else, that you be a little more helpful in finding an alternative? Mackan79 03:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79's addition: "The most vocal critics of Zionism tend to be the Palestinian and Arab peoples" - Says who? The quotes you add do not support this assertion. "The most"? - how was this measured? Here, you say "I did not add the material, which has in fact been here since 2003.", but this edit that you give has nothing in common with yours, M79. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The material has changed since 2003, but has remained in general form. The material on Muslim opposition was added later, and I then changed it further in the attempt to come up with a suitable compromise. In any case, I'm not set on any phrasing. I had considered changing the first sentence, but I left it because it seemed good enough, and nobody had taken issue with it. So could I suggest instead, "The earliest opposition to Zionism came from the Palestinian and Arab peoples, who tended to view..."? I believe I could source that. Or "Much criticism of Zionism comes from the Palestinian and Arab peoples," which the current source would support. I could propose something else; I'm really just trying to state the obvious here, that the main opposition to Zionism comes from the Muslim world, which I think is pretty widely recognized. I also think its basis should be noted at least briefly. Mackan79 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79, it has been made quite clear to you that you should first add material to the main article, then try to summarize here. You have also continued to pretend that you were simply inserting "reference to Arab and Muslim opposition", when, in fact, you continually inserted far more than that. Furthermore, your insertions themselves were irredeemably POV bits of Original Research; for example, as pointed out by Humus Sapiens, you kept inserting the claim (apparently very important to you since you keep referring to it) that "The most vocal critics of Zionism tend to be the Palestinian and Arab peoples", when your sources did not claim anything of the sort. You also kept re-inserting other unsourced claims, such as "Among the notable minority threads within Zionism is one that holds Israelis to be a new nationality..." There's no "mind-reading" required here, just reading the comments of the people who are disputing your edits. When people say again and again "add new material to the main articles, not the summary", it shouldn't take some sort of genius to figure that they want you to add it to the main articles, not the summary. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, you've said a number of times this section must come only from the WP articles on those subjects, but you haven't provided any support for that demand. Moreover, as I've pointed out, you appear to be profoundly misinterpreting WP:POVFORK, which states that forked material must be summarized in the original article, not that material must be forked and then summarized or deleted. Am I wrong? Could you explain? Also, with all due respect, the "it has been made quite clear to you" and "then you might have a chance of getting somewhere" comments are starting to get out of hand. Could we cut back on that?

As to the material itself, as I said to Humus, it has primarily been there for 3 years. Like much of the article, it was not entirely sourced, so I've been sourcing it. Irredeemably POV? I provided a host of sources with text; if you wanted to conform the text differently, you could have done that. In any case, this is the first time you've raised NPOV, or particularly which parts you consider problematic. Was I supposed to know that? First I hear OR, then I hear that the material would be great for anti-Zionism but not here, now I hear that it's POV and so presumably not ok for anywhere. I'm supposed to decipher that? I don't want to spar with you; I simply want you to explain why you don't like my edits when you revert them, so I can at least try to come up with something more agreeable. Mackan79 05:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Put the detail in the main articles first, so we can understand it in context, then we can look at how to best summarize it. That's very clear, isn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that it's what you want to see happen. I hardly see how it's clear that it is what must happen. Unless, of course, you own this article. BYT 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on Feb 15, "WP:OWN is just a link you brandish whenever your specific agenda doesn't gain consensus". [7] Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is you've been telling me I have to do something without even attempting to argue why. This may be perfectly clear from your perspective, but it's not particularly clear from mine. Am I simply supposed to say "Yes sir, right away sir"? When you make demands without explaining them, this seems to be what you expect. Mackan79 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The reasons why have been explained multiple times, for days. You respond with the same straw man arguments. Every person who has come here to comment on the RFC has said the same thing as well. Why do you insist on adding new material here, rather than in the main article, and summarizing here? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, the problem is that you have been deleting material without justification, and then throwing a long list of arbitrary demands at me only to change them immediately upon completion. There are in fact many reasons why I think this is inappropriate, but ultimately, what you are suggesting is a completely nonsensical policy. There is no immediate synchronization requirement across WP, which would solely serve to prevent the incremental betterment of the encyclopedia as it is intended to be edited. You are citing a policy which in no way supports your request, and in fact states the exact opposite, that if material is remove to another article, it must be summarized in the article from which it came. This is why I object. If you want to synchronize the material, that's great, but it doesn't entitle you to delete anything in the article which you decide to subject to this standard. Mackan79 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually didn't find this clear. I assumed that if I put it in the other article and then summarized it here I would have been chastized for system gaming or something similar. I already wasted my time sourcing the section due to OR concerns only to be told, oh, no, it's actually something else. In any case, I'm fine with the current version if it achieves concensus. Mackan79 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When, several days ago, I said It's a summary section, so add the sources to the main articles instead. There certainly shouldn't be anything in a summary section that is not found in the main articles. and This is the Zionism article. The Anti-Zionism and Post Zionism articles are eager for this material., how could I possibly have been more clear? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, do you believe that your saying something means I have to do it? Simply for reference, I asked you for a policy here,here,here,here and here. Mackan79 04:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You've been pointed to WP:POVFORK and straw man already. We don't have to keep repeating these things. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I've told you each of those times that you're clearly misinterpreting the policy, which prohibits the removal of critical material from an article without summarizing it, not requires the removal of critical information unless it's a summary. Have you responded? I said this here,here,here,here and here. I believe your argument is that the material in this article and other articles on those topics have to be identical. That would be great, except it's simply not what the policy says. Is this your argument? You complain about straw men a lot, but it's somewhat ironic if you never say what your argument actually is.Mackan79 16:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have material in a summary section, but not in the main article, then obviously a POVFORK has been created. Common sense also applies. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What WP:POVFORK states is that if material is forked away, it must be summarized. It does not state that what remains must exclusively come directly from the larger article. This would serve absolutely no purpose, and would be entirely counterproductive to the incremental betterment of WP, as well as the possibility that a section within an article might want to stress different material than is stressed in the generalized article on that subject.Mackan79 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the obsession to talk about disputes and antisemitism, eh sorry, anti zionism (same thing) in this article all the time. Clearly this article is only about Zionism. Unless you're well informed with Zionism, this article is probably not for you (speaking generally). This article should not be a source for disputes. Amoruso 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand you to say that an an article that's "only" about, say, Charlie Parker, should say only laudatory things about him? His heroin use, for instance, would be banned from any mention there, on the theory that it belonged in the anti-Parker article? And presumably an article "only" about the space program would have to omit reference to the Challenger and Columbia explosions, because these belong in the anti-space program article? You really are segmenting out large tracts of objective reality here. BYT 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See straw man. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re Humus' concern, I changed the phrase to "some of the most," which is supported by that source and many others. One other: Karsh, Efraim (2003). Rethinking the Middle East. Routledge, pg. 98. "Indeed, the fact that Arab anti-Zionism has invariably reflected a hatred well beyond the 'normal' level of hostility to be expected of a prolonged and bitter conflict would seem to suggest that, rather than being a response to Zionist activitiy, it is rather a manifestation of long-standing prejudice that has been brought out into the open by the viscisitudes of the Arab-Isarael conflict." Disregarding his conclusion, he seems to make the background point pretty clearly. If another phrasing is preferred, however, I remain open. Mackan79 06:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Some of the most..." is a good example of WP:WEASEL. Of course, the conflict is much deeper - and justifiably we have other articles dedicated to this. These quotes and discussion belong to anti-Zionism, not here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're now saying that this article shouldn't acknowledge Arab/Muslim opposition at all? Mackan79 14:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, please see WP:Weasel#Exceptions. There is an exception for when "the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion," as it is here. Mackan79 14:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism. Don't see the material there yet. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See Anti-Zionism#Types_of_anti-Zionism

two references needed

In the section Zionism#Opposition_or_ambivalence, I added two {{fact}} templates. Can someone please get references. I'll give ya'll at least two weeks.--Urthogie 02:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Added these. BYT 12:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Citing only what proponents consider Zionism to be -- "diaspora nationalism" -- seems to violate WP:NPOV. BYT 12:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not undue weight to quote what those who believe in an ideology call their ideology on that ideology's page.--Urthogie 13:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I would think it would not be undue weight to quote what those who don't believe in that ideology have to say about the matter. If for some reason you feel their opinions belong only at Anti-Zionism, I strongly disagree. Simplest way may be simply to omit the ref. But if we insist on quoting one side in the opening graph, we need to quote the other. BYT 13:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitions by those who believe/support the ideology receive more weight than those who criticize. This is not undue. We define democracy as "rule by the people" because democrats advocate this point of view, even if they don't practice it. We don't start in the lead with an ideological or instrumental criticism of democracy. Your understanding of NPOV is very limited. NPOV doesn't mean quoting both sides everywhere. In the lead, for example, the main point is to define the subject, and only briefly touch on criticism.--Urthogie 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but I don't see what's "limited" about trying to implement this:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that are attributable to reliable published source(s).

Zionism is a controversial contemporary political ideology, and simply quoting the proponents' POV in the opener seems surrealistically unbalanced to me. In the opening graph, we've cited one side and have omitted all others. I'm at a loss to understand why the "diaspora nationalism" ref is even in the opening, because it appears to me to be opening up precisely this can of worms. It's compelling a collision course with the guideline above. I'd like to hear what other editors have to say about this. BYT 13:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that "diaspora nationalism" is not from a POV source. It's from a book on "nations and nationalism."[12] There is therefore no NPOV issue, you're making this up. Even if this was a Zionist source (which it isn't), I'd still disagree with your interpreation of NPOV, by the way. But that's beside the point. This source is a book on nationalism in general, not a Zionist book.--Urthogie 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie: what you originally wrote, and then (unhelpfully, in my view) removed so that it would not show up on the talk page, was;

It is a diaspora nationalism, though. People have opposed it, called it colonialism, imperialism, etc. But noone has said its not a diaspora nationalism. I'd like to see such a source.--Urthogie 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to either or both of your comments above, may I comment? We've moved rather uneasily into epistemology now: what Zionism "actually" is. My postmodernism decoder is down right now; let's not go there. Question is, is it balanced, in the opening graph, to cite only what proponents consider Zionism to "be". Let's have a discussion about that. BYT 14:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with your postmodernism decoder and everything to do with a book on nationalism. Not a book on the zionist cause, but on nationalism.--Urthogie 14:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again -- can we have a (civil) discussion about the balance of views presented in the opening graph?

It may be helpful for me to share a close analysis of section in question:

Described as a "diaspora nationalism,[3] <passive voice does not say who's doing the "describing">

... its <Zionism's> proponents ... <apparent referent "proponents" provides a clue, of dubious grammatical quality, to reader that the answer to the question "who's doing the describing" here is or could be this collective noun "its proponents" -- in any event, "its" must refer either to that collective noun or to "Zionism," in which case WP is guilty of failing to say, in the text of the article, precisely who describes Zionism as a "diaspora nationalism" -- or, for that matter, who describes it as something else.>

... regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people.[4] <we are now definitely making a political statement from the point of view, and using the language of, "its proponents", and excluding the language of "its opponents," a courtesy we do not extend to, say, Irish nationalism, Note that Irish nationalism does not pretend to know what I.N. actually "is," or offer a single quote from a single volume to convey how it is "described," but the article rather points out that it is "contrasted" with the position of the Unionists, a concession to reality that appears to me worth modeling here.> BYT 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yusuf, let's make this simple. Do you honestly know of someone who thinks "diaspora nationalism" is not a proper description of Zionism? There are critics of zionism, calling it imperialism or colonialism, but none of them deny that it is a nationalist movement for the (re-)creation of a jewish homeland in israel. I'd like you to find one.--Urthogie 15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "let's make this simple" -- I don't think your tone is helpful. WP:CIVIL.

Most orthodox Jews circa 1900 certainly did not consider Zionism a diaspora nationalism, as they felt Jewish nationalism itself depended on the return of the Messiah.

My point is that this is one of dozens of possible ways to describe Zionism, and there is no good reason to choose terminology (like "diaspora") to describe (or, let's face it, define) Zionism that "its opponents" would never choose in a million years. We could also describe it, with a citation, as "an initiative bitterly opposed by U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall." Or as any number of other provocative things. That wouldn't make for a balanced opening graph, though.

I notice you don't have much to say about the parallels I just drew with the Irish Nationalism article, and consider that omission, along with your disregard of WP:CIVIL, to be a less than encouraging sign for our dialogue. Could you please comment on what I actually wrote? BYT 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Jews don't deny that Zionism is a diaspora nationalism. They deny that it follows Jewish law. Please find one source, then?--Urthogie 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Here. [13].

The problematic nature of this dilemma became apparent in the early stages of the Zionist project, with the coining of the term "Hebrew," used to distinguish between the Jews in the Diaspora and those in the Land of Israel, and to underscore the ancient historical link with the region...Over time, and paradoxically enough, the Canaanite stand, with its source in anti-Diaspora right-wing Zionism, ultimately joined forces with the anti-Zionist left, which is more concerned with the Palestinian problem, within and outside Israel. -- Jewish Identities: Fifty Intellectuals Answer Ben Gurion, Eliezer Ben Rafael, Brill Academic Publishers.

There's actually quite a lot to choose from in this particular part of the ocean. But I cite this quote against my better judgment, because (if I may) you are changing the subject (check the opening of this discussion). Specifically, you are ignoring my larger point, now repeatedly put to you, that "diaspora nationalism" is one of many possible, citable, ways to describe Zionism, and that there is no valid reason to pick it over something that a contemporary opponent of Zionism might come up with, other than the fact that it's presently popular in Israel. I repeat my suggestion that we work together to apply WP:NPOV to this article's opening graph. BYT 17:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This source doesn't fit the bill. Just because right wing zionism is anti-diaspora doesn't mean Zionism is not "diaspora nationalism". Rather, what it refers to (if my reading is correct) is the opposition of right-wing zionists to Jews being in the diaspora, and espousing their views there. It's about as "diaspora nationalistic" as you can get. I think it's obvious to recognize once you see the entire book quote in context. The next sentance is:

Boaz Evron (1988; 1995), for instance, a Canaanite of the first order, claims that at its inception, Zionism was an ideology of power that sprang from the position of weakness of Diaspora Jewry.

This is the "for instance" they supply-- "diaspora nationalism". What this is talking about is similar to the quote from Jabotinsky:

Eliminate the Diaspora, or the Diaspora will surely eliminate you. (From "Tisha B'av 1937"))

It's "anti-diaspora", because it wants the diaspora in Israel. Diaspora nationalism. Makes sense, no?--Urthogie 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Let's take this from a different angle. Is it your opinion that the reader should not be told, in the text of the article itself, precisely who "describes" Zionism as a "diaspora nationalism"? A yes or no will do. Thanks. BYT 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to say who, because no reliable source disagrees with this, and it's not even a controversial point. Jews (from the diaspora) started a nationalist movement called Zionism. This is not the controversial element, it's merely definitional, and even the most radical right-winger or left-winger acknowledges this as Zionism. Encyclopedias are meant to show what knowledge is known of something in the world. Currently, the world-- at least reliable sources-- acknowledge Zionism as a nationalism from the diaspora. NPOV is not even related to this fact.--Urthogie 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So your position is yes, we should avoid mentioning who holds this view in the opening graph.

With respect, that's irresponsible, because Adam Heribert, in Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians, (RoutledgeCavendish) [14] holds that "extreme" Zionism is ethnic nationalism, another of the four types identified by Gellner.

Arnold Toynbee (to bring out the big guy) also holds that Zionism is ethnic nationalism. "... it is not ethnic nationalism per se that is bad, but Jewish ethnic nationalism, which should be given up and exchanged for another one." Arnold Toynbee on Judaism and Zionism: A Critique, Oskar K. Rabinowicz - 1974 (W.H. Allen).

There are dozens more like this, I believe. I repeat my suggestion that we work together to apply WP:NPOV to this article's opening graph. BYT 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This still doesn't contradict "diaspora nationalism". You can have an ethnicity (Jews) in a diaspora (Jewish diaspora). The term "ethnic nationalism" would actually not be very controversial, the reason we don't say it is because it's not descriptive enough-- it's obvious. jews are an ethnicity. This is their nationalism. Ethnic nationalism, sure. However, we don't say that because it doesn't explain what's so distinct about Zionism, which is the whole point of this article. We're not trying to make obvious points such as Jews are an ethnicity, but rather that Zionism is unique for these reasons, here's some info about it. This is really more of a style issue than an NPOV issue. --Urthogie 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And this brings us (back) to my point. Why are we using your formulation, rather than Toynbee's? Because you say it's unique to Zionism? BYT 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I want to point out NPOV no longer has anything to do with this. The view that it's ethnic nationalism is not an "opposing view" to the view that it's diaspora nationalism. Given that both are true, there's no NPOV issue. This is merely a style issue. Once you're ready to deal with it as such this conversation can progress.--Urthogie 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. We can put the change under whatever category you want. I suggest we rewrite the sentence in question so that it reads:

Zionism's aim was and is the self-determination of the Jewish people; it has today become a form of ethnic nationalism. BYT 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

...It always was ethnic nationalism, if we define Jews as an ethnicity. This largely depends on whether you view Judaism as an ethnicity... kind of a slippery slope. See Who is a Jew? for various views. I don't support this change. If Jews are an ethnicity then its obvious, if they aren't then its POV. But noone disagrees that there is a jewish diaspora, so the current version is definitely more solid.--Urthogie 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, we have a problem here, and my sense is you're not being very serious about working collaboratively to resolve it. a) If "ethnic nationalism" is (as you plainly state above) essentially as "true" as "diaspora nationalism," and if I've got reputable sources identifying Zionism as "ethnic nationalism," why then should we prefer "diaspora nationalism" over "ethnic nationalism" (or over a choice not to mention either category)? Other than your personal preference, I mean?

Bear in mind that there is a strain of academic opinion that holds "diaspora nationalism" to be identical to "ethnic nationalism." [15] Note too that I'm quoting you in the following three-word phrase: "Ethnic nationalism, sure." For you then to turn around and start questioning whether Jewish ethnicity exists in the first place seems disingenuous.

Are you willing to edit this article collaboratively, or aren't you? If so, what do you suggest the sentence should look like? BYT 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually am discussing this constructively, just not to your liking in my opinions. This is how conensus is built. First you have to acknowledge my point: "ethnic nationalism" implies Judaism is an ethnicity, something on which reasonable minds can disagree. Noone reliable disagrees that this is diaspora nationalism.--Urthogie 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of me not liking your opinion as me pointing out that your opinions occasionally contradict each other. Either Jewish ethnicity is "obvious" (your word) or it is "something on which reasonable minds can disagree" (your words). Let's call it an evolution in the discussion.

Given that the opening of this and every article is supposed to be "written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article" and given that it is "even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible" WP:LEAD, do you think the sentence under dispute is as clear as it should be?

I've given you my draft; it doesn't work for you. Fair enough. What would you offer in turn, given that this is a constructive conversation we're having? BYT 23:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to specify the source of the quote if it doesn't take up too much of the sentence.--Urthogie 23:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that does nothing to address the concerns I've raised here.

Suppose we simply move any discussion of diaspora nationalism to a later point in the article? It is, after all, an undefined term of greater complexity than the casual reader can realistically be expected to grasp without some explanation. (Does it refer to a variety of different nationalist movements, that of the Kurds of the present day, say, or specifically to the historical Zionist one? The answer appears to depend on whether you are looking at a book specifically about Zionism.)

As it stands, the sentence strongly implies that the proponents of Zionism are the most notable groups or individuals to endorse this description, which is either misleading or (if true) a big POV issue.

As it stands, we have no reference to the fact that some people view generic "diaspora nationalism" as indistinguishable from ethnic nationalism, and challenge the label itself.

As it stands, we have no acknowledgment that there were Zionists who wanted to cut off all ties to European Jewry and call themselves "Canaanites". It's just too complex an issue to handle in the opening graph. BYT 00:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've offered a compromise which even I dislike and you've rejected it. I guess that's what you call constructive. How is it constructive that you say this is a complex POV issue when noone disagrees with the phrase "diaspora nationalism"..except apparently you? I don't see how this is constructive.--Urthogie 00:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You don't even offer a draft of the passage under dispute, and you call that trying to work collaboratively? "Compromise" means you get precisely the terminology you want, only in more detail. Give me a break. This article really is a perfect metaphor for the mess in the Mideast. You get to say what Zionism "is," from your chosen sources, and in your words. Do you actually want an improvement in the process here? I think not. Fine. Back to battling edits. BYT 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky's notability

Institute of Historical Review of Chomsky's The Fateful Triangle"

New York Review of books on "The Fateful Triangle"

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs on "The Fateful Triangle"

"The Fateful Triangle" referenced in Publishers Weekly

Chomsky interview on Zionism -- ZNET

Tikkun interview with Chomsky on Israel, Zionism, 9/11, other political issues -- this piece cites poll naming him as "the most important public intellectual in the world today."

Thought and Action interview with Chomsky on Middle East and political issues

Chomsky interviewed at Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley

-- BYT 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You've introduced a POV issue where there wasn't one. The lead isn't a place for individual POV's., it's a place for summarizing the article. There is no section on Chomsky in this article, and yet you have added him to the first paragraph of the lead. "Diaspora nationalism" is not a POV, as even anti-Zionists recognize it as a definition. Chomsky's quote however, is a POV, although its admittedly a notable one. However, being notable does not qualify one for the lead. I suggest you add him to the anti-Zionism section of the article. Putting him in the lead is in violation of the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Lead, which suggests we should deal with criticism in general, not a specific criticism. Notice that there is no quote in support of Zionism. "Diaspora nationalism" is not from a pro-Zionist book, it's from a book defining and discussing nationalism.

I'd like to remind you that you came here claiming there was POV issue. When we looked at the source, we found that there wasn't. Keep this in mind, that you came in here somehwat like a bull in a china shop. And keep in mind that consensus (being constructive) is not only based on democracy, but on basing one's arguments on guidelines and logic. So far you've falsely raised Wikipedia:NPOV, and are now violating [[Wikipedia:Lead]. Thanks, --Urthogie 11:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: " Putting him in the lead is in violation of the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Lead, which suggests we should deal with criticism in general, not a specific criticism." --- do I understand you to say that the opening paragraph should "deal with criticism in general"? BYT 11:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please add a sentence on anti-zionism. We'll try to gain consensus on a good one. Quoting chomsky though, I think we can agree, is not a good replacement for summarizing anti-zionism.--Urthogie 11:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the sentence would be more likely to work if we crafted one together. How do you think it should read? (In other words, what is the sequence of words you recommend placing in the opening paragraph?) Let's WP:TALK it over. 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How about:

opposition to Zionism has come from a variety of areas, ranging from religious to nationalist to political dissent of the ideology as either immoral or impractical.

How would you modify that?--Urthogie 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have it read:

Opposition to Zionism has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections <haredi ref here> to competing claims of nationalism <Palestinian critic ref here> to political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical <Chomsky Reader ref here>

Chomsky seems to me to deserve a fuller examination in the anti-Zionism section.

What think? BYT 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, and I want to point out your point about adding criticism to the lead was a good point, but you approached it in the wrong way by focusing on the "diaspora nationalism" quote which is completely NPOV and actually regarded universally as true.--Urthogie 13:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for forwarding a draft for us to discuss. You will not revert this if I put it in, correct? BYT 14:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, assuming you add the version discussed here.--Urthogie 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We did it. Many thanks, and look forward to working with you to improve the article. I've removed the POV tag. BYT 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think the reference is even necessary, as it's not a disputable sentence. Mind if I remove it, per Wikipedia:References?--Urthogie 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I do mind. The principle is to cite references. WP:CITE holds that we should cite "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" and points out that "any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." Clearly this is a controversial topic, so citing major points in the opening graph, as we agreed above, is appropriate. BYT 15:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Noone's going to challenge this sentence. This is a controversial subject but it's not controversial that there are a variey of opinions such as anti-Zionism Zionism etc. If someone removes the sentence without discussion, I'll revert them. This is mainly a style issue.--Urthogie 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

All the same, I believe the reference should stay, as you and I agreed above. If someone takes it out I will put it back in, per WP:CITE. 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE has nothing about being allowed to restore unnecessary references. The question here is if its necessary. It's clearly not.--Urthogie 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It also says nothing about making peremptory decisions about what is or is not necessary. Nor does it give you, or anyone else, any special authority to identify what is "clearly" necessary, and exclude other cites. This is your own viewpoint, this "necessary" business -- our guideline puts an exclamation point after the words "Cite it" and says nothing whatsoever -- not one syllable -- about removing citations. You should stick by your agreements. BYT 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly unnecessary. Pointing out that this is my opinion adds nothing to the discussion. Why do you think its necessary? Do you know of a single reliable source which goes against the sentence? (By the way, I am sticking to the agreement... notice how I haven't removed the citation, but discussed it first.)--Urthogie 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why am I pointing out that it's your opinion? Because you're treating it as a fact. What's "clearly unnecessary" to you is irrelevant. Your sticking the words "clearly" or "obviously" in front of your opinion doesn't turn it into objective reality. The objective reality here is twofold: 1) we agreed to it, and 2) there is not a whisper of authority in WP:CITE that authorizes, or even suggests, the removal of the cite. Peace, BYT 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the question is if its unecessary. If it's unecessesary, it wouldn't be in line with Wikipedia:Cite. So why do you think someone would remove this sentence?--Urthogie 18:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Well the question is if its unnecessary." I'm not at all sure that is the question. Who made that the question? I think a better question would be "Is this or is this not what we just agreed on?" Followed closely by "What should we work on next?"BYT 19:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/i/o/Talk%7EZionism_e758.html"