Talk:Zionism

WP:SYNTH in lead

I also removed several conclusions that are WP:SYNTH and failed verification which you appear to have reverted [1] [2] [3] These claims and conclusions do not appear in the sources. Can you show me how the sources support those? Andre🚐 13:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I can reword that to say Zionists called their efforts colonization if the wording is a problem for you, but I don’t see synth there. nableezy - 14:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There were 3 removals that you reverted. SYNTH is making a conclusion unless explicitly stated in source. The first, Modern political Zionism, different from religious Zionism, is a movement made up of diverse political groups whose strategies and tactics have changed over time. The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions is support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine, through colonization., was not in the Alroey source at all. The 2nd, Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos, having adopted similar strategies to achieve their political goals, in particular in the use of violence and compulsory transfer to deal with the presence of the local Palestinian, non-Jewish population. has several citations, none of which contain that text. And finally, Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist., which does not appear in the sources cited, which say "colonization" and do not say anything about settler-colonial or exceptionalist, which is not at all the same thing. Andre🚐 19:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Since this is not really about Line 1, how about take it to its own section? Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

That's true. Can do. Andre🚐 21:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The first two are supported by the body. I'm pretty confident the citations for the second one do in fact support that claim (although the page number for ben-ami 2007 might be wrong). If you really want, I can pull out quotes or sections. It shouldnt be necessary since this content is covered in the body of the article. DMH223344 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Quotes or sections would be helpful. Remember, a conclusion is different from a summary. Can you explain what quotes from which sources and what parts of the body support these synthetic conclusions? Andre🚐 22:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

See "Claim to a Jewish demographic majority and a Jewish state in Palestine" for the first claim. See the section "Labor Zionism" for the second, also see the introduction to Shlaim's book. DMH223344 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

In all cases those are conclusions not made by any source, but we are being asked to make, an improperly synthetic conclusion. 1. That does not contain a source explicitly making the conclusion made here, that all types of Zionism support "territorial concentration" "through colonization." 2. That section does not contain a source explicitly claiming that differences lie in presentation and ethos but all support "violence" and compulsory transfer." 3. ?. in each case, unless a specific source, or really several sources, use something with a commonly-understood meaning that is analogous to those sentences, you're drawing conclusions. Andre🚐 23:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read more carefully, it's not a problem to take more than 4 minutes to read and then write a response.

The claim is about "mainstream Zionist groups". As for the use of the term "colonization," we can discuss that. It's not controversial that the methods used by Zionism included "colonization." DMH223344 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean? You have a burden of proof to show the quotes that make these conclusions. You appear to be doing WP:SYNTH, namely you're reading all the descriptions of the types of Zionism an saying "yeah they don't differ." Nowhere is it written that they all share the same tenets vis. relocation or violence. I didn't object to "colonization." But the sentence in the article says "settler-colonialism" which is not the 1:1 map to colonization. Andre🚐 23:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You are confusing claims about "all types of Zionism" and "mainstream Zionist groups". DMH223344 (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Either way, there's a rebuttable demand for specific, explicit usage of these conceptual strokes, otherwise it's textbook SYNTH. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Text–source_integrity. Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein Andre🚐 23:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I get Andre's point in a couple of these cases, because it isn't always possible to point to a straightforward correspondence between the claims we make and any single source text. However, it's important to remember that this is a lead, which would ordinarily summarise the body, which should carefully spell out its claims with sources. (Leads are rarely as thoroughly sourced as this one.) The work of summarising necessarily means that text won't simply reproduce source texts. I think most of these passages do a good job of summarising large quantities of source material, via the sections in the body.

However, I agree to some extent with Andre on the current final sentence of the lead: Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist. To me this is very clunky and murky, trying to concisely summarise too many heterogeneous points. Personally, I'd just delete that sentence in the lead, and make sure the points are addressed in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Some Zionists past tense did indeed label their actions "colonialism". I'm not sure how that is relevant when the context is "modern Zionism" and present tense "mainstream factions":

" Modern political Zionism, different from religious Zionism, is a movement made up of diverse political groups whose strategies and tactics have changed over time. The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions is support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine, through colonization. "

So unless there are solid sources which say that the common ideology among mainstream Zionists today is "colonialism", then this claim does seem to be rather blatant SYNTH.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the term "modern" confuses more than helps here. To be clear, its meaning here is not the same as "contemporary" DMH223344 (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this text is fine. To me, it's clear "modern" in this context means the period in which there has been a movement named Zionism, but I know lots of people take "modern" to mean "nowdays" so it wouldn't hurt to find a way to be slightly clearer. Otherwise, I think there is enough in the body to support "colonization". BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't object to "colonization," but "settler-colonialism" and "exceptionalism" not necessarily being rejected by proponents of Zionism? Colonization is not the same thing as settler-colonialism, and that's very much contested characterization, one that is agreed by left-wing critics of Zionism, but not by proponents at all - nor does a source say this conclusion that I have found. That's weaselly worded, doesn't appear in any source per se, nor does "Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos, having adopted similar strategies to achieve their political goals, in particular in the use of violence. Most Labor Zionist kibbutzniks, which while not what it once was, was once a very mainstream branch of Zionism historically, would probably disagree with the strategies or the use of violence used by Political/Revisionist, i.e. more right-wing Zionism. But more importantly, which source actually makes that conclusion? Andre🚐 20:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to crosspost this thread to WP:NORN, since judging by current participation, there isn't a consensus whether this is SYNTH, and maybe an RFC would be good too after that, if that doesn't help. Andre🚐 23:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

and, crickets... Andre🚐 22:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Just waiting for the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The emphasis on the colonialist perspective in the first sentence is editorializing and may not present a neutral point of view. The early Zionists used colonialist terminology within the context of their time, and they often referred to the establishment of agricultural communities and the return to their ancestral homeland as a response to anti-Semitism in Europe. The modern connotations of this term do not accurately reflect their intentions and motivations. Heptor (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Modern sources use the term, and the term in the first sentence is "colonization" not "colonialist". Levivich (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"In Israel, where the prospect of driving settlers 'into the sea' appears very real, the language of settler colonialism falsifies history in order to dehumanize Israeli Jews and celebrate their deaths. The Hamas attacks of October 7 were a document of barbarism, if anything ever was; yet to the ideology of settler colonialism they were praiseworthy, because they were seen as an attempt to rectify historical injustice". Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

"(R) Non-diplomatic Transfer: when the settler entity retains paramount control but ostensibly relinquishes responsibility for a specific area (e.g., post-disengagement Gaza). In this case, as in the previous one, a territorial section of the settler-controlled locale is seemingly excised from the settler body politic, and Indigenous peoples are transferred outside of the settler entity’s population economy. Then again, Israel retained exclusive control of the Gaza population registry despite an ostensible withdrawal; settler sovereign control of the population economy was never relinquished, as the terrifying events of,2023-24 demonstrate."

That one is from Lorenzo Veracini

Here is a critique of Adam Kirsch's effort. Who does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint.

In any case, picking out a source saying what you want it to say is not that hard, thing is to run it past best sources, overall and in the relevant discipline, then see what's what. Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Zionism is not an example of colonialism because 1) Jews have maintained a continual presence in the land that is now Israel for thousands of years, 2) following the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the land by Romans, some Jews remained in the land by retreating to the hills, while those exiled prayed to return; 3) Palestinian representatives at the first Congress of Muslim and Christian organizations in Jerusalem declared themselves part of Arab Syria; 4) on the portion of land allotted to the Jewish state by the 1947 UN Resolution, Jews and Arabs were present in roughly equal numbers; 4) colonization involves theft, while Jewish settlement in Israel involved neither theft nor fraud; 5) in May 1948 after the British withdrawal, when five Arab armies invaded the new Jewish state, Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, called for “an immense massacre” that will be discussed “as much as the massacres of Mongolia and the Crusades”, and other Arab religious and political leaders made similar calls.(page 82), 6) most Arabs who left were not expelled by the new Jewish state but were either fleeing the war zone or were heeding the call of the “High Command of Volunteers for the Liberation of Palestine” to vacate temporarily pending the destruction of the new Jewish state, and 7) Britain resisted the disruption of its empire, by limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine and blocking land purchases by Jews when it could; General Allenby stated in 1917, “Palestine will be neither Jewish nor Arab; it will be English”. Israel’s creation epitomized the dissolution of empires (Ottoman, then British) and anti-imperialism, not imperialism. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest Bernard-Henri Lévy is an expert on Zionism or colonialism. As I said, it is rather simple to find a source saying what you want it to say, whether that's a WP:BESTSOURCE is another matter. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I read it. We should stick to history books and not cite emotional polemics. Not to mention the plain errors of fact (misquote of Azzam, nonsense about Deir Yassin, etc). Zero^talk 11:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Zionist symbols and modernizing of Jews

"Zionist ideology rejected traditional Judaic definitions of what it means to be Jewish and viewed religion as an essentially negative factor. Zionism maintained the outward symbols of Jewish tradition but redefined them in secular-nationalistic terms. In this way, Zionism saw itself as bringing Jews into the modern world by reshaping Jewish identity in terms of identification with a sovereign state, as opposed to Judaic faith and tradition."

was recently added and then removed from the lead. the edit summary removing the addition was "reverting some bold addition to lead that I think are overly stated and not npov"

The first sentence I think is uncontroversial. The statement from the body of the text cites Yadgar 2017 but there are plenty of other RS that describe the negation of the diaspora in similar terms.

The second sentence is supported by discussion in the body which cites Rabkin, which I believe some editors took issue with because of his antizionist perspective. Although I dont think it is controversial to describe Zionism as reframing Jewish tradition and symbolism in nationalist terms.

The last sentence of this addition is one of the main points from the introduction of Shlomo Avineri's "The Making of Modern Zionism" (ie, Zionism as a modernizing force). Avineri's conception of Zionism is a mainstream conception, and when scholars want to analyze Zionist ideology they often refer to Avineri as an authoritative source.

I suggest we revert this removal. DMH223344 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually quite controversial, it conflates secularism with Zionism as a whole, and it I assume is relying heavily on Yadgar, a critic of Zionism. It needs to contrast with other sources and how they treat this. Rabkin is also an antizionist as you said. Zionism does not view religion as a negative. I think you should quote the verbatim from the page - and please add page numbers - so we can contextualize the information. For example, Religious Zionism obviously didn't view religion as a negative. For example in Yadgar, Religious-Zionist proclaimed adherence to Judaism as a religion (as opposed to the secularist Zionist camp, which proclaims itself either indifferent or outright hostile to this religion) We need to take a proper cross section. What happened to the BESTSOURCES list for framing lead weight? Andre🚐 18:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

From section "Zionism, Jewish Religion, and Secularism": In its dominant iterations, the Zionist idea stresses this distinction to clarify that the secular, national aspect of this identity must gain precedence over the religious, or theological aspect of Judaism, in order to remain loyal to the notion of a nation-state of Jews. Similarly, influential streams in Zionist ideology tended to view that same Jewish “religion” as essentially negative, being, in their reading, an inhibiting agent that suffocates the national vitality. Indeed, for them, Jewish religion is responsible for what they viewed as the diminishing of the Jewish people in “exile.”

As for the comment, "it conflates secularism with Zionism as a whole," Zionism developed as a secular movement and the dominant strains have been secular. When RS describe "Zionism", they usually mean these mainstream formulations of zionism. If they are referring to religious zionism, they usually (if not always) say "religious zionism." DMH223344 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That quote is careful to qualify it as the secularist stream of Zionism as one of the mainstream streams of Zionism but we shouldn't paint with such a broad brush in the article summary. We also need to see what other sources say that might be different and portray the range of opinions in weight in reliable sources, not only take speciic sources for summarizing the lead. We shouldn't oversimplify that by saying that is all Zionism as it ignored Religious Zionism. As you can see in the other Yadgar quote, some were simply indifferent to the religious aspect. Andre🚐 18:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"That quote is careful to qualify it as the secularist stream of Zionism" is that true? it says "mainstream" and "influential" which is exactly what we mean when we talk about "Zionism" as a whole. RS do not typically qualify every claim they make as applying to all of Zionism or just to mainstream Zionism or to just religious zionism. It makes sense to do the same here, so when we say "Zionism" we mean the mainstream zionist movement and ideology. DMH223344 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it's careful to distinguish different "iterations" of Zionism and "influential streams." That is your clue there are other streams that need to be considered. Andre🚐 18:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, in this case I don't think it decreases readability to rephrase as: "Mainstream Zionist ideology rejected traditional Judaic definitions of what it means to be Jewish and viewed religion as an essentially negative factor." DMH223344 (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I still object to the framing and its inclusion in the lead for the reasons I already stated. Andre🚐 22:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

So is the primary issue with the choice of the word "negative"? Or do you not agree about inclusion of rejecting tradition?

What about the points about redefining identity? DMH223344 (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said, this is glossing over the various strains of Zionism. Religious Zionists don't fit under that, and other secular Zionists were indifferent. A wording that reflects that would be more balanced. Andre🚐 22:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

How is it glossing over the various strains if it specifies that this applies to mainstream zionism? DMH223344 (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It's just not the case, it's focusing overly much on a specific piece of the story. It also conflates modern with historical. Most people who identify as Zionists today wouldn't say that they view religion as essentially negative. That should be obviously not verifiable by inspection. It's referring to the Zionist revolutionaries and their secular outlook. A lot has happened since the 1940s. Andre🚐 01:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It does not conflate modern with historical. The discussion is in the context of the development of the zionist movement. DMH223344 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The point of these three lines is to express the sense in which Zionism was a "revolt against tradition," which is a main feature of Zionism as described in RS.

What aspects of Zionism as a "revolt against tradition" are missing here? DMH223344 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Zionism was both a revolt against tradition and a return to it. Zionism created new traditions even as it imported existing traditions and gave new meaning to others. Andre🚐 04:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

So Zionism was black and white, good and bad, salvation and ruin, etc.etc.etc. One cannot approach a definition of anything by establishing a paradigm that embraces everything in terms of antitheses, though this is extremely fashionable in popular 'national characteristics' literature (I can provide massive references for that assertion,) Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Most complex human phenomena such as multifacted, Big Tent movements and ideologies are good and bad and contain contradictions. Nuance, perspective, and contested narratives. "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress." Niels Bohr. Andre🚐 07:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The emphasis in the literature is much greater (almost entirely) on the revolt and redefinition aspect. Even when discussing rediscovery, Avineri emphasizes the redefinition aspect for example:

the modern Jew has lost his old identity, yet the new identity does not sit well with him. Zionism is, to Nordau, the re-creation of a collective, communal Jewish identity, its rediscovery in terms relevant to the modern age. It is a return to Jewish identity from the atomized anomie of Emancipation—a return necessitated by the impact of liberalism and nationalism. In an article, “On Zionism” (1902), Nordau sharply distinguishes Zionism from the traditional, religious Jewish messianic yearnings. “Zionism rejects all mysticism, does not believe in a Return to Zion through miracles and wonderous happenings, but sets out to create it through its own efforts.”11 Zionism, according to Nordau, grew out of the pressures and social forces of the modern age, and its solution to the Jewish question is a modern one, within the context of contemporary nationalism

In introducing Zionism, Avineri:

Zionism was the most fundamental revolution in Jewish life. It substituted a secular self-identity of the Jews as a nation for the traditional and Orthodox self-identity in religious terms. It changed a passive, quietistic, and pious hope of the Return to Zion into an effective social force, moving millions of people to Israel. It transformed a language relegated to mere religious usage into a modern, secular mode of intercourse of a nation-state.

DMH223344 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it is an absolutely crucial fact that in the history of Zionism from Herzl to Netanyahu, not one single leader of the movement or prime minister of the state has been a believing and observant Jew: not Herzl, Nordau, Weizmann, Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion, Sharett, Eshkol, Peres, Shamir, Rabin, Sharon, Barak, Olmert, or Netanyahu; even Begin, who displayed a more respectful stance on religion and observance, was by no means a practicing Jew.
— Stanislawski, Michael (2017). Zionism: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. Oxford University Press. p. 116. ISBN 978-0-19-976604-8.

This passage seemed relevant to "secular". Levivich (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but once again there is glossing over the differences between the rank and file and leaders, and political with the cultural. There are many other Zionists than those listed. The article talks about them, Kook is mentioned several times. So it's an oversimplification to say that Zionism was anti-religious. Yes, Zionist political leaders or at least the famous ones and the ones mentioned there, were almost all secular to some degree. Yehuda Amital was not, on the left, Dov Lior is not, on the right. Naftali Bennett is a more contemporary and well-known example of a religious Zionist.[4] The example of Bennett, who was prime minister for a brief period after Stanislawski wrote that, makes his statement out of date.Andre🚐 07:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

FAQ?

How do people feel about a FAQ for this page, answering, e.g., about why it says "colonization" in the lead, etc.? I would take a stab at writing it but I don't think I can do it in a diplomatic way :-) Do folks think a FAQ is a good idea? Bad idea? Any suggestions about questions and answers? Levivich (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

By 'colonization' the article lead is following our best sources, the article body, and most dictionary definitions. The migration to and settlement of an area and in order to establish political control. This does not mean that there might not be other reasons for settlement nor does it deny any historical connection of the people to that area. For a fuller explanation please see the "Colonization" section. fiveby(zero) 22:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We need a FAQ on how to respond to nonsense in the press, taking ur name in vain, @DMH223344:. Never mind, its the JP, what would you expect? Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Accurate article to be fair. KronosAlight (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. The very first thing they say is wrong. DMH didn't add "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinians as possible" to this article, I did. But it wouldn't align with JPost's narrative if they had to report that "User:Levivich" was the one who added that line to this Wikipedia article.

Then there's the part where they say: "On July 3, the first paragraph read "... [quoting lead that doesn't mention colonization] ..." As of Monday, the first line reads, "... [includes colonization]"..." That's also wrong. On July 3, the lead included "colonization". It was only taken out on July 3 in this edit by a now-blocked WP:LTA, which was quickly reverted. But it doesn't help JPost's narrative to report that "colonization" has been there for a long time, or that's it was removed by LTAs. Considering the version without "colonization" had only been on the page on July 3 for less than an hour, one wonders how the JPost reporter even found it. Did they go diff-by-diff and just cherrypick this one revision? Or did the LTA--who has a history of giving interviews to the media (in fairness, so do I)--point them to it?

And then there's this: OF THE sources cited by DMH223344 on the Zionism page, the majority are by Palestinian or anti-Zionist historians. Patently false, just look at the reference list, it's clearly not a majority of "Palestinian or anti-Zionist historians". JPost mentions Manna, Khalidi, Rouhana, and Masalha. But they don't mention--get ready for this list--Abramson, Alroey, Avineri, Baker, Beauchamp, Ben-Ami, Biger, Bloom, Burton, Busbridge, Cohen, Collins, Conforti, Dieckhoff, Dowty, Karsh, Falk, Flapan, Gans, Gelvin, Gorny, Hacohen, Hazony, Hirsch, Hirst, Laqueur, LeVine, Lustick, Massad, McGonigle, Medoff, Morris, Motyl, Olson, Penslar, Rabkin, Robinson, Safrai, Sela, Shafir, Shapira, Shillony, Shimoni, Shlaim, Slater, Sternberg, Sternhell, Taylor, White, Wolfe, Yadgar, Cleveland, Quigley, Roy, Goldman, Almong, or Britannica. That's a long list of non-Palestinian names! Some of those are probably anti-Zionist, but definitely not a majority. Of course it doesn't support JPost's narrative to report that the article uses these sources.

Those are just three examples of falsehoods or material omissions from the JPost article. I could keep going. Levivich (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And another thing: JPost doesn't report that Benny Morris (2004) wrote that "the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise ... the underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority." They don't report that Anita Shapira (1992) called Zionism "colonial" thirty years ago. They don't report that Yoav Gelber (2007), who disputes that it's "colonialism," nevertheless calls it "colonization." They don't report that Zionists created institutions with names like "Palestine Jewish Colonization Association" and "Jewish Colonial Trust". Because none of that would fit their narrative that these claims are only made by Palestinians and anti-Zionists. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, i don't know that your two examples pointing to use by early Zionists can go very far. The word a bit more complex meaning today. But the use by historians today of course does. fiveby(zero) 21:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

100% agree, it'd be WP:OR if it was just based on use by early Zionists, it's the modern historian sources that make it WP:NPOV-compliant. Levivich (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't expect nuanced critique on Wiki process from JPost, and it's not solely or even primarily DMH's fault, but the problem with the article though is that we don't report that Gelber and Pappe have a significant disagreement. The article devotes precious little time to explaining that Zionism is a controversial and contested ideology and that there are a number of different camps among scholars that don't all agree. Instead, we spend most of the time oversimplifying the disagreements among scholars and presenting it as though it's basically a consensus view of Zionism. Not to mention extensive WP:SYNTH in the summaries. The current lead says that defenders of Zionism don't dispute its status as settler-colonialism. Some don't, and some do. Andre🚐 21:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily... looks reworded without checking the citations. Which is it, something proponents "do not necessarily reject" today or "did not necessarily reject" then? Is this historical present (had to look that one up). fiveby(zero) 22:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Most newspapers seem to mistake Wikipedia processes and get them wrong.

Heck I have 3000 edits and I still consider myself noob enough to get them wrong sometimes too, while the most senior editors who know the most do so only have years of editting and 10x more edits... Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m opposed. In general I find FAQs to not really do their jobs (preventing repetitive/similar questions and arguments from recurring) in contentious areas, and instead, per @Coretheapple, imply marching orders and unlitigatable consensus. I don’t believe our target editor here—who feels strongly enough to want to comment, who is ECR-confirmed or would ignore the ECR Talk rules, but reads a very brief nutshell explanation in a banner at the top of the page and is no longer compelled to say anything—exists. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, VRT is currently getting multiple emails a day (I've answered about 5-10 today myself). It would be great if a short FAQ were created to cover specific points which are currently being the taget of media coverage. Using "normal" boilerplate answers is not cutting it regarding this article. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that even among Wikipedians there's a good amount of disagreement and discussion. Creating an FAQ would be fine for a stable consensus, but I would say we don't have one right now. There are open issues and the article has gone through a lot of changes. The media coverage may not be pinpointing the problems in a way that would meet our standards but all the smoke is obscuring the active discussion that in my opinion isn't ripe for codification as an FAQ. We did an extensive BESTSOURCE exercise and I'd say the current article is quite a large deviation from the consensus scholarly opinions in BESTSOURCES. Right now, there are significant NPOV and WEIGHT issues. Andre🚐 22:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that the lack of a stable consensus complicates things, but the current version of the article still presents itself as "correct" and based on published, reliable sources. Since this is the live version, it’s being treated as such in responses to inquiries.

If there are ongoing discussions that might result in changes, a short, reusable statement (e.g., "There are ongoing discussions regarding the usage of X, and the article may change when consensus is reached...") would be really helpful for VRT. This way, we can ensure we're communicating accurately without misleading readers. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Now I sound like a customer support agent with no Wikipedia knowledge...but it’s hard to follow all the talk page discussions, and with the talk page protected, I’m forced to defend the current version without being able to easily point people to join discussions. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Josve05a: last month you gave as examples of VRT FAQs:

1. why do we use the word "colonizer" and not "de-colonizer"
2. why have we recently rewritten the entire article

Are these still frequently asked? Any others? Levivich (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are the primary ones, as well as the phrase “as many Jews and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible". Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Then the answers are:_

(a1)Because the term 'colonization' is endemic in Zionist literature for the first half century, as secondary sources note, while references to 'decolonization' in that formative period, if they exist, are very rare.

(b1) Apart from FA articles, most articles are under constant revision. Since most edits are tweaks, from time to time it is necessary to overhaul the often repetitive or poorly organized page in order to improve the article as a whole.

(c1) Because simultaneously with the first years of Zionism and the Basel Programme, Zionists were well aware of the fact that the population of Palestine around the 1900s was 95% Arabs and 5% Jews, and the creation of a Jewish state required that ratio to be, if not reversed, then radically altered to achieve a strong majority based on the prospective inflow of European immigrants. Through the history of Zionism, as numerous best sources attest, transferring the indigenous Arabs elsewhere to make room for Jews was a core concern of the movement, as many histories, starting with that of Nur Masalha, document. Nishidani (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

In response to @Nishidani’s answer to b1, I think a valid counter-argument would be that Zionism as a historically significant active movement predates the decision to go with Israel as the “Jewish homeland” (Uganda was seriously considered, etc.). From the perspective of Zionists, the marginalization of Palestinians was something that happened as a byproduct of the way things played out later in the history of the movement, rather than a core tenant of said movement, and there are still many self-proclaimed Zionists (especially in religious Jewish communities) who argue that the modern state of Israel is not reflective of the “true” Zionist perspective or whatever. Additionally, there was a subset of early Zionists who viewed their goal as being merely giving Jews a safe space in Israel (rather than the installation of an exclusively Jewish government), which didn’t inherently require the removal of Palestinians. (Not looking to make a moral argument here obviously, just trying to convey that POV.) As such, I think it’s a good idea to reword that line from the opening paragraph to be more inclusive of the many forms that Zionism has taken (and continues to take) over the years. Yitz (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

While I'm not sure it is wise to create a dependency between what is often going to be a reader's susceptibility to misinformation/manipulation and the amount of energy editors expend, if you want a test subject, maybe reach out to this guy, to see what would help them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• My problem with "FAQs" as manifested in other articles is that they often, perhaps most of the time, become vehicles for WP:OWNership of the articles by specific factions of editors with specific POVs on the subject matter. They tend to function as "engraved in stone" marching orders for new editors venturing into a subject matter. That danger cannot be discounted here and therefore I'd oppose created a "FAQ" Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Meh, there is a FAQ at Mandatory Palestine to deal with one recurring irritation and it doesn't prevent it, presumably because no-one bothers to read it. I suspect that would happen here too, since we have plentiful evidence of failure to read the talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

FAQ template on a Talk page only works for media/independent folks that has a WP:CLUE, and most do not. Maybe press release from wikimedia foundation, but that would be also problematic for foundation to directly address content that is supposed to be self-policed by editor community. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Old second paragraph was better

Over the past couple weeks, there has been conflict over the second paragraph in this page, with two major versions. Let's call them Version one (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&oldid=1254484900) and Version two (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&oldid=1254602937). Version one explains the alternate locations considered before Palestine, as well as some of the reasons why Zionists justified it (ex:Kibbutz Galuyot). Version two is just copied and pasted from deep within the article, and goes into too much detail for a lead. It also removes the statement about the aforementioned ingathering of exiles justification, as well as the status of Palestine as being a part of the Ottoman Empire. Version one was much better alltogether, and should be restored. I am postng this to gain a consensus. Thank you. Pyramids09 (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

How about we just lay them out so it's easy to see:

Your version:

During this period, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire.

The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine during this period is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Throughout the first decade of the Zionist movement, some Zionist figures, including the movement's founder Theodor Herzl, considered alternatives to Palestine, such as under the "Uganda Scheme" (then part of British East Africa, and today in Kenya), or in Argentina, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Mozambique, or the Sinai Peninsula, but this was rejected by most of the movement. The process of Jewish settlement in the region now containing the states of Israel and Palestine was seen by the emerging Zionist movement as an "ingathering of exiles" (kibbutz galuyot), an effort to put a stop to the exoduses and persecutions that have marked Jewish history by returning the Jewish people to their historic homeland.

Existing version:

During this period, as Jewish assimilation in Europe was progressing, some Jewish intellectuals framed assimilation as a humiliating negation of Jewish cultural distinctiveness. The development of Zionism and other Jewish nationalist movements grew out of these sentiments, which began to emerge even before the appearance of modern antisemitism as a major factor. In Zionism, the dangers and limitations associated with minority status in Europe meant that Jews had an existential need for a state where they would constitute a demographic majority. Assimilation progressed more slowly in Tsarist Russia where pogroms and official Russian policies led to the emigration of three million Jews between 1882 and 1914, only 1% of which went to Palestine. Those who went to Palestine were driven primarily by a sense of self-determination and Jewish identity, rather than in response to pogroms or economic insecurity. The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine during this period is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs.

References

Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Lede problems

1- Opening sentence is too specific and contains chronology

2- Lede overall is too long and overdetailed

3- Lede has more of an editorial complex/philosophical style rather than a series of facts

Opening sentence

Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside Europe. With the rejection of alternative proposals for a Jewish state, it focused on the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible. Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism became Israel's national or state ideology.

First struckthrough part is too specific for the opening paragraph, it belongs in the second as a narrative on Zionism's inception. The second part is overly specific. I think these two should be removed from opening paragraph, and moved down.

Length

The lede is currently around 800 words, at least double more than the WP standard.

Style

During this period, as Jewish assimilation in Europe was progressing, some Jewish intellectuals framed assimilation as a humiliating negation of Jewish cultural distinctiveness. The development of Zionism and other Jewish nationalist movements grew out of these sentiments, which began to emerge even before the appearance of modern antisemitism as a major factor. In Zionism, the dangers and limitations associated with minority status in Europe meant that Jews had an existential need for a state where they would constitute a demographic majority. Assimilation progressed more slowly in Tsarist Russia where pogroms and official Russian policies led to the emigration of three million Jews between 1882 and 1914, only 1% of which went to Palestine.

This is more of an unattributed series of complex philosophical opinions relating to something very sepcific and not very relevant to Zionism generally, rather than simple series of facts, to cite one example. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with the suggested removals Andre🚐 17:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.

What is overly specific about this? It is describing the goals of the Zionist movement.

This is more of an unattributed series of complex philosophical opinions relating to something very sepcific and not very relevant to Zionism generally, rather than simple series of facts, to cite one example.

I dont understand what you're saying here. Is your issue with the style of this quote (as your heading would suggest) or the content? This quote is describing the factors that led to the development of Zionism, I really dont see how you can claim that it is "not very relevant to Zionism" DMH223344 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relating to as much land as few Palestinians; this is a viewpoint and not a tangible fact, so it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph, which must be kept general and neutral.

The content and style of the quote is very philosophical/editorial and not factual; it's not encylopaedic. WP:ENCSTYLE Makeandtoss (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what about that line isn't tangible. Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, if not factual; it's not encylopaedic wouldn't it still be that after being moved down? Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph has special considerations to be as neutral and general as possible. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm obviously biased on the issue of that sentence, so take my 2c with a grain of salt: It's basically the definition of Zionism. Zionism is, in my words, the idea of taking land from the people who live around Jerusalem and giving it to Jews for a Jewish state. Zionism calls that "restore the Jewish homeland" but that's a euphemism. In that phrase, the word "restore" means "export non-Jews (specifically, Palestinian Arabs, who made up the vast demographic majority) and import Jews". Everyone from Morris to Manna and in between recognize this maximum-land-with-minimum-Arabs concept as the inherent, unavoidable, core of what Zionism is, and what it must be (how else could one possibly create a Jewish state other then by taking land and displacing the people who live there?). Should be in the first paragraph, if not first sentence. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Bingo! Levivich says it well. That explains the expressed desire of the most rabid Zionists to kill all Palestinian males over 13 and the illegal seizure of land from Palestinians. It's a form of lebensraum and leads one to think of who did this first, and to whom. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's not get too FORUMy here. Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that's a bit beyond the pale. Even if you believe that those "rabid" folks represent the mainstream, there certainly aren't reliable sources that should have weight saying that about the overall movement, or it's at best contradicted and debated. I will accept that the most left-wing critics of Zionism probably would make that analogy, but that isn't NPOV for the article. Andre🚐 22:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Andrevan, you surprise me. I am only referring to the most extreme Zionists, such as "labor Zionism's use of violence against Palestinians" and the "uninhibited use of terror", "mass indiscriminate killings of the aged, women and children" (quotes from this article). I said nothing that should lead anyone to think I "believe that those 'rabid' folks represent the mainstream" or that my words apply to "the overall movement". Most Zionists are pretty normal and sensible people who don't support the current Gaza genocide. They know it's counterproductive to their cause and to the welfare of all Jews. What happened to AGF and not taking my words out of context? My statement, like the discussion comments of most editors, was not for the article. If I intended it to be for the article, it would be worded much more carefully and properly sourced. It just provided part of the context for the intersection of this topic and fanaticism, and there are dangerously fanatical Zionists who are and should be described in this article. Anyone who defends them harms all Jews. (I am not saying you are defending them.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are objecting to my invocation of the word "lebensraum", traditionally applied to the German practice during World War Two, the concept is also applied to certain practices by the State of Israel, and the lebensraum article mentions such use.

The United Nations also does it. See The Question of Palestine: Study on the Legality of the Israeli Occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem. Search that page for the word "lebensraum". You'll find it used once in the context of section three that describes the occupational practices by the State of Israel, which are synonymous with the word "lebensraum", and the UN condemns those practices by Israel. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You know I esteem and value your contributions, but I don't agree here, and I think there's unfortunately a bit of conflation or misleading information. I would say that unfortunate phrasing or framing is an example of pseudo-Holocaust inversion, and the UN should be considered an attributed primary source and not authoritative, and the sources given are not the best sources for the lead or the article as a whole. And most Zionists don't agree that genocide is the right word for the war or at least believe that if Hamas were to surrender and release the hostages, the hostilities in Gaza would have no reason to continue. The question of settlement in the West Bank is different post-1967, but in general, they're talking about 1948 and earlier in the lead, where there was a UN-approved plan to give land to Israel and Palestine both. There are plenty of examples of atrocities that can be laid at the feet of the Jews and the Arabs alike, and NPOV tells us we need to survey the sources accurately without cherrypicking or focusing too much weight on criticism, because not all mainstream historians agree that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is a reasonable thing to do, and there are also reliable Zionist historians! Andre🚐 17:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, I learn from you! Thanks for that link to Holocaust inversion. I wasn't aware of that article. I think we can agree that there is an unfortunate "baggage" problem with using the word lebensraum, as it is associated with the Germans and the Holocaust, and the State of Israel and Zionists should not be associated with the worst Nazi excesses (beyond the horrors of normal warfare) that occurred. There are no death camps in Israel! Whew! (Death camps are unnecessary as they just kill far too many civilians.)

We need to use a synonym for lebensraum that doesn't carry that death camp/Holocaust baggage. "Illegal occupation" is what I am (and the UN) striving to describe. The Germans used it as an excuse for their "illegal occupations" of Eastern European countries. The Israelis are using it as an excuse for their "illegal occupations" of Palestinian properties AND their killings of non-combatant Palestinians. When strictly limited to that, the actions and consequences are the same: "Kill them and take their land." A difference is that Israel doesn't use death camps, it just allows normal, non-military, Israelis to murder their Palestinian neighbors and take their property.

BTW, I think we need to recognize the inherent COI of Zionists and their historians. We can't take their word as accurate or objective, any more than we can trust the IDF spokesmen on TV, because, in keeping with all Middle Eastern peoples, lying, exaggeration, and propaganda are parts of normal communication (including the writers of the Tanakh/Old Testament), and it is not considered wrong there. But, you are right that "comparing Israel to Nazi Germany" is NOT "a reasonable thing to do", and I never did that. I only meant to use the German word itself, strictly according to its translated meaning, without all the Nazi baggage, but that was apparently not a well-thought-through strategy. . Sorry about that. So let's discuss it in terms of "illegal occupation". (Maybe that isn't really a good topic to discuss in this thread as it gets too far afield.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"Illegal occupation" is indeed a fair characterization that most people would be forced to conclude is true. But that applies to the West Bank, and not to all of Israel. Andre🚐 18:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

How about you two chat one or other of your talk pages? Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I support this removal. The second crossed-out sentence also lacks important context - to what time period does this apply, for example? Similar issues exist with other statements in the lead as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What removal? The two sentences are not being suggested for removal, just to be moved down to the next para. There is an in place consensus for the second sentence. Then the only way to demonstrate a different consensus is an RFC, which for reasons unclear to me, none of those objecting care to open. Perhaps you might give it a go? Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The proposal merely says to "move down" the "second part". Also, I don't see where this consensus is. Consensus can change, in any case. An RfC is not necessarily required unless it was previously an RfC, but no evidence of that has been presented. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Search for the sentence in the talk page archives and you'll find the discussion where consensus was established. Levivich (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Why not simply link the discussion? Seems odd. A quick look finds that there has been a ton of controversy over this sentence even from established editors, with many different adjustments suggested at various points based on sources. It should really be RfC'ed. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the hidden text indicating an inplace consensus, there are relevant discussions in Archives 24 and 25. It's not too much too ask editors to do a bit of work and search the archives. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The proposal is moving it down, not removing it. This discussion has unexpectedly grown. Where did the involved editors opinions converge? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

Hydo truth speaker (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Zionism is the right of the jewish people to have self-determination in their historically homeland which is the the land of Israel/mandatory Palestine region. Zionism nowadays also uses by local Israeli jews as another definition of patriotism towards the state of Israel.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

• What I think should be changed

−

Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.[5]

+

• Why it should be changed:

The same exact sentence appears in the article twice - in the lead and in the "Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section. I suggest it should be removed from the lead, because the specific topic section is the more appropriate context for it, and the lead is already too long as it is.

Zlmark (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done, being discussed by EC editors above. Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The concept is important enough that it should be mentioned in the lead. It is fundamental to the thinking of some, maybe many, Zionists. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The current text treats it as fundamental to all Zionists (i.e. it speaks in general), so if it is merely some, that should be clarified. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The quotes in the citation don't say it is merely some. Levivich (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Crossroads, it is a poorly worded sentence and not really supported by the sources. It is challenged very often on the talk page by edit requests and EC editors. It would require a great of effort to change with much opposition. Also consider this, if the sentence were removed and the P&G's were followed by summarizing sources in the body and then building the lead from there, what would be the result? I think that a similar statement would then be necessary (and prominent) in the lead. If you'd like to see the wording here changed, then sure so would i and probably many others, but it would be quite a bit of work to make that happen. fiveby(zero) 09:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

A proposal should be developed and RfC should be done, and the proposal can be developed mainly by those who favor change even though others advocate for the status quo; the latter's input can be heard at the RfC itself, and their argument not to change it shouldn't forestall development of an alternative. Per WP:APPNOTE, I would like to pinged if an RfC is done. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Lead does a poor job of addressing change (or lack thereof) post-1948, modern ideological variation, and integration with one- and two-state solutions

I think the article would be much better, and attract less unnecessary controversy, if the lead did a better job of clarifying to what timeframes, and factions in modern Israel, many of its statements apply to, and how this all relates to attempts to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict through the one-state solution or the two-state solution in the present-day and the future.

• Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.[5] Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism became Israel's national or state ideology.[6]

This is quite a juxtaposition. The first sentence is in the past tense, but then immediately states that Zionism continues to this day as Israel's state ideology. So, has "as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" been Israel's ideology for the entirety of 1948 to 2024? The juxtaposition implies it is; however WP:SYNTH states, Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. (Emphasis added.) It seems unlikely that sources support such a claim applying to all of this time. Differences by ideological factions within modern Israel, and even within Zionism as it is believed today, are inherently very important to this topic, but are glossed over or ignored.

• The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions is support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine, through colonization.[10]

This is in present tense, although the source cited is about 1882-1956. So, are all Zionists or Israeli political factions today in favor of further colonization? This seems unlikely; at least some Zionists today just support Israel's continued existence in a two-state solution. These are pertinent issues but are missing.

• Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos, having adopted similar strategies to achieve their political goals, in particular in the use of violence and compulsory transfer to deal with the presence of the local Palestinian, non-Jewish population.[12][13]

This is also in the present tense, and thereby makes the claim that essentially all Zionists today support "violence and compulsory transfer" of Palestinians. We already were told above that Israel has Zionism as its state ideology. How are we to square all this with the existence of Arab citizens of Israel? Do all political factions within Israel, or even within Zionism specifically, for all the time since the late 1940s, really support violent ethnic cleansing? (The only source with a quote in the ref note is in the past tense.) Again, these relevant issues are all glossed over to make sweeping generalizations without being clear whether or not how widely they actually apply. (And if they do apply widely, well, state so specifically and add some quotes to the ref notes.)

Amazingly, despite Zionism's continued presence as an ideology and as the state ideology of Israel, and its description as the start of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, information about how it interacts with modern attempts to resolve the conflict (the one-state and two-state solutions) is completely absent. What kind of solution do different kinds of Zionists support? Wikipedia won't tell you apparently, even though the lead makes very sure you're aware of ethnic transfer and the article contains two separate sections on colonialism.

The generalizations and placement of emphasis as described above very much give the impression that the article is leading readers to a particular conclusion about present-day political issues. That is not good. I hope that the article will clarify to whom and when exactly the statements quoted above (and any similar ones) apply rather than vague generalities, and that it will add information about Zionism as it exists today and interacts with geopolitical proposals for the future. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Zero sources provided in support of proposed changes. Selfstudier (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Concur with the critique. Andre🚐 20:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The article follows the discussion of Zionism in RS which are focused on the history of Zionism and Zionist ideology. DMH223344 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What are your concrete suggestions? DMH223344 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Do the RS say nothing about Zionism vis a vis the one and two state solutions? Also, I noticed you removed the pov tag despite none of the points in WP:WTRMT being met. Lastly, if the lead is relying on citations in the body, then citations for those points should not be used in the lead that don't support the claims (maybe hidden notes used if some points use cites and some don't, just to show editors which ones aren't meant to be found in a subsequent lead cite).

My suggestions are that editors more familiar with this topic than me, and who have read many of these sources (hopefully), specify either that all Zionist factions have held these views (if that is true), or else specify to what factions and time periods they are limited to; and to tie it all into the one and two state solutions. I can't get more concrete than that without massive reading, but I had hoped an outside perspective would help with presenting the topic. Here are some example modified versions of the second sentence I quoted above that illustrate what I mean, but I don't know for sure yet which, if any, is completely accurate (though I suspect the first is not accurate):

• The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions continues to be support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Israel and Palestine, through further colonization.
• The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions in the X period was support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine, through colonization.
• The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions is the continued existence of Israel. The X faction favors a two-state solution that recognizes Palestine, while the Y faction supports the conquest and annexation of the Palestinian Territories.

Why isn't being more specific like this, and tying it into modern views, better? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions in the X period was support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine, through colonization.

I agree with this suggestion. I'll add it today unless someone disagrees.

specify either that all Zionist factions have held these views (if that is true), or else specify to what factions and time periods they are limited to; and to tie it all into the one and two state solutions.

The lead is focused on describing the mainstream Zionist ideology and movement. When RS describe mainstream Zionism, they just say "Zionism", so we are doing the same thing here. As for contemporary Zionist groups and their perspective on one vs two state solution, that must be out of scope for the lead of this article. I could see a case being made for describing the perspective on territorial compromise since 1948 though (I believe this is mostly missing from the article body though). DMH223344 (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the improvement to that sentence. I hope we can make similar improvements to other problem points. I do not think that contemporary Zionism can be out of scope for the lead once it is added to the body. I think post-1948 perspectives should be added to the body and the lead. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

agree strongly with this! Andre🚐 22:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I dont disagree with inclusion of discussion of contemporary Zionism. It's specifically a focus around perspective on 1 vs 2 state that I dont think is leadworthy here. DMH223344 (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you read the sources that are cited, and don't ask other editors to do anything, including consider any changes, until you have done so. I, for one, don't want to spend my time discussing this article with people who haven't read the sources that are cited in this article. Maybe I'm being unreasonable in expecting this of other editors. (Certainly unrealistic.) Levivich (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually do think it is unreasonable to - taking the third bullet point above as an example - expect me to read at least three entire books to even start to work on it because the citation notes for the claim are so poorly done. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Much of what you are seeing is in my opinion just the result of normal WP iterative editing process. Rewording and moving text around without checking the cited sources, a hyper-focus on the wording in the lead without explaining further in the body, using snippets of sources to build content without reading carefully the whole source and context, etc. All amplified by being a CTOP article and seeking to meet WP:CONSENSUS where consensus is just too difficult or impossible to achieve.

There is much presentism evident in the article already so looking thru the lens of one or two state "solutions" is probably a step in the wrong direction. Of course we do have two potential states to describe in the body (and what is there is probably inadequate) but should not look at that in the same way you are describing. Lest Selfstudier accuse me of being a post-Zionist again (please take that good-naturedly) some presentism is really unavoidable given the best sources.

Editors are working on issues, Levivich began a "best sources" discussion, Selfstudier was going through the lead sentence-by-sentence, and DMH223344 is re-working the body. I was going through the sources (and probably would have thrown a bunch of fv's and cn's in there if this were a different article while doing that. May have lost focus with too many cooks at the pot. I'll come back to the source work after the distraction of some much more refreshing reading. fiveby(zero) 15:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2024

Zionism (Zion being Jerusalem)is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland in Palestine where ancient Israel used to be. 77.137.28.218 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Penslar 2023

@DMH223344, FYI there was one Penslar 2023 ref (#74) where I couldn't easily figure out which part of the book was being referenced, but I'm happy to look up the page number if you can narrow it down. Levivich (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are some of the relevant quotes in my notes:

Like other nationalisms, Zionism justifies itself through appeals to history, but it does so anachronistically. It transforms rabbinic Judaism’s concepts of the sacred— the Jews’ common devotion to the God of Israel, veneration of the biblical Land of Israel, and the concept of an eventual Jewish return to that land in the messianic era— into a modern nationalist idiom.

In this sense, Zionism was anachronistic in two contradictory ways: it was prochronic in its projection of modern Jewish nationhood into the ancient Jewish past, but it was also parachronic in its neglect, dismissal, or obscuring of earlier Jewish political projects that played an important role in Zionism's origins... Zionist ideology is prochronic in its depiction of Jews as a nation, anchored in the biblical Land of Israel, that maintained its unity across millennia of dispersion

Zionism’s prochronistic views about the nature of Jewish nationhood and its parachronistic neglect of the context from which Zionism emerged also characterized its representation of the Jews’ relationship with the Land of Israel. Jewish connections with the Land of Israel are ancient and deep, but they should not be equated with Zionist goals to settle Jews in the land and configure it as a Jewish homeland. Rabbinic Judaism venerates the Land of Israel, but there has been a wide range of opinions on whether it is religiously commanded to live there. Talmudic sources emphasize that the mass return of Jews to the Land of Israel will occur only in the days of the Messiah and that attempting to initiate this return prematurely is a sacrilege.

DMH223344 (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! (pp. 18, 19, and 23) Will update the cite now. Levivich (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

Change "Zionism[a] is an ethnocultural nationalist[b] movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization[2] of a land outside Europe. With the rejection of alternative proposals for a Jewish state, it focused on the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine,[3] a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism,[4] and of central importance in Jewish history. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.[5] Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism became Israel's national or state ideology.[6]

As a nationalist movement and ideology, the primary goal of the Zionist movement from 1897 to 1948 was to establish the basis for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and thereafter to consolidate and maintain it. The movement itself recognized that Zionism's position, that an extraterritorial population had the strongest claim to Palestine, went against the commonly accepted interpretation of the principle of self-determination.[9]"

to

"Zionism is the belief and desire for an independent Jewish state in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, Israel. While the Zionist movement officially began in late 19th Europe in response to rising anti-semitism, a Jewish presence has endured in the land of Israel for millennia and the desire to return to Zion—referring to both the land of Israel and Jerusalem in biblical terms—has been central to Jewish communal identity since the Romans forcibly seized the land, exiling the Jewish people nearly two thousand years ago.

Modern Zionism began in late 19th century Europe as nationalism was on the rise throughout Europe. Throughout much of history, Jews in Europe were seen as other or "Oriental" by non-Jewish Europeans. Some Jews attempted to assimilate and become more secular through the Reform Movement. However, this did not spare them from the anti-Jewish riots or pogroms that swept Europe in the 19th century. "

Reason for the edit request: The existing text is factually incorrect and has a strong anti-zionist and anti-semitic bias. Much of the article's content is inaccurate and written from an anti-semitic perspective. Zionism is not a colonialist movement as many anti-zionists believe, but it is a decolonialist movement. It is the largest landback movement in history and inspired landback movements for many indigenous tribes in North America. Please fact-check this entire article. The content of this article is extremely harmful to the Jewish people as it is now. F writer935 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)