Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::I have always been keen to see this proof, because it represents the fundamental component of the logic behind Zionism's focus on the biblical Land of Israel. Dovid, please could you provide a selection of these sources? We should add them to the article.
::I have always been keen to see this proof, because it represents the fundamental component of the logic behind Zionism's focus on the biblical Land of Israel. Dovid, please could you provide a selection of these sources? We should add them to the article.
::] (]) 07:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
::] (]) 07:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Apologies, but it is totally clear to me that the content presented in this source does not meet the required standards for our article's lede. I agree with Dovidroth. In this instance, we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because they stink... This source appears tendentious in its attempt to distort the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel and contains factual errors. As Dovid mentioned, Jewish descent from the Israelites is widely supported by an extensive body of historical, genetic, and cultural evidence. In addition, the phrase "Land of Israel" appears in writings throughout Jewish history other than the Hebrew Bible, including the Talmud, Mishna, and numerous others. Perhaps worst of all, the source asserts that Modern Jews see themselves as "the only possible citizens of the Land of Palestine"... what?! Does anyone honestly think that's what the majority of Jews think? This statement crosses the line into antisemitism.<br/> Bottom line: it is imperative that we refrain from using this source in any capacity for our article, particularly in the lede. We should prioritize using reputable sources that accurately reflect the majority view in both academic and historical perspectives. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages will turn into another platform for the propagation of antisemitic ideas. Recent contributions here are undoubtedly moving in that direction. Please start approaching your sources with skepticism. ] (]) 07:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Revision as of 07:30, 6 July 2023
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zionism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
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.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The "Establishment of the Zionist movement" section is clunky and needs proofreading. Two specifics: In the paragraph beginning "The Reformed Jews," please change "The Reformed Jews" to "Reform Judaism," change "reformed Judaism" later in the paragraph to "Reform Judaism," and provide a Misplaced Pages link to the denomination it references - https://en.wikipedia.org/Reform_Judaism
Thank you. Plakern99 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Already done It appears the text already more or less says what you want ("Reformed Jews opposed..." with a link to the denomination, and "the Messianic idea of Reform Judaism" appears later, but doesn't need linking a second time because it's already linked). Lizthegrey (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, it looks like the changes were essentially made since I made the request above, as I don't see "Reformed Jews" anymore and I believe the link is newly added, thank you Plakern99 (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hi,
The final sentence in the "Overview" section ("Opposition to Zionism (being against a Jewish state), according to historian Geoffrey Alderman, can be legitimately described as racist.") should be deleted along with the 39-40 citations. I do not know Misplaced Pages standards, and since this suggestion is obviously in the interest of the readers, the topic, and future discussion, a decision almost all can agree upon (except perhaps for Geoffrey and some of his cousins), I hope someone with the appropriate privileges proceeds. The statement is borne of no real context; it seems like Geoffrey searched for an idea articulated somewhere in a previous paragraph, found it, could not determine how to integrate his assertion in an appropriate manner, and just stuck it at the end of the section. It is self- and ideology-motivated. It is not an historical fact, as all other sentences are. If it serves a value, it should be discussed wherever it adds value -- and at appropriate depth. As it is, this sentence just ... hangs. It distracts the reader. It does not innovate upon ideas from previous sentences (even paragraphs). It is laughably subjective; It seems like some guy wants to get his name out there ... And this is an awkward and weird way to get a (questionable) reputation. In summary, it is weird, self-interested, does no good, and does harm.
Really, please consider deleting it. Thanks in advance for tolerating the disorderliness of my suggestion. (It seems like this edit should not require significantly more eloquent articulation of very careful rationale.) Cheers. Yourlocalsuperhero (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Done It is bad editing to provide just one opinion on a serious issue. Moreover, the fact that the opinion comes from someone who supports killing of civilians (see his article) makes it even more inappropriate. Zero03:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
As heinous as I find Alderman's views -- that according to Jewish religious law, Palestinian civilians are legitimate targets to be killed simply for having voted for Hamas -- I'm also very uncomfortable with this being used as a rationale for removing his comment from the article. The man appears to me to be a legitimate historian. Is the controversy of those remarks sufficient to undermine his credence as a historian to the extent that "anti-Zionism is racism" is removed from the article?I would suggest restoring the material, restoring the WP:STATUSQUO, and opening an RfC on whether it should be included or not. At this point, we have only one complaint and an editor acting on that complaint without any additional discussion from within the community. Let's hear from others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
If personal opinions are to be inserted at that point in the article, we are required to include a balanced selection of opinions. We don't need an RfC to decide whether to obey NPOV. I think it would be better to not go down that road but rather just report the facts. Zero07:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
It's flawed technically, as it would be were we to note the passing of the Mabo Judgment that recognized aboriginal land rights. and then immediately add '(but) the historian Geoffrey Blainey contested the Supreme Court's decision. A legal judgment or institutional decision forms part of an historical narrative, opinions about it are properly placed, if important and relevant, elsewhere. Events are one thing, opinions about them another, unless the secondary comment itself, when stated, had an influential impact on the original decision's implementation etc. In rhetorical terms, the addition deleted aimed, in my view ineptly. to balance by drawing on one notable historian's view expressed decades later, as if his personal opinion undermined the credibility of the UN resolution. Do that, as has been noted, and you only invite a counter-move to document that the historian Arnold Toynbee expressed this view a decade before the UN, and Zygmunt Bauman in 1979 likewise considered Israel's behaviour in the occupied territories racist, a possible prelude to a future Shoah redivivus, (imagine then a clutter of eminent comments messing up the historical narrative at this juncture as editors warred to find endorsements or disclaimers for the declaration). The proper position for Alderman's comment, if among the tsunami of notable people and scholars who have an opinion about this, would be on the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"In China, top figures of the Nationalist government, including Sun Yat-sen, expressed their sympathy with the aspirations of the Jewish people for a National Home."
This sentence is misleading, the Republic of China (Taiwan) is not recognised or referred to internationally as China.
No change needed. at the time Taiwan was owned by Japan. Sun Yat Sen was a leader of what is now China. Rjensen (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hi,
I'd like to request that the 11 instances of the use of the term "anti-Semitism" be edited to reflect the correct, unhyphenated spelling, "antisemitism." Hyphenation of this term lends itself to confusion about its meaning, and is considered incorrect by the IHRA and other institutions: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/antisemitism/spelling-antisemitism
Not done for now: When quoting from original sources verbatim, those sources must be respected; while we can switch to "antisemitism" when paraphrasing, if a source says "anti-Semitism", then we have to follow what it says exactly when quoting. Can you identify the specific paragraphs that are not quotes that need to be changed over? lizthegrey (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for that insight. The specific, non-quote locations are:
- 2 locations in the "Overview" section, in the 2nd and 4th paragraphs
- Once at the end of the "Haredi Judaism and Zionism" section
Additionally, at the very end of the "Anti-Zionism or antisemitism" section, it seems that there is a missing quotation mark that would close the quote from Norman Finkelstein? Thanks again! JustLilEdits (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Done: At the end of "Haredi Judaism and Zionism", it doesn't exactly have "anti-Semitism", but it does have "anti-Semite". I'm assuming that's what you are referring to, so I've changed it to "antisemite". Is this correct?
@Dovidroth: thanks for your edit comment. I didn’t understand how it connected to your revert. Please could you explain what – if any – of the words you didn’t agree with? Your edit comment suggested you agreed with the text you removed from what I could tell. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I have just reread Dovidroth's edit comment and note that he stated the "overwhelming majority of reputable sources" provide proof of what had been stated as just a belief in the removed source: "that modern Jews are the primary descendants of biblical Jews and Israelites."
I have always been keen to see this proof, because it represents the fundamental component of the logic behind Zionism's focus on the biblical Land of Israel. Dovid, please could you provide a selection of these sources? We should add them to the article.
Apologies, but it is totally clear to me that the content presented in this source does not meet the required standards for our article's lede. I agree with Dovidroth. In this instance, we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because they stink... This source appears tendentious in its attempt to distort the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel and contains factual errors. As Dovid mentioned, Jewish descent from the Israelites is widely supported by an extensive body of historical, genetic, and cultural evidence. In addition, the phrase "Land of Israel" appears in writings throughout Jewish history other than the Hebrew Bible, including the Talmud, Mishna, and numerous others. Perhaps worst of all, the source asserts that Modern Jews see themselves as "the only possible citizens of the Land of Palestine"... what?! Does anyone honestly think that's what the majority of Jews think? This statement crosses the line into antisemitism. Bottom line: it is imperative that we refrain from using this source in any capacity for our article, particularly in the lede. We should prioritize using reputable sources that accurately reflect the majority view in both academic and historical perspectives. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages will turn into another platform for the propagation of antisemitic ideas. Recent contributions here are undoubtedly moving in that direction. Please start approaching your sources with skepticism. Tombah (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Already done It appears the text already more or less says what you want ("Reformed Jews opposed..." with a link to the denomination, and "the Messianic idea of Reform Judaism" appears later, but doesn't need linking a second time because it's already linked). Lizthegrey (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Done It is bad editing to provide just one opinion on a serious issue. Moreover, the fact that the opinion comes from someone who supports killing of civilians (see his article) makes it even more inappropriate. Zero 03:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: When quoting from original sources verbatim, those sources must be respected; while we can switch to "antisemitism" when paraphrasing, if a source says "anti-Semitism", then we have to follow what it says exactly when quoting. Can you identify the specific paragraphs that are not quotes that need to be changed over? lizthegrey (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)