Talk:Zionism/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Zionism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Anti-zionism=antisemitism

Including quotes by famous people that say there is a connection between the two is acceptable and necessary for this page for the purpose of NPOV, especially since we have a part describing the comparision between zionism and racism. At a bare minimum, say that many people take on the view that there is a connection. Specificly the following needs to be in the article

"It is also argued by many zionists that anti-zionism is antisemitism. One such example is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who in response to a question from the audience after a lecture at Harvard University shortly before his death in 1968, said:"When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism."[34] Thomas Friedman, who takes a more moderate view on the issue wrote the following:"[c]riticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest".[35] An alternate viewpoint on the usage of the terms "anti-Zionism" and "anti-Semitism" comes from a linguist who describes himself as having been a, "Zionist activist in my youth", [36] Noam Chomsky, who writes:"By now Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population. You find occasional instances of anti-Semitism but they are marginal. There's plenty of racism, but it's directed against Blacks, Latinos, Arabs are targets of enormous racism, and those problems are real. Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That's why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue. Not because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want to make sure there's no critical look at the policies the US (and they themselves) support in the Middle East. With regard to anti-Semitism, the distinguished Israeli statesman Abba Eban pointed out the main task of Israeli propaganda (they would call it exclamation, what's called 'propaganda' when others do it) is to make it clear to the world there's no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. By anti-Zionism he meant criticisms of the current policies of the State of Israel. So there's no difference between criticism of policies of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism, because if he can establish that then he can undercut all criticism by invoking the Nazis and that will silence people. We should bear it in mind when there's talk in the US about anti-Semitism." [37]" --Sefringle 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sefringle (talk · contribs) your POV pushing is getting a little bit out of hand. Your edits make evident your intentions to smear Islam when you blindly add Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan to category:Anti-Semitic people when there's not one mention of antisemitism on the article about him. It is also evident when you're adding the same category to Category:Anti-Zionists. Then you're adding to the Muhammad article that he is a "pervert". What is the story? (→Netscott) 06:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan was a mistake. Sorry about that one. Anti-zionists and anti-semitic people are very similar, and therefore go together. Not to mention the fact that many famous scholars and intellectuals, as mentioned in the paragraph you keep deleting, agree that anti-zionism is antisemitism. Whether you think I am an Islam basher is irrevelant.--Sefringle 07:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that admin intervention will soon be necessary relative to your POV pushing. Here you again violated WP:BLP and blindly added Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais. Again, what is the story? (→Netscott) 07:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh. read this article from a reliable source. Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais clearly admits he hates the jews, refering to them as "the scum of the human race" and "offspring of apes and pigs". Maybe you have a different definition of antisemitism than I do, but those comments clearly are anti-semitic.--Sefringle 07:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Biographies of living people and be sure to fully source negative details when you go about adding individuals to Category:Anti-Semitic people.(→Netscott) 07:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment is fully sourced within his article. Please see Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais#Sermons attacking non-Muslims. It is in complete compatability with Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. Now can we get back on topic?--Sefringle 07:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fully sourced as of 07:20, 10 December 2006 your addition was made at 05:28, 10 December 2006. When you made your addition there was not one mention of antisemitism. (→Netscott) 07:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You are going to argue about something that trivial? The "issue" is solved now.--Sefringle 07:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this group of fervent anti-Zionists antisemitic? (→Netscott) 07:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but are these people who view Islam as a religion of terrorism islam-bashers? --Sefringle 08:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that Al-Qaeda views Islam as a religion of terrorism. Your argument is a non-sequitur. Essentially I've used a strong example of anti-Zionists who aren't antisemitic to counter your very false notion of such a "truth". It is safe to say that yes there are antisemitic people who hide their antisemitism behind a mask of anti-Zionism but to blanket refer to all anti-Zionists as antisemitic though is an extremely large falsehood. Folks like Norman Finkelstein, Brian Klug, Noam Chomsky, Steven Zipperstein and Earl Raab are those in the forefront of disputing such notions (and rightly so in my view). (→Netscott) 21:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so Osama Bin Laden, who performed many terrorist attacks in the name of Islam doesn't view Islam as a religion of terrrorism. Is that what you are saying when you say Al-Qaida doesn't believe Islam is about terrorism? They are an Islamic terrorist organization. But to get back to the topic, Jewish anti-Zionists are rare. They represent less than 20% of all Jews.[1] Of the anti-zionist Jews, their reason for it is because they believe only an act of god can create an independent Jewish state. (see: Anti-zionism#Religious opposition) Almost all other Anti-zionists are so because they are antisemitic. It seems this has already been discussed. See here and here -Sefringle 23:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside, but I think that quote, though widely attributed to Dr. King, is really by someone else. I think that came up here a few months ago. Leaving aside anything else, it would probably be good to track down the source before using it again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. BYT 14:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel" by Seymour Martin Lipset; in Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24"

This is the source in question.--Sefringle 20:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It turns out I was mistaken. [2] I have no reason to think the quote is not valid. Again, taking no position right now on its inclusion beyond that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If the King quote is validly sourced, and if there is consensus that it be used, then WP:NPOV would require that that accurately sourced quotes of similarly notable figures who actively oppose the notion that anti-Zionism equates with anti-Semitism be included in the article as well. Personally, it's hard for me to see how Dr. King is qualified to be quoted about Zionism while Noam Chomsky is not. BYT 16:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I bleieve both are qualified to be quoted. I don't know who is the one who is disagreeing on that issue.--Sefringle 00:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Zionism. There is a separate article Anti-Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this is related here, since we are discussing the anti-zionism section of the zionism article.--Sefringle 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That section is already too long for a WP:SUMMARY and that is why it was separated into a subarticle. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How about replacing the quotes with the first paragraph of anti-zionism#Anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Would that be more appropiate?--Sefringle 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't own this article and don't know what's going on in that section. It is supposed to be a summary of a subarticle. What comrade Cho with his rant how Jews "want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control" over America is doing there? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What?--Sefringle 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

latest POV issues

I have tried to insert numerous citations so that this article would be balanced. As it is, even the "anti-zionism" section sounds pro-zionism. Granted, some of my sentences may not have been totally NPOV, but the facts and the citations are, and I am willing to modify the sentences that link to the articles in BBC, etc.

I think "The overwhelming majority of Jewish organizations and denominations are strongly pro-Zionist" MUST BE cited or REMOVED

This article mentions almost nothing about the practices of zionists to segregate by race and the people who oppose zionist policies.

There is a citation I will get for Olmert saying that he wants to change the meaning of zionism and it looks like that should be mentioned and linked, because if zionism has been changed then we should tell people about it.

(PRIOR Notes) When 80% of the population opposes a zionist leader like Olmert, what must one assume? That his zionist policies are not supported.

This needs to be added, or the article is not NPOV. You can change the wording if you don't like "one must assume", but the content must remain. I challenge the NPOV of this article without it.

Anti-Zionism should also be distinguished from Anti-Semetism in that one can be Anti-Zionist (against the separation of people by race or religion), without being Anti-Semetic (simply hating all Jewish people). As Israeli President Olmert's approval rating among his own citizens fell to 20% due to his strict Zionist policies toward separating all Jews in Palestine and Israel from all Palestinians, it is clear that the majority of Israel's citizens are not Zionist. ^[1]

Please refer to management for a decision. Pco 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think calling modern zionism a movement is like calling racism a movement; because the Jewish people in Israel already have a place to live, so they are no longer moving back to the homeland, as was the case during early zionism. Perhaps we need clarification or separation of categories. Early zionism was a movement, however, modern day zionism is nothing more than an ideology toward segregating races of people. Pco 19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Once the state was created, zionism became a political tool for stealing land and oppressing non-jews. This is a fact that is further supported in the Chomsky dialogue that you already have on this page. Pco 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This link says that In the late 1800s, Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann founded Zionism, a political movement dedicated to the creation of a Jewish state. http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm

(this sentence above and the link should probably replace the one that cites no source at: TERMINOLOGY - The term Zionism is also sometimes used retroactively to describe the millennia-old Biblical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, which existed long before the birth of the modern Zionist movement [citation needed].

Furthermore, this sentence above that had no citation is even more confusing because it introduces a 3rd period of time (before the political movement was established) and then calls that before "modern Zionist movement". That would be before the early zionist movement, not before "modern zionism". hope that makes sense. Pco 19:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please put new comments on the bottom, not on the top, of talk pages. Second, you really need to familiarize yourself with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. For example, Once the state was created, zionism became a political tool for stealing land and oppressing non-jews. is an opinion, regardless of whether you think it's a fact. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted is not the part I wanted in the article; that was just to help whoever get my drift. This is the part that I wanted under terminology and I felt the 2nd paragraph below should replace the one that had no citation in the introduction.

" 1. Terminology: Anti-Zionism should also be distinguished from Anti-Semetism in that one can be Anti-Zionist (against the separation of people by race or religion), without being Anti-Semetic (hating all Jewish people). Zionists attempted legal means to ensure that Arabs would not be able to buy homes in Israel. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2115857.stm

As Israeli President Olmert's approval rating among his own citizens fell to 20% due to his strict Zionist policies toward separating all Jews in Palestine and Israel from all Palestinians, it is clear that the majority of Israel's citizens are not Zionist. ^[2]

2. Intro: Early zionism was a movement toward returning Jewish people to the land known as Israel/Palestine, however, modern day zionism is a political ideology that is utilized for the purpose of segregating races of people. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2115857.stm Pco 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: My problem with the article and with many articles I read that use anti-semitic and anti-zionist interchangeably is perhaps illustrated well by the following: David Duke is anti-semetic, as he is racist toward jews and anyone who may infringe upon the benefits that would otherwise go to what he would call christian/euro-whites in america. However he could not care less if the zionist in israel take all the land in and around palestine because it does not have any impact on his goals and greed. He may do speeches at muslim conferences in order to make a buck outside the U.S. by selling his anti-semite book and he may call himself an anti-zionist, but he is a racist against blacks, latinos, arabs and all muslims as well and he is an anti-semite, not an anti-zionist; regardless of the words he may choose to use to help his cause.

Anti-zionism and post-zionism section: There is no mention of U.N. Resolution 242 on this page which was intended to stop the spreading of zionist practices (stealing land and segregating people by the IMF), but instead the article has a difficult to understand quote by Noam Chomsky as the only reference to zionist opposition. The MLK quote equating anti-zionists and anti-semites does not even say what question he was asked when he responded that the questioner was talking about anti-semitism, so we have no way to know the context of his remark.

Furthermore, this part of the article is totally POV (misgivings?) how mild can you get. Who is the source for the last sentence (the zionists's foundation?) More than 50 years after the founding of the State of Israel, and after more than 80 years of Arab-Jewish conflict over Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, some groups have 'misgivings 'about current Israeli policies. The overwhelming majority of Jewish organizations and denominations are strongly pro-Zionist.

If the overwhelming majority are pro zionist, then why did this Zionist-led legislation fail? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2115857.stm

Pco 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:NOR? If not, I strongly urge you do so before editing again. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well to say that my post was not relevant to zionism sounds strange to me, but I'm not going to argue with you over it. Do you think the content of my post is relevant anywhere on wikipedia? Also, the article still has 2 NPOV comments without citation. The first one is under anti-zionism and it is not only not cited and pov, but it is also in the wrong section:

Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism

   Main article: Anti-Zionism

1. "The overwhelming majority of Jewish organizations and denominations are strongly pro-Zionist. (no citation given by whoever posted this)

2. The MLK quote is inappropriate because the article does not quote the question that was asked of MLK. His answer would have a variety of possible meanings, depending upon what the question was. Pco 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NOR yet? Your edit is not appropriate anywhere in Wikipedia because you are making up and inserting your own theories, opinions, and conclusions. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not original research, it is from the BBC.

Zionists within the Israeli government have attempted to achieve separatism through legislation that would prohibit Arabs from owning land on territory that they wish to keep segregated. [3] -BBC World News Zionists within the Israeli government have attempted to achieve separatism through legislation that would prohibit Arabs from owning land on territory that they wish to keep segregated. [4] -BBC World News Pco 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not what the article says, that's stuff you've made up. Does the article say "Zionists within the Israeli government have attempted to achieve separatism through legislation"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This one is original research by some other user, with no source, yet you did not delete it:

"The overwhelming majority of Jewish organizations and denominations are strongly pro-Zionist." Pco 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read every part of the article, but I certainly noticed the original research you tried to insert. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not even what the BBC article says:

Anyone wishing to move into a rural area within Israel designated by the government as a "community settlement" has to be accepted by a committee from the settlement.

This is not the same as "would prohibit Arabs from owning land on territory that they wish to keep segregated." Why would we want to portay the proposed law as more extreme than it is?Gzuckier 15:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Jay appears to think he owns this article.

This is NPOV: "The overwhelming majority of Jewish organizations and denominations are strongly pro-Zionist."

The BBC article I proposed to insert is talking about zionism and the legislation outraged people because is was racist. JayG does not even respond to the many points I have brought up, he just reverts it back the way he likes it. I have requested that people join in to the debate from the Jewish pages group, so leave the POV on until some questions are discussed. Or do you own the page? 17:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid violations of WP:CIVIL. I've never removed that material from this page, others have, and I've discussed this at length with you on the page, as have many others. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not discussed anything at length. You have not specifically addressed a single issue that I brought up. If you read this section, you will see that it is not just one sentence that is unsourced. i.e. I have mentioned at least 5 things above that should be put in or removed and there is nothing from a source at this url, which you should probably read to expand your POV on zionism: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com

You keep trying to insert your own arguments and conclusions into the article, and are seriously abusing your sources, as have been explained by several editors, and the only substantive point you have brought up is regarding a single unsourced claim. As for jewsagainstzionism.com, I'm not sure why you bring it up here; it's an anonymous polemical personal website that does not even qualify as an external link, much less a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pco -- clearly, you are not up with the rules of the road around here. If Jayjg Who Certainly Does Not Own This Article determines that a group disagrees with Zionism, that group is, by definition, unqualified to be referenced in the text. Possible reasons Jayg Who Certainly Does Not Own This Article will provide for summarily dismissing a group you identify include:

"We don't cover anti-Zionism here -- move this to Anti-Zionism." (Please don't press Jayjg Who Certainly Does Not Own This Article about whether articles like Islamism currently contain information about opposing groups and movements.)

"This group is not notable." (Don't ever challenge Jayjg Who Certainly Does Not Own This Article on this point. He gets very testy. If he says a group isn't notable, by golly, it's not notable, and never going to become notable.)

"Your making reference to this group constitutes WP:NOR." (Don't remind Jayjg Who Certainly Does Not Own This Article that this is eerily reminiscent of Winston Smith's problem in the novel 1984 -- you'll recall that he kept having memories of events and people who, officially, did not exist.)

"This group is a fringe group." (Don't ask Jayjg Who Certainly Does Not Own This Article what the definition of a fringe group is -- he might have to tell you that opposition to Zionism itself is what renders a group extreme.)

"This group only exists in reality, and this article is a reality-free zone." (Okay, Jayjg Who Certainly Does Not Own This Article hasn't actually said this overtly yet. But stay tuned. It may be coming our way soon.) BYT 17:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

BYT, jewsagainstzionism.com is one person's personal website and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Please do your research. I'm surprised to see you pushing it, I thought you were better than that. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

BYT, do Wikipedia policies mean nothing to you? Please do not treat WP:NPA and WP:CIV with such disdain, they are serious policies. This talk page is about article content, not about me. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point, Jay. Speaking of policy: What would you say is the remedy for someone who repeatedly treats WP:OWN with disdain? (By, for instance, instantly removing a POV tag and dismissing the placement of it as "nonsense"?) [5]
Isn't the remedy for that kind of thing supposed to be taking a month or so off from the article? Does the fact the people repeatedly object to your style and peremptory edits here mean nothing to you?
I note once again that you have chosen, for perhaps the twentieth time, to avoid direct comment on any of the issues I actually raised in my note. Do you, for instance, view opposition to Zionism itself as problematic? Do you believe that POV has been sufficiently explored in this article -- not on Anti-Zionism, mind you, which I don't want to talk about, but here? BYT 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to yourself, and I agree with your prescription, in order to avoid WP:OWN you should probably take a month or so off from the article, particularly as the topic apparently makes you abandon any pretense of following policy in the article itself, and use the Talk: page solely for soapboxing and personal attacks. As for me, I'm not a major editor of the article itself, (I certainly don't edit it as much as you do), but I do like to keep an eye on it, and to respond to discussion on the Talk: page when it is actually relevant to article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it's incredibly deceptive to use the diff you provided above, which skips 3 intermediate edits. My actual edit was this - I provide the link only for those to whom honest presentations of facts actually matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, then -- what did the word "nonsense" refer to, if not to the POV tag I had just replaced? And why did you remove that tag? BYT 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the rest of the stuff the edit removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add the segment below for balance, but it didn't take. Its proponents regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people. ref: A national liberation movement:

"Zionism is a modern national liberation movement whose roots go far back to Biblical times." (Rockaway, Robert. Zionism: The National Liberation Movement of The Jewish People, World Zionist Organization, January 21, 1975, accessed August 17, 2006). Its opponents regard it as an ideology that goes against the True Torah [www.jewsagainstzionism.com] and as a political tool that is used by politicians to gain support for their actions in denying rights to non-Jews in the land of Palestine [6] [7]. (User:Pco)

Please review WP:RS and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Millennia-old Biblical connection"

I removed this statement from the article:

The term Zionism is also sometimes used retroactively to describe the millennia-old Biblical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, which existed long before the birth of the modern Zionist movement.

I requested a source for that, no-one came up with it, so i removed it.

I've never heard the word "Zionism" used with this meaning. If anyone can provide an example, it can be put back into the article. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, Zionists often claim a "god given right" or "historic right" or ethno/racial heritage to the ancestral homeland/faderland of the Jewish "people" and they make a big thing of the "connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel".

Seems to me that Zionism is what people who call themselves "Zionists" do, or what they say they believe.

So I think the article should mention these beliefs in rights and heritage of the "people". (I also have trouble withe word "people", used several times in the introductory paragraph. According to my dictionary, "People" is the plural of "person", but it can also mean "race". Any objection to replacing "Jewish people" with "Jews"?) Fourtildas 05:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fourtildas (talk • contribs) 05:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC). The preceding sentence was added by something called "HagermanBot". Fourtildas 05:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No objections yet. I will do it tomorrow. Of course the self-appointed owners of this article will ignore what I propose here and then revert my changes without explanation. Fourtildas 06:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice there is a word "Jewry" which means "Jews collectively". This seems more concise and unambiguous than "Jews" or "the Jewish people" or "the Jewish race". I have also seen it spelled "Jewery" in Haaretz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fourtildas (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC). Fourtildas 04:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Fourtildas 04:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Fourtildas 04:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, any suggestions about where in the article to mention the G_d-given Promised Land and Ancestral/Racial Faderland? Fourtildas 04:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Jayjg, I'd like not to be contentious, and I'm open to the idea that there is a better way, but I think the first paragraph needs to be changed. To be well written, I think the first sentence should be as simple as possible, in stating what the movement is. What we have instead is moderately awkward and POV, by attempting to throw the historical justification into the first sentence. This is confusing, in addition to giving the article an immediate flavor of bias. It's particularly confusing, because it refers to the nation evolving two millenia ago, as if this nationhood had been continuous. If you're going to throw in the historical basis, don't you have to acknowledge that some other things happened in between? The first sentence, as written, seems quite unnatural for a neutral encyclopedic article trying to clearly explain exactly what Zionism is. I looked back to some previous versions which were in fact better, but I tried to make the most modest change I could to fix this. Mackan79 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your edit is that it makes it seem as if the area where the concept of Jewish nationhood evolved is in question. In fact, the area in which it evolved is not in question, it is the timeframe in which it evolved that is disputed; was it as early as 1200 BCE, or as late as the first century BCE, or somewhere in between? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I know Jayjg has strong religious and political beliefs, but I wish he could try to be a tiny bit objective and provide a tiny bit of evidence that Jews were any more than a religion with a connection to the "Holy Land" no different than what the Xtians or Muslims have. References please!!!! (For example, would you say the Sunnis or Shiites in Iraq today are religious sects or "nations"? How are the Jews nations but not them?)Fourtildas 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see that, but is there a better way to address it? I simply think it's in everyone's interests to have the first paragraph look as neutral and clear as possible. For me, at least, reading the first sentence as it was made me really not want to read the rest of the article. Mackan79 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph on zionism found under [zion] is much more clear for a first paragraph:

Zionism is a national liberation movement[1], a political movement and an ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE. While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the modern movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in Europe during the 19th century. After a number of advances and setbacks, and after the Holocaust had destroyed Jewish societies in Europe, the Zionist movement culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

(I think that after this and whatever else you think is relevant to the history before 1948, like quotes from zionist leaders from way back, we should fairly discuss the proponents and opponents of modern day zionism and legal citations from the UN and others, without continuously going over the same historical grounds) The subcats do not flow well as it is Pco 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could have a page on Roots of Zionism and Modern Zionism. I lost the zion link and now cannot remember where I found it, but that text above is found on some article.... Pco 19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The other thing that occurred to me is that if we are discussing a variety of zionist movements (i.e. christian, african) then why do we start with Jewish zionism, rather than simply stating the common aspects of the term to all groups and Jewish Zionism was perhaps the first known zionist movement, if that's the case, and then go on to have a topic for each sub and further subs for history, modern, pro and anti). This would also require us to remove the Israeli flags and make it be a more generic article for all zionist movements. Pco 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I returned to the previous first sentence, as it seems simpler and clearer than the version with "represents a reclamation of Jewish nationhood ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW "Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel." doesn't sound very Neutral - some would say Palestine, but since this article seems to be owned by a a friend of the Owner, there's not much point in complaining. Pretty soon WP will be sponsored by advertising so we will be free to write the truth in the non-sponsored version, while the official version of WP will give the mainstream version of reality. Fourtildas 07:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Third party input on edits

No one ever responded to their problems with these 2 citations/text, so I am reinserting them, if someone wants to discuss, please contact me. Pco 23:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro: Early zionism was a movement toward returning Jewish people to the land known as Israel/Palestine, however, modern day zionism is a political ideology that is utilized for the purpose of segregating races of people. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2115857.stm Pco 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly does the BBC say in the link you provided that "modern day zionism is a political ideology that is utilized for the purpose of segregating races of people"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It says that modern day "Zionist" politicians want segregation and plan to legislate it. The deduction is absolute. Since I am not supposed to reprint the article, I did not. The person who promoted the legislation said that he did it to revive "Zionism". How clear does it need to be for you? Pco

We're not allowed to make deductions on Wikipedia. See WP:NOR. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Terminology: Anti-Zionism should also be distinguished from Anti-Semetism in that one can be Anti-Zionist (against the separation of people by race or religion), without being Anti-Semetic (hating all Jewish people). Zionists attempted legal means to ensure that Arabs would not be able to buy homes in Israel. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2115857.stm

Pco 23:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It says that modern day "Zionist" politicians want segregation and plan to legislate it. The deduction is absolute. Since I am not supposed to reprint the article, I did not. The person who promoted the legislation said that he did it to revive "Zionism". How clear does it need to be for you?

One person said it "put colour back into the cheeks of Zionism". How clear does it need to be? Completely clear, not strange conclusions drawn based on your own interpretations of one newspaper article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is completely clear, so I will insert it.

" Some zionists encourage the parliament to pass separatist laws that will deny Arabs the right to live on State land. [8] BBC World News.

No, it's not "completely clear". The article didn't describe the people as "some Zionists", nor did it describe the laws as "separatist laws", nor did it say they law will "deny Arabs the right to live on State land". The proposed law hasn't even been passed, and the people who have opposed the laws are also "Zionists". It's the worst kind of POV-pushing; you really shouldn't edit until you have read and understood Wikipedia's content policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusion in lead

Mackan, I reverted your edit because I couldn't see the sense of it.

"Zionism is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. The movement culminated in a reassertion of Jewish nationhood where is thought [sic] to have evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era ... It continues primarily as support for the State of Israel and its status as a Jewish State."

I notice that "political movement" has been sneakily changed to point to Jewish political movements, thus removing any links to other ethnic/racial/religious movements that Zionists hate to be compared to. Fourtildas 05:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying (a) it's a movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in Israel, and (b) that it continues primarily as support for the State of Israel as a Jewish state? What is the difference? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between supporting people living somewhere and supporting everything that the State does. Are you kidding me? It is an ideology now, regardless of what you say. The objective of moving to a state and calling it Israel is finished. The continuation of the movement or ideology is to segregate and get more land. You are all so biased, it is ridiculous. You want to put the Israel flag on zionism but you don't want to define it for what it is. You don't address the edits I made because you cannot defend deleting them, other than through your own bias.

I have requested a 3rd party to review my edits and I guess you (slim, mackan) are not here to do that, since you just revert without comment. Pco

Actually, the Zionist movement now generally tries to convince Jews to move to Israel. Regardless, your personal opinions really don't belong in Wikipedia articles. It's rather ironic that you accuse others of "bias", but if you don't want your obviously policy violating edits to be reverted, you should probably review WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV in detail and at length. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pco, you're engaged in original research. Please don't add your own opinion to articles or to talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Zionists encourage jews to move to Israel. Now we are getting somewhere. What else do they do Jay?

Some zionists encourage the parliament to pass separatist laws that will deny Arabs the right to live on State land. (BBC Article Link Here).

Okay is that straight forward enough to fit in this article or does that still offend someone?

Thanks for the links I will review them again.

The thing that I don't understand is why some people don't want to admit that zionist principals in today's world have to be denounced by anyone who wants freedom anywhere. It is like saying that yeah, I am glad I have freedom in the U.S. regardless of who I am, but over there, they deserve to be racist, because they have had hard times... or is there some other reason you can explain to me?

What astonishes me is that people can support Palestinian nationalism, but simultaneously denounce its Jewish equivalent as "racist"; this kind of blind, unthinking, and hate-filled inconsistency is baffling. In any event, your personal, pejorative, and largely completely inaccurate views of Zionism are hardly relevant to this article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to inform people about Zionism, then tell them what Zionists DO. The article says "movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people" So how do they achieve that aim? That is what people want to know, not a ton of repetitive history over early zionism that no longer applies today. What do Zionists do today?, 5 years ago, where are the examples of this? I gave a citation of what they do in Parliament. Is that false. Why can't it be in the article?

This is what Zionists do: http://www.veahavta.org/ http://www.naamat.com/ http://mashav.mfa.gov.il http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.2084705/k.B61A/Africa.htm http://www.btselem.org/ http://www.israaid.org.il/story_page.asp?id=996 and thousands of other organizations like this. Your determination to try to find whatever is negative in Israeli society, and attribute that to "Zionism", is material that belongs on your blog, not in Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at those sites, and not one of them purports to be zionist. If they are zionist, why don't they say it? Pco 05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

One of those sites is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel. There can be no dispute that any of these organizations is openly, unapologetically, and proudly Zionist. Are you serious? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I bother, but here's one link: "Our mission: Inspire our youth with Zionism and a sense of social justice" More importantly, these organizations are all either Israeli, or explicitly support the State of Israel. Why on earth would you assume they're not Zionist, yet assume that anything negative you can find about Israel is Zionist? You need to think long and hard about that bias. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh, things move pretty quickly here. Well, first, if you wanted to remove the third sentence, you could have removed the third sentence without recombining the first two. I've stated why I think those should be separated; is there a reason you disagree? As I said, I separated it because it is long, confusing (by stating that the land of Israel evolved 2000 years ago as if the state has been there all along), and gives the impression of bias simply by the silliness of going on for so long in the effort to justify itself. I don't see why this is controversial; the previous version is obviously a bad and unencyclopedic first sentence. Or can you tell me why you disagree?

So, second, you would like to know what is the difference between pushing for the creation of Israel, and then supporting the state and its continued existence as a Jewish state? Well, as is noted above, one refers to a fait accompli, and one refers to the continuing relevance of the ideology. I guess it comes down to this: If we're trying to explain what Zionism is, isn't it relevant to say that support for and opposition to Zionism today largely relates to whether Israel should continue as a Jewish state? Isn't the basic difference between a Zionist and someone who's simply pro-Israel, that Zionism focuses specifically on Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state? For instance, see Wikipedia's article on the Jewish State: "Anti-Zionists and Zionists argue about whether a Jewish state should exist at all. Having been created within the sphere of international law as the instrument for Jewish self-determination, the question of whether Israel is to maintain and strengthen its status as a state for the Jewish people, or transition to being a state purely for "all of its citizens", or identify as both -- and, if both, how to resolve any tensions that arise from their coexistence -- captures these polarities." Isn't this true?

To ignore this strikes me as overlooking the primary relevance of the term. In any case, that's the difference. Also, the first two sentences, as written, don't even make reference to the actual state of Israel. Shouldn't the connection be acknowledged up front? Again, I would bet that there are still better ways to write this, but I don't see why you'd revert the edit, which seems clearly on the way toward a clearer and better summation of what Zionism, as the word is used, really refers to. I'm going to reinstate my edit, in the hope that this is clear enough, or that there will be some countersuggestion to address the obvious strangeness of the current (previous) version. Mackan79 07:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to add: it may be that my wording is politically contentious by refering to the effort to preserve a Jewish state. If so, I think that's a legitimate concern. I hope that it can be discussed candidly, though. Maybe, then, something else would be more appropriate, but simply to acknowledge that Zionism today means more than simply having wanted Israel to be created... Mackan79 07:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mackan, I don't really understand some of the points you made above. The first sentence says: "Zionism is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where Jewish nationhood is thought to have evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era, and where Jewish kingdoms existed up to the 2nd century CE." Can you say what exactly is wrong with it? The points you made about Israel aren't in any way contradicted by this first sentence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, the issue with your wording has already been pointed out; that you assert that the area in which the notion of nationhood arose is disputed, when, in fact, it is merely the timeframe. Next, you have inserted original research claiming the Zionism is a "reassertion of nationhood", whatever that means, without providing any verifiable source backing up that claim. In addition, as with SlimVirgin, I don't understand how the original introduction contradicts what you've said, or how your insertion improves on it. I think you make an interesting point with your statement that It continues primarily as support for the Israel and its status as a Jewish State, though I'd like to see some sourcing for it, but the other change is very problematic, for the reasons listed. Finally, I think you have to see the irony of admonishing other editors not to edit war, even as you do so yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to explain a third time.

Your version: Zionism is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where Jewish nationhood is thought to have evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era, and where Jewish kingdoms existed up to the 2nd century CE."

My version: Zionism is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. The movement culminated in the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, as a reassertion of Jewish nationhood where is thought to have evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era,[1][2] and where Jewish kingdoms existed up to the 2nd century CE. It continues primarily as support for Israel and its continuing status as a Jewish State.

First, the relatively silly: 1. If you know what "evolving nationhood" means, then you ought to know what it means to reassert it later, as was done with Israel. Are you intentionally being difficult? I didn't write that phrase, it was already there. I simply edited it to acknowledge that Zionism is a /renewed/ claim to that nationhood, not a claim that the state has been there all along. Am I wrong? Do you see this? It doesn't strike me as particularly complicated. 2. The word "area" was in my first version, not later version. Any ambiguity in that regard is again equally in your old version to mine. I'm not sure what time dispute you're referring to either, though, as I don't see any reference to such a dispute in the paragraph. 3. As to edit waring, I stated the bases for my edits here very clearly, and have continued to attempt various options. The response has been simple reverts, despite the obviousness of the problems in the sentence as it stands. I resent the reverts with simple comments such as "this is nonsense," which seem to me to be blatant edit warring, in violation of Wikipedia standards for working together, and which force me to explain things here over and over.

Getting to your question: what is wrong with the first version? Let's go over it again. 1. It's long, complicated, and unclear to the uninitiated. What is this evolving nationhood? Apparently, you guys don't know either. And how does the first figure regarding nationhood relate to the second regarding kingdoms? This is extremely confusing for a first sentence, which I would think should be very clear. So CLARITY. That is the first problem. Do you disagree? Please don't make me say this again. 2. Beyond its lack of initial clarity, sentence very strangely speaks of an evolution of nationhood as if a Jewish homeland had simply evolved 3000 years ago and existed there all along. But this isn't true, right? Is that not a problem with the explanation? I think it is. Any rational person who figures out what this sentence is even trying to say has to be wondering, "Wait, so Israel just evolved three thousand years ago, and then, uh, what?" So its MISLEADING, by failing to acknowledge that Zionism is a reassertion over Israel, not simply the result of a long evolution. 3. By unnaturally including this justification for Zionism in the first sentence, the sentence has a very strong feel of BIAS. The simple fact is that no neutral writer would ever include that information in the first sentence. Why would you? Is it really the most relevant thing you could say about Zionism, in trying to explain it to someone who wants to know? "Oh, Zionism? That's the belief that there should be a Jewish homeland where it evolved about three thousand years ago and then there were some kingdoms there a thousand years later." Right, very helpful, so excited to hear what you're going to explain next. /sarcasm. The sentence is POV, by use of the classic ridiculously long sentence where someone won't stop talking because they're afraid they haven't convinced you yet, and they think if they stop for a breath, they'll already have lost you for good. Break up the sentence. I promise, everybody will still be there, and you won't already have lost your credibility to anyone with a discerning eye.

So we have three reasons: 1. Clarity, 2. Misleading, and 3. Bias. I simply can't believe that you disagree with these qualms; indeed, if you did, you would have already responded. In any case, feel free to respond now.

With that in mind, here's a new suggestion, for your comment, which simply removes the misplaced historical info (which should appear maybe a couple paragraphs below):

Zionism is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. The movement culminated in the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, as the world's first and only modern Jewish state. It continues primarily as support for Israel, and its continuing status as a homeland for the Jewish people. -- Mackan79 09:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The footnotes support the notion of Jewish nationhood in ancient times, not whatever it is you've tied them to. Not only that, you've again inserted claims that have no sources backing them up. Please try get consensus for changes in the intro first, rather than inserting them, and insisting you not be reverted; does that seem unreasonable? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Yes, it seems highly unreasonable, since I left an extended explanation up here since last night and nobody responded all day. Quite clearly, the only way to get a reaction is to actually make the change. Moreover, you guys are repeatedly pretending to be complete idiots, which also makes building a concensus rather difficult. This isn't a personal attack. I don't think you're actually complete idiots. You're simply pretending to be complete idiots. Can you stop doing that? Please? The objections you've been posting are almost entirely incomprehensible.

"Whatever it is [I] tied them to"? I tied them to the statement that "Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel." Are you saying Jewish nationhood in ancient times doesn't support this? Then what exactly /does/ it support? Can you explain this? This might help me understand why it's in the first sentence. Do /you/ understand? An explanation would be immensely helpful. I've asked several times.

Incidentally, if ancient Jewish nationhood doesn't support the religious connection, then what /is/ the ancient religious connection? And where is the source for that? Should that sentence be removed, then? Seems to me I was killing two birds with one stone by supporting that statement, and removing a clearly extaneous, biased, unclear and misleading statement from the first sentence.

"Not only that, you've again inserted claims that have no sources backing them up." Gosh, so is it too much to ask that you actually tell me which claims those are? I'd explain why this would be helpful, but again, I don't think you're actually a complete idiot. Is this really the most cooperative you're capable of being?

My request: would you please explain what is unsourced in my previous version, and why you think the current version is better? Would you also explain why you think I'm incorrect that the inclusion of the historical information in the first sentence makes it unclear, biased, misleading, and inappropriately emphasizes a comparatively irrelevant fact? If you respond to these questions, I won't have to make the edits simply to get your attention. Many thanks. Mackan79 04:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I originally brought those footnotes was because people kept challenging the idea that the concept of Jewish nationhood existed in ancient times. You've now divorced those footnotes from the point they are showing, and instead have them supporting a point they don't deal with, that there is a religious tradition tying Jews to the land of Israel. Also, you keep claiming that there is a "re-assertion of Jewish nationhood", as if the idea of nationhood had somehow disappeared in the intervening 1800 years, as opposed to the political entity disappearing. Rest assured, the idea of Jews as a nation, even dispersed, was alive during that entire period, even if the idea of a Jewish political state in the Land of Israel was either practically impossible or considered religiously undesirable. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My version which you deleted, for your convenience: "Zionism is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. The movement culminated in the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, as the world's first and only modern Jewish State. It continues primarily as support for Israel and its continuing status as a homeland for the Jewish people." Mackan79 04:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what; find a source for the last sentence. I actually think it's likely true, but I haven't been able to find good sources for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you say succinctly what is misleading about the historical material? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You left the note below on my talk page, and you've posted similar things here and elsewhere, but again you're not saying exactly what is misleading about the historical material. I really think people can't understand what you're saying. I know I can't. So please do say what is misleading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- Can I get you to respond to my explanation for the changes to the first sentence on the Zionism article on its talk page? (See the section on "Confusion in Lead") I've made great attempts to explain myself, to what seems like an unjustifiably chilly reception. Do you not see the problems regarding the current version, and the basis for my changes? They seem extremely obvious to me, but even so, I have gone into them in great detail. I'd very much appreciate if you could provide a thoughtful response, or even a counter-suggestion to fix what is obviously a very weird first sentence currently. Thanks. Mackan79 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we try again. I think the nonsense Pco kept inserting was confusing things, and I, like SlimVirgin, still don't understand what is incorrect or biased about the current lead. Can you succinctly state what the issue is? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to for a fourth time. The sentence, for starters: "Zionism is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where Jewish nationhood is thought to have evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era,[1][2] and where Jewish kingdoms existed up to the 2nd century CE."

Ok, so 1. The reference to the "Land of Israel" is itself unclear. Most people will think this means the State of Israel. What else is nationhood, after all, if not a state? I guess there is intended to be a distinction here between Israel the land and Israel the state, but at the same time, the sentence itself talks about the Jewish "nationhood" having evolved, thus overrunning this distinction. 2. Thus, when you get to the second part, it sounds like it's saying Israel as a state (nation) evolved 3000 years ago. 3. The problem is that, well, a lot of other things happened over the last 3000 years. I think most people agree that Israel wasn't actually a nation there over all that time. Yet, this is exactly what the sentence implies. (Is it a plausible implication? Of course not, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there. It simply makes the sentence confusing and biased, as I also explain above and below.)

That's my succinct explanation, but I'll explain in greater detail anyway.

So for this /not/ to be the implication, the sentence would need at least to be appended with the statement: "...up to the 2nd century CE, before falling into other hands for the next two millenia until the creation of the State of Israel in 1948." This would be necessary, to explain what is being laid out here: the ancient historical claim underlying Zionism. I mean, that is what's being laid out here, right? Or am I wrong? Please tell me if I'm wrong, or I will assume that you don't think I'm wrong. Without that addendum, though, we simply have two peculiar facts, stating that Israel evoled three thousand years ago, and that kingdoms were there for some time later. Again, I say, huh? Again, mainly it's simply confusing, but it's most certainly also misleading.

Which gets to the other problems: why are we laying out the historical claim that underlies Zionism in the first sentence? Is it really that important to get it out there, that we're willing to sacrifice clarity, neutrality, and everything else? Indeed the fact that it's misleading is just one of the problems, as I've said.

Again, I'm not even saying that anyone will actually be misled by the half-truth, since most people know the history better than that. More likely they'll simply be confused, and get an immediate impression that the article is going to be strongly biased or at least poorly written. Nevertheless.

Now you've both asked me many questions which I've answered in detail many times. So can you answer for me: why is this historical information included in the first sentence? Your continuing questions and failure to offer any affirmative statements is part of why I feel you're being evasive and obstructionist, whether this is your direct intention or not. Thanks. Mackan79 06:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, I think you've just misunderstood it. There's no reason to suppose anyone would mistake the Land of Israel for the State of Israel, and the former is linked anyway, so they can look it up. But again you say "where Jewish nationhood is thought to have evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era" is misleading without saying WHY it is misleading. What does it mislead you to think? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I'm not British, but you are realy being insufferable. 1. If you would use half your brain for half a second, I wouldn't be forced to explain this stuff in such excruciating detail. You clearly have some number of magic gripes in your head which you're going to make me talk and talk until I hit on and only then respond. Do you really have no idea why I would think there's a problem with the first sentence? None? It looks absolutely perfect to you? The best first sentence you could possibly think of? I have offered four independent reasons why the first sentence is crap. You have responded to one of them, and your response continues to be indescribably dense. But I'll keep trying. 2. Yes, there IS a reason to think people will confuse the land of Israel and the state of Israel, because most people don't know the difference, and the difference is made entirely unclear, and at this point there basically /isn't/ a difference. Also, people will be assuming that the first paragraph will be talking about Israel (the current state), because anybody who knows anything whatseover about Zionism knows that it has to do with Israel, which these days, is known as a state. Moreover, even if it has nothing to do with the state (which would be an additional problem with the first paragraph not to mention that, ummm, a homeland was actually created in 1948), the statement is still a half-truth, by talking about an evolution of nationhood, without acknowledging that the nationhood did not actually persist. It is vaguely implied that the nationhood sort of went on until the last of the kingdoms left, but is that even what it's saying? Do you know? What is it saying? Would you please tell me what it's saying? If the sentence is so clear, I would think it would have been extremely easy for you to tell me what the sentence is trying to say. Why haven't you? This is excedingly annoying and wasting my time. 3. In any case, as I said, the problem is not that people will actually be mislead, but simply that it is an inappropriate choice of facts to include in the first sentence. It is a half-truth, pointing to two facts in history for no apparent reason other than to assert some sort of vague historical basis for Zionism, while leaving out any other part of the story. It also implies an endorsement from Wikipedia that Zionism is fundamentally about the fact that Israel evolved 3000 years ago, and that's why Zionists think there should be a homeland today. But the same paragraph says this actually isn't the main reason. So what gives? As I keep saying, the main problem here is that the sentence and pargraph is simply /weird/, unhelpful, and makes very little sense, in a way that reflects bias and undermines the neutrality of the article.

Seriously, you are being indescribably dense, though again I think you're doing it on purpose. I'm sure you find it annoying for me to say that; I'm sure you find my long explanations here annoying as well, but I'm not sure how else to get through to you when you are literally refusing to use your brain in any way other than to try to deflect me.

If you're going to assert dominion over this article, would you please be willing to discuss your opinions on its construction openly and honestly? You're very obviously not. If you don't have time, you shouldn't be asserting dominion over this article. Is this too much to ask? Again, my request: please tell me what the first sentence, as written, is trying to get accross. Why, specifically, are the historical facts there? If you keep asking me to explain my problem again and again and again and again, you can't complain that I'm not being succinct enough, but I can certainly complain that you're being intentionally dense. Thanks again. Mackan79 14:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd just like to add that in addition to the denseness, you show a lack of good faith by trying to ask what poor little old me was mislead to think. This is not an issue of what I was mislead to think, as you well know, particularly as I just got done repeatedly saying that I don't think anyone will necessarily even be mislead by the terribly written first sentence. Again, however, the fact that most people will recognize the half-truth doesn't excuse what it is, or change the fact that a half-truth is misleading. Mackan79 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You've created a first paragraph that repeats the information in the second paragraph, and linked the ancient political concept of Jewish nationhood to the concept of a religious link to the land. These are different concepts, the footnotes support the former, not the latter.
The fact that idea of a political Jewish nation evolved 2000-3000 years ago is important, and you keep deleting it. The idea of a Jewish nation is an ancient one, not a modern one, and the fact that it was centered on the land of Israel is the reason while Zionism continued to center on the land of Israel from the 19th century onward.
The fact that no-one would confuse "[Land of Israel" with "State of Israel" is obvious to all.
The alleged "misleading" "bias" or "half-truth" you keep going on about is clear only to you, and you have yet to be able to explain it with any sort of clarity.
The Zionist movement has not "culminated" in anything, since it continues today.
You've gone way overboard in your violations of WP:CIVIL.

Please re-think your strategy; I actually thought we were going to get somewhere, and make positive changes to the article, but I'm losing hope now. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, actually my strategy appears to be getting more effective, as you just provided the first semi-thoughtful response I've received. Do you have any idea, incidentally, the kind of patience I'm showing? You've literally asked me to repeat the same comments time and time again as if you're incapable of reading what I've already written. You've repeatedly deleted my edits, after I explained them in detail, with short, curt, and incomprehensible objections. You've done this despite my constant attempts to come up with better and more deferential solutions. I've said that you guys are pretending to be idiots, and that you're pretending to be dense. I've said this with the specific intent of shaming you into explaining your thought process in more detail, which you have been refusing to do. This is a very modest response on my part. If you think I'm being uncivil, look how much I've written only now to receive any kind of response. I have not insulted you. I'm simply noting that I believe your repeated claims not to understand anything I'm saying are disingenuous, because they are, and I want you to know I noticed. (Your most recent post is a big improvement, though, so I thank you for that).

Ok, so your objections:

1. First you were saying I have unsourced material; now you're saying it's simply the same stuff as in the second paragraph. Can you tell me, then, which part was redundant? The first sentence was already there to begin with. The second is where I said it culminated in the State of Israel, which isn't repeated. The third sentence says the movement continues despite the creation of Israel as support for Israel. What exactly is redundant? Clearly, the second paragrah provides various phrasings of what is Zionism, so in a way they're talking about the same thing. The phrasings are each significantly different, however. I don't see the problem.

2. Ok, the historical basis is important, I don't disagree. I'm only deleting it from the first sentence, though. Ironically, when I then insert it elsewhere, you revert me because you don't like where I insert it. Do you see how, at least from my persepctive, this makes things difficult? To be totally clear, I do not remotely object to an explanation of Zionism's historical basis. I simply don't think it should be in the first sentence. I've also been discouraged from making more involved attempts to insert it elsewhere, as you've shown that anything I do will likely be used as another excuse to revert me. So to the point: can you see why I don't think this historical basis should be in the first sentence? My reasons have been clarity, neutrality, extraneousness, and the misleading way it is written. I would add that you've read this sentence so many times, I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you. To a first time reader, though, I assure you that the sentence is very unclear as to what it's trying to say. I promise! This isn't me being a moron. My reading comprehension is above average. The average reader's isn't.

3. Your statement that everyone who reads Wikipedia knows that the Land of Israel does not mean the State of Israel is incredibly ignorant, and again I think equally disingenuous. As I said, however, the statement is misleading regardless, and in fact disregards the distinction itself, as you appear to do as well. Your whole historical point here, after all, is that the land of Israel evolved 3000 years ago, and so Zionism, in forming the state, is just kind of reminding people of that fact. Your whole point is that it's all kind of the same thing that's been there all along. /That's/ what makes it misleading to simply say it evolved, without acknowledging the other things that took place in between. What also makes it misleading is the failure to then even mention the State of Israel as something different, and as the state that Zionism actually created.

4. The half-truth, thus, is most obviously there, and I resent your pretending not to see it. For one, you know darn well that you are trying to write this intro in a way that is flattering to your version of the theory. You know darned well that you are including the information to start the reader off knowing not just that it's a theory, but a theory with a historical basis. Now, I wouldn't even necessarily object to that, except that you happen to have done it in a way that is also awkward, unclear, and misleading. Yes, misleading. If nationhood evolved 3000 years ago, after all, and Zionsim is simply the theory that there should be a nationhood, then what exactly was the continuing problem? According to the first sentence, this movement ended succesfully 3000 years ago. You're being ridiculous by pretending not to see what I'm talking about here. As I said above, for the sentence to complete, it would at least need to be appended with the phrase "...before breaking up and falling into other hands for the next 2000 years, before the State of Israel was created in 1948," or something similar. This would be the whole truth. Or, perhaps, you could say ", where Jewish nationhood evolved around 1000BC, and existed for 1000 years," or whatever it was. This would not be misleading. To simply say that it evolved, however, and then make no mention of what happened afterwards, is a completely unnatural explanation. It starts a thought, and then simply leaves off. It's completely weird. I simply don't believe you can't see this. Please try. What it leaves off, specifically, is the point that Zionism is a suggestion that Jews RECLAIM nationhood in Israel. This is in the second definition I provided, incidentally: "A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine."

From your statement above, I guess you're possibly of the opinion that they weren't actually reestablishing it, but simply renewing notice to the world of their nationhood or something to that effect. That would actually go far to explaining why you include only the evolution and nothing later. If this is your position, though, I would strongly suggest that this is not a position which should be endorsed by Wikipedia in the first sentence. This is your POV, if that's what it is, which is not sourced. Is this the problem? Maybe it is.

5. A culmination does not mean the end. If you want to use the word "resulted" instead, though, that's accurate too. Personally I would simply describe it more as a culmination, because, after all, that was the whole point, to get a homeland. This wasn't exactly some insignificant byproduct.

6. It seems to me that the footnotes support what I linked them to very well. In fact, that clause itself where I placed them seems to specifically reference the sentence from which I took them. "While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel," it says, the primary basis was actually secular and related to antisemitism. Is this not indeed a qualification of the first sentence, which had suggested the primary basis of a historical religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the land of Israel? This is why I moved the sources down there, where that thought was more appropriately placed. Yes, you are certainly right that there is a distinction between historical nationhood and religious tradition, but doesn't the latter derive directly from the former? If not, what does it derive from? The religious tradition, I'm assuming, is based in the ancient Jewish nationhood. You could source the statement with different information, of course, or you could elaborate on the ancient nationhood, and I wouldn't have a problem with either, but I do believe the cites where I placed them in fact support both the ancient nationhood and the traditional religious link.

With all that in mind, I still have a big problem with the first paragraph, but I'll seek another compromise. Thanks. Mackan79 19:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, somehow didn't post last comment with sources. For each for the new first sentence, simply see Dictionary.com.

Definition 1. "a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel." This supports statement that it culminated in creation of Israel. "Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary."
Definition 2. "A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel." This supports statement that modern form supports Israel. "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition."
Definition 4. "The belief that Jews should have their own nation; Jewish nationalism. Zionism gained much support among Jews and others in the early twentieth century, and the hoped-for nation was established in the late 1940s in Palestine, as the state of Israel. Zionism is opposed by most Arabs." This supports statement that it supports continuing status as homeland for Jewish people, as well as previous two statements. "The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition." Mackan79 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain your position succinctly. Quit the rhetoric, the insults, and the long posts, which no one is reading. Just say in ONE SENTENCE why the historical material is misleading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I started off quite succinctly, and you guys responded saying you didn't understand. Thus, I responded by explaining in greater detail. If you want one sentence: the statement is misleading because it's a half-truth, which speaks of a Jewish nation having evolved 3000 years ago, without noting that this nation ceased to exist, thus implying that it went on indefinitely, an implication which is false. This is one and probably the least of four broad problems with the sentences I have identified.

Your hostility is misplaced. It is you, not me, who is abusing Wikipedia. Whether you read my recent posts or not, you read my initial ones, which were very gentle, and you ignored them, instead deciding to simply revert my changes without honestly or openly rebutting my complaints. Instead, you posed multiple silly questions, which I addressed quite nicely, only to have you ignore my responses and keep reverting my changes. How many times would you allow someone to treat you this way while continuing to respond purely in politeness? I have responded almost entirely in politeness. I have also pointed out that I think you understand my objection much better than you are letting on, though. Don't you? Deep down, aren't you aware that the sentence is, well, kind of a little bit awkward for a first sentence in an encyclopedia?

If you had responded thoughtfully to my initial posts, my tone would have remained very pleasant. I'm generally a very pleasant person, who very much likes to talk about things pleasantly. I resent what you are doing, though, because I think you are abusing Wikipedia, by reverting edits, failing to openly address objections, and thus forcing people to be confrontational, which I think is lame. Mackan79 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I guess the guy who reverted my text for Jay is not going to comment on his revert? You guys are good at quoting the rules, but you need to follow them too. They say you need to comment when you revert someone's text.

This dispute is over the inclusion of the following:

- Modern Zionists such as Haim Druckman encourage the Israeli Parliament to pass separatist laws that will deny Arabs the right to live on State land. [9] BBC World News. 04:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said above the article didn't describe the Haim Druckman as a "modern Zionists", nor suggest that he was characteristic of "modern Zionists", nor did it describe the laws as "separatist laws", nor did it say they law will "deny Arabs the right to live on State land". The proposed law hasn't even been passed, and the people who have opposed the laws are also "Zionists". It's the worst kind of POV-pushing; you really shouldn't edit until you have read and understood Wikipedia's content policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

By MODERN, all I mean is "alive now, today". We could call him a self-proclaimed zionist if you prefer. The article does say that they would have no RIGHT because a non-governmental or quasi-governmental agency could opt for "JEWISH ONLY" communities. How would you like it if you could only live in certain towns or housing complexes? This is separatism, the UN figured it out, why can't you? If someone is going to check your religion to decide if he wants to let you rent a house, then that is racism based on religion, regardless of the fact that he may say yes; because he may say NO, which means you have no RIGHT.

I don't know how to explain this better to you; you're not supposed to "figure things out" to suit your agenda, you're supposed to quote what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Read Wikipedia's content policies, and please don't edit till you understand them. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the point or to get some point of understanding, think about this. If 17 parliament members wanted the legislation, but it did not pass, does that mean that the parliament who opposed it are not zionists? Is there a term for moderate zionists and radical zionists? Because if you say All or Most Jews are zionists, as someone put in this article, and then you say that "zionists" do not want to be separatists, then there must be some different types of zionists. We can't say that all jews are zionists as if that means the same thing to everyone. This article, as it is, does not help people to understand what zionism means today in real life. It says at the top of the article that it is not a history of Israel, yet it discusses almost nothing in the context of the last 30 years.

Please don't delete my comments again, as you just did, and please review WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:SOAP. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

He makes a point; surely Zionism has evolved since in rose to prominence in the late 19th century, so I don't see a problem with the "modern" appelation, though I think for temporal sake "21th century Zionist" would be better. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Then find some strong sources that discuss, in a well-rounded way, modern Zionist movements. Don't cherry-pick one article about one proposed law, completely POV the source via original research, and describe one particular Israeli mentioned in it as characteristic of "Modern Zionists". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind looking for more articles, but I am still going to include this one, because it does talk about zionism and it is relevant. If you want to find some citation that say Druckman is a radical freak who is not respected by most zionists, then please do. More tomorrow Pco 06:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not going to include it in this article, because it doesn't talk about Zionism, it talks about a proposed law in 2002 that never actually became law; it's biased cherry-picking about trivia, and you haven't read any of my comments on this Talk: page, nor Wikipedia's policies. Also, please familiarize yourself with WP:3RR, you can be blocked for failing to follow it. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen here Jay, I am going to include that article and if you don't like, then find an article that disputes what it says. Who do you think you are, accusing me of reverting, when you are the one who did it all day. I have filed a complaint and will continue to do this section that everyone thinks is a good idea, except you. You can write 30 paragraphs about why zionism rocks if you like. I don't delete your content. I am adding something that is missing and is important, so get a life. I am not anti-semetic as you would like to accuse of everyone who doesn't do what you say. Pco 19:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pco, you're engaged in original research, not to mention poor writing. We are not allowed to add our own personal essays to articles, no matter how many sources we provide. Your edits will be reverted until you learn to comply with our content policies, which I strongly suggest you review carefully. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism and post-zionism section

This section is clearly POV, because it mentions the viewpoint that zionism is racism, but mentions nothing about the viewpoint that anti-zionism is antisemitism.--Sefringle 07:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's stop being simplistic. One aspect of zionism is to have a land for only jews, "where jews can live among jews" correct? Watch the movie Munich. By definition that is separatism and racism, whether you are for it or against it.

Anti-zionism is not necesarily anti-semitism - there are many jews who are anti-zionist.Pco 07:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Every jew I know consiters them to be traitors to Judiasm. But we are not here to discuss whether zionism is antisemitism. What is important is that we include the opposing viewpoint to the claim that zionism is racism, which is clearly POV. If we include that, we must also include the viewpoint that anti-zionism is antisemitism.--Sefringle 07:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just curious: what does "anti-zionism" mean? Do some people say that unless you're a Zionist, you're necessarily a racist? Mackan79 08:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No. If you are opposed to zionism, you are an anti-zionist. If you are neutral to the topic, you are neither a zionist or anti-zionsit.--Sefringle 08:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Random House Webster's College Dictionary, Zionism is "a worldwide Jewish movement for the establishment and development of the State of Israel." An anti-Zionist, therefore would be someone who is against "the establishment and development of the State of Israel." This excellent NPOV definition does not mention anything about any race. --GHcool 18:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That definition is inaccurate and pov. Zionism is the movement for the creation of a Jewish state - not necessarily in Israel. Zionists considered Uganda for a long time and almost decided on there instead of Israel. KazakhPol 19:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com, zionism is "a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel."--Sefringle 02:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you guys write something on "post zionism". I am adding a section on "modern zionism" whether you like it or not. If you take turns reverting my text as you did yesterday, then you will be reported just like Jayjg for lying about what I have posted, in order to get me blocked. Yesterday, we came to a consensus that a section on Modern Zionism was needed, so that is what I am doing. If you want to look at this intro issue as well, go ahead, otherwise I will.

This part in the intro is poorly written, and belongs in the Modern zionism section. If you don't like what I writel, then just add your own content. Stop reverting my content, because they are valid and you have no good reason, other than your own desire to deny the truth that some zionists do bad things. You have about 30 paragraphs about why zionism is good, so get off of your high horses.

While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in Europe during the 19th century. (first it says the modern movement was , where it should be modern movement is, not was.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Pco (talk • contribs)

Since this section is way too long and bias, I removed the part about the UN resolution declaring zionism as racism. It is currently stated pretty early in the anti-zionism article.--Sefringle 07:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern Zionism (in progress)

This is just a rough draft that I posted here in TALK last night and Jay decided he would delete it, while I am in the midst of trying to work on it and discuss it with people not including Jayjg who were participating cooperatively) Please comment constructively, this is not a final draft of what will be in the article. See [10] Pco 07:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You've really got to get consensus, here, on the talk page, for adding that, since multiple editors have expressed their opposition to its inclusion. You still don't seem to understand a lot of aspects of Wikipedia policy -- in particular, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. For example, you're making a big deal of 17 legislators supporting a particular loathsome bill. This falls afoul of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, as it's a small portion of the Knesset (about one-seventh); the bill didn't even come within a mile of becoming law; it was overwhelmingly rejected by everyone other than the small group of supporters. Why, then, is it important to include it in the article about Zionism, rather than, say, somewhere talking about extremist voices in Israeli politics? The only reason I can see is that you want to use it as a criticism of Zionism; such criticism may well belong in this article, but this is a very poor example. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, no one had objected to this new content, as what I had posted yesterday was one sentence and one link. I have edited down what I had stated above (see below). It is important because Olmert specifically talks about Zionism and Haim Druckman is a leading Zionist as is stated elsewhere in Wikipedia. Isn't this article about zionism? I am happy to hear votes, but I am going to get some from other people, rather than the people who are clearly biased against saying anything negative about zionism. Pco 20:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Second of all, everyone should know that your other user name is Jayjg and you lied yesterday about what I posted in order to get me blocked and then you told Luna Santin to delete my request for a 3rd opinion and then you deleted the comments I had made on this talk page, and now you are back again under a different name. What are you going to do next?

I'm going to tell you you are wrong about my being anyone other than myself; I've never edited Wikipedia under any other name; the fact that two people have the same first and last initials is hardly evidence of their being the same person, even if they find themselves agreeing with each other on matters of Wikipedia policy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so what is the other name you used? You told someone yesterday that you had two user names because one got spammed. Pco 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? Read what I said: I've never edited Wikipedia under any other name. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And stop deleting other editors' comments or I guarantee someone other than me will take action. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop calling people liars and sockpuppets or you're likely to be reported and blocked from editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I never made any sockpuppet comment - and it even said on that entry that it was a hacker's comment, not mine. One of the people who are writing on this page is a hacker. I know that. I didn't call Jayjg a liar, the person who unblocked me after he had me blocked called him a liar. Pco 01:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So someone else has been editing as User:Pco? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're saying Netsnipe called Jayjg a liar? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern Zionism

While zionism was founded as a movement toward returning Jewish people to the land known as Israel or Palestine, modern day zionism is an ideology related to protecting and supporting jewish people within the State of Israel. Zionism is both political and religious.

President Olmert recently said that he wishes to "dilute" the meaning of zionism so that it will appeal to jewish citizens of both left and right wings [46]. Similar to George Bush's statement "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists", Olmert was quoted as saying "Whoever believes in the right of the Jewish People to have a sovereign Jewish state in any part of the Land of Israel is a Zionist." [47] However, with Olmert's approval rating at only 20% within Israel [citation coming], one could easily conclude that many jews in Israel do not support his Zionist agenda.

While most people have accepted Israel's right to occupy land in Palestine, the most vocal critics of Zionism base their criticism on Israel's failure to comply with the United Nations Resolution 242 (citation coming) that was mutually agreed upon in 1968 to divide the land equitably and return land to Palestinians that had been taken during the recent war and was being occupied by the State of Israel at that time.[citation coming]

The political party which is identified with Religious Zionism is called Mafdal or NRP (National Religious Party). Gush Emunim, formally established in 1974, is an Israeli political movement which is closely associated with and highly influential within the National Religious Party (NRP). Gush Emunim encourages Jewish settlement on land they believe God has allotted for Jews.

Rabbi Haim Druckman, a founder of and leading activist within Gush Emunim returned to the National Religious Party from Morasha [48] and in 2002, Druckman managed to gain the support of 17 Israeli Parliament officials in an effort to pass a law that would deny Arabs the right to live on State land. [49] BBC World News. Druckman, has described the cabinet's support for this legislation as "one of the government's finest hours", a decision that he said "put colour back into the cheeks of Zionism". Many groups were outraged at the proposed legislation and called it blatantly racist [50].

If you want to vote for or against any of this content above, state specifically what sentence you oppose and why. Thanks. Pco 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This was a comment made earlier about the new "Modern Zionism" section: He (she actually) makes a point; surely Zionism has evolved since it rose to prominence in the late 19th century, so I don't see a problem with the "modern" appelation, though I think for temporal sake "21st Century Zionists" would be better. -- Kendrick7talk 05:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern Zionism

If you want to vote for or against any of the content above, [11] state specifically what sentence you oppose and why. Thanks. Pco 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This was a comment made earlier about the new "Modern Zionism" section: He (she actually) makes a point; surely Zionism has evolved since it rose to prominence in the late 19th century, so I don't see a problem with the "modern" appelation, though I think for temporal sake "21st Century Zionists" would be better. -- Kendrick7talk 05:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What does "for temporal sake" mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess he means to take time into consideration or something, but its a rather odd way to say it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the translation. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While User:Pco appears interested in expanding the topic of "Modern Zionism", her comments on Talk:Political Cooperative make me think she is using this article as a soapbox: "If you don't let someone tell the world that the politicians are using Zionism as a political tool to give Jewish people everywhere a bad name, while they profit, then how is the world going to know?" —Viriditas | Talk 00:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that Slim Virgin deleted what I asked people to vote on. earlier today. Wow, this is some interesting place. I can tell you don't want new people on this site, so bye bye. It's too bad, I thought it was something good. Pco 01:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pco, I think you should keep trying. If I saw correctly, I strongly agree with some of the material you included, but also see why some of it would have been removed, like the stuff comparing Bush and Olmert (was that it?), which seemed political. Unfortunately, many people here seem to be profoundly unhelpful in allowing or participating in any changes which they, presumably for political reasons, do not like. They are clearly violating Wikipedia policies with these blanket reversions, but unless you persist, it seems they'll simply keep chasing newcomers away. They're doing the same thing to me, but I'm going to keep trying, at least for now. Mackan79 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept the challege:

The Accusation: "Similar to George Bush's statement 'You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists', [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert was quoted as saying "Whoever believes in the right of the Jewish People to have a sovereign Jewish state in any part of the Land of Israel is a Zionist." ... However, with Olmert's approval rating at only 20% within Israel ..., one could easily conclude that many jews in Israel do not support his Zionist agenda." The Reality: Even if the comparison of Olmert with Bush here was appropriate and was cited a reliable source (and it certainly is neither), the comparison is still an extremely weak one. As I explained above, Zionism is, by definition, "a worldwide Jewish movement for the establishment and development of the State of Israel" (Random House Webster's College Dictionary). Olmert's statement is not a "dilution" of the definition; rather it is a reminder of what the definition has always been and always will be. Like any political ideology, there is a wide variety of interpretation of this ideology (Christian Zionism, Labor Zionism, etc.), but what they all have in common is exactly what Olmert said: the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a sovereign Jewish state in at least a part of the Land of Israel. The contrast between Olmert's statement and Bush's is jarring because Bush's statement, in effect, redefines and reinterprets the funamental American political ideology of an environment of open political debate. (This value has been bent or broken various times for various reasons in American history, but that's another issue). As for the WP:NOR conclusion "that many jews [sic] in Israel do not support [Olmert's] Zionist agenda," I have already discussed it here, but to summarize: there are many factors for Olmert's low approval rate within Israel, but that Olmert's Zionism is one of those factors is extremely dubious because Olmert is anything but a hardliner.
The Accusation: "While most people have accepted Israel's right to occupy land in Palestine, the most vocal critics of Zionism base their criticism on Israel's failure to comply with the United Nations Resolution 242 ... that was mutually agreed upon in 1968 to divide the land equitably and return land to Palestinians that had been taken during the recent war and was being occupied by the State of Israel at that time." The Reality: The claim that "most people have accepted Israel's right to occupy land in Palestine" is as POV as one gets. It sounds to me like Pco considers Israel proper to be part of "Palestine." Certainly Hamas thinks so, but "most people" do not and those who do think so have not "accepted Israel's right to occupy land in Palestine." Furthermore, Israel has not failed "to comply with United Nations Rsolution 242, which encouraged the principle of land for peace in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel accepted the resolution while the PLO rejected it; not "mutually agreed upon" as Pco claims (read any reliable book on the Arab-Israeli conflict and you'll find the same information ... I suggest Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard). The Oslo Accords are the perfect example of both Israel and the PLO trying to abide by Resolution 242, and achieving some important milestones, but ultimately failing due mostly to the continuation of anti-Semitic indoctrination of Palestinian youths, the illegal arming of Palestinians not involved in law enforcement, and, of course, Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians even though Yassir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority explicitly promised to halt all three. It is important to remember that Resolution 242 does not call for Israeli withdrawl from territories (or "the territories") before the Palestinians uphold their end of the bargain.
The last two paragraphs of Pco's anti-Semitic, anti-truth, anti-Wikipedia dissertation on the evils of "Modern Zionism" are given undue weight. --GHcool 05:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes 29 and 30

Need a little fixing up. Rich Farmbrough, 16:33 18 December 2006 (GMT).

Brevity

Mackan79, is there a reason you refuse to leave brief comments? I've been wading through your edits, finding it very difficult to follow your points. And please, stop with the accusations and attacks. Try to keep your response to less than 50 words. Brevity is key. —Viriditas | Talk 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, like I just said, I started off quite polite and succinct, only to be reverted and ignored, with no attempts to address my concerns or incorporate my suggestions. You may not have seen this, which was under a previous heading, "First Paragraph." This left me where I could either start repeating myself for attention, or to continue editing, but explaining myself in more detail, in the hope something I said would cut through. Also, the fact that they wouldn't talk meant I pretty much had to guess their problems, which tends to take more space. As far as attacks go, I think I'm entitled to tell someone they're playing dumb, especially when they do it repeatedly. I've seen there are essays here on "don't be dense" and "don't be a dick." So maybe brevity would have worked better all along, but all I can say is that I tried it and it didn't work.

I appreciate your suggestion though, as you're probably at least partially right. Did you have any other thoughts? Mackan79 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because you have come to the talk page does not mean that others are obligated to accept your every suggestion (even if you are concise and polite). However, if you leave these long ridiculous messages it is almost guranteed that no one will even read them past the first sentence. Furthermore it has a tendency to breed contempt and to come across as pretentious.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone is insistent on keeping something in or out of the article, I think they're very much obliged to explain that opposition and respond to the person suggesting the edit. I would never delete something somebody suggested without engaging their argument. You can lecture me about being verbose all you want, but there is a group here which is blatantly violating wikipedia policies with their reversions. The reason you're not supposed to edit war is that it's offensive to the person who suggests an edit. It forces them to try other methods. I'm not entitled to a change, but I am entitled to an honest response from someone who reverts my edits, and that's something I was not given. Mackan79 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't fair to expect people to read long posts when they've asked a straightforward question, Mackan. The point is that people largely won't read them, so if you want to be read, less is more. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you weren't reading my posts from the beginning, you could have mentioned that, and I might have been less annoyed when you kept asking the same questions I just addressed. Do you see how that would be annoying, and might actually waste a lot of my time? Telling me to be succinct says "you used too many words, I'm going to make you jump through some more hoops just to annoy you and hopefully chase you away." Mackan79 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, asking you to be succinct is a polite way of saying your posts are too long. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationhood and First Sentence

So I'd like to renew my question: can someone please explain exactly what the historical facts in the first sentence are trying to say? It looks to me like it's suggesting a historical basis for Zionism, based in a Jewish presence in Israel for 3000 years. Yet, the statement about Kindgoms seem to suggest that the major presence ended in 200 AD. Is this correct? All in all, the sentence seems unnecessarily complex, unclear and confusing.

Would it not be better to simply state what Zionism is, and then to explain the various bases below? The first paragraph could be very sharp and clear without that historical information. It would give a strong flavor of neutrality, by resisting the urge to try to score points in the opening paragraph, and by giving no impression whether we think Zionism is good or bad. For this reader at least, the sentence as is leaves the pointed question: well, what happened after 200 AD? Honestly, the real impression it gives, though is: "Ok, expect a lot of awkward and biased material to follow; they couldn't even get through the first sentence before piling it on."

Shouldn't clarity and the appearance of neutrality be a priority? If it is, I simply don't see the need to single those two facts out in the first sentence, where any skeptic will immediately see bias. As a hypothetical, if we had three people -- one zionism proponent, one neutral person, and one zionism opponent -- is this the compromise they would reach? Mackan79 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit to not reading much of the discussion on this page. I just want to say that in my opinion the first sentence is not good. The first half is ok but the second half feels like an argument in favor of Zionism and not like a neutral description. I think that arguments for or against don't belong so close to the start of the article. It isn't enough to reply that the facts stated in the second part of the sentence are true, since that argument would equally justify changing the second half to something like "which had an Arab majority for about 1500 years". --Zero^talk 05:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But there is a historical basis for Zionism. You may disagree with it, but it exists, and that's what our lead indicates, just as the Encylopaedia Britannica does, for example. Their article on Zionism begins: "Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, 'the Land of Israel')." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Zero, an Arab majority was not a basis for Zionism. The ancient homeland of the Jews was. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To call it the ancient homeland for the Jews doesn't sound nearly as contentious, though, as asserting somewhat off-handedly that Jewish nationhood evolved there three thousand years ago and that Kingdoms persisted thereafter. For one thing, it's much clearer as to what point it's getting at, by stating the conclusion up front rather than three lines of facts which merely suggest the conclusion (again, especially odd in a first sentence). Ok, so that was also another thing, that Britanica doesn't drag the sentence to the breaking point simply to cram in that extra fact. It's the clarity of purpose, though, that's the most important. In the version here, in addition to the fact that it's an argument, we're simply not sure exactly what the argument is. That it's the Jewish homeland? That the Jews owned it all along? That the Jews are entitled to it? That it was originally Jewish? Ambiguity like this is the hallmark of biased writing. In any case, I would certainly be happy with a substitution here to ", the ancient homeland of the Jewish people," though I think even that's unnecessary (and in the distinct minority among dictionaries and encyclopedias). Mackan79 06:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between saying it's the ancient homeland of the Jews and that Jewish nationhood evolved there. What exactly is the difference as you see it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying Jewish nationhood evolved there at a specific time is unclear as to what it's trying to get accross. Is it suggesting a continuing claim to the territory from that time forward? Apparently, that's what you think it is suggesting, from our discussion on your talk page. If that is the implication, however, and if that is an appropriate statement, then it should be made clear. As I said, you are having Wikipedia state facts from which a conclusion is to be drawn, but it's simply not clear what the conclusion is. That gives it the appearance of bias. Particularly in the first sentence, if there is a point, it should be made entirely clear, as the ancient homeland statement does. Mackan79 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mackan. I believe this is about the tenth time now that you've associated sources describing Jewish nationhood with a sentence describing a Jewish religious connection to the Land of Israel. I've explained about 6 times now why it's not appropriate to use sources backing up one claim, and move them to instead back up another claim. Your edits have moved from contentious to WP:POINT; if I see you make this specific edit again, I will summarily revert you, regardless of the merits of any other change you might have made. I hope this is clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether we say "ancient homeland" or "nationhood evolved there" is surely the same point. The point being made is that there's a reason (whether you regard it as a good or bad reason) that Zionists focused on the Land of Israel and not on, say, Paris, France. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, you seriously misunderstand me. I am not moving the sources to prove a point. I am moving them as a show of good faith, to you, rather than simply deleting them. I am trying to retain your information, while removing the bias from the first sentence. I explained this in detail, but you apparently didn't read it. Basically, I didn't want to delete it and have you tell me I'm deleting sourced information, so I moved it to an idea which it very much does support, even adding the word "historical" to make the point more clear. How was this inappropriate?

Just for your convenience, my explanation was that the sources in fact support both ideas, that of a historical connection and that of a religious connection. Don't they? Mackan79 22:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, I have definitely not understood you, particularly the point you keep trying to make about these sources presenting some sort of "bias". I know you've explained it many times at length, but I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say, nor can many others here. Would it be possible to explain how it is biased in one sentence? Preferably under 100 words? Perhaps your other explanations are just saying too many different things, which confuses people, and they need to be distilled down to their essence. As for the sources, they only support the idea of Jewish nationhood, not of there being a religious connection. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I don't know what's wrong with you. You just made a completely false accusation against me and you're not even going to appologize. At least two people have said that they very much understand my objection, and agree with me. You are not entitled to tell me to explain things in 100 words. You are not entitled to tell me to explain something 15 times. This is arrogant, offensive, and belligerent. If you don't understand my suggestion, do you understand the statements made by the two others here? Do you understand anything that's been said here that you could actually write a sentence in response rather than simply telling me to repeat myself? Obviously you've decided that you don't like me, and so you don't have to show me the slightest bit of respect. Meanwhile, Slimvirgin is following me around and reverting my edits on other pages without explanation. Is this how you guys lead by example? Mackan79 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, as far as I can tell the only person who sort of agreed with you on this subject was Zero0000, and even he said he hadn't closely read your Talk: page comments, but merely thought the sentence was somewhat POV. Have I missed something? Also, I haven't "decided I don't like you", I just don't understand your objections to the current material, and don't agree with your edits. In particular I don't agree with edit comments like "Ref 4 removed for Jayjg", which seems deliberately provocative at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Move second part of first sentence to second paragraph

I really don't care enough to stick around and argue, but my suggestion is to move second part of first sentence to second paragraph where it is useful in expanding on what "Zionism is based in part upon" and does not distract from the otherwise clear definition of Zionism in the first sentence. "where Jewish nationhood is thought to have evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era, and where Jewish kingdoms existed up to the 2nd century CE" WAS 4.250 11:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support moving one of the clauses and keeping one. So, for example, "Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where Jewish nationhood is thought to have evolved between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era" or "where Jewish kingdoms existed up to the 2nd century CE." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that still has the problem of asserting a fact which doesn't tell the reader what he's supposed to derive from it. Why not just state the point directly, as the Britanica article does? "..., the ancient homeland of the Jews" or "...the Jewish people," or something similar. Again, I don't think it's necessary, but it gets your point accross, if the point is simply to quickly answer "Why Israel?", without creating other extraneous implications right off the bat. Mackan79 15:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It also occurs to me: the Britanica article you cite specifies that it is the ancient Jewish homeland only after referring to it as "Palestine." Calling it Palestine, of course, makes such a clarification much more appropriate. When you already call it the "Land of Israel," though, isn't the basis already entirely clear? The clarification then almost seems redundant. Mackan79 16:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The proposal by SlimVirgin seems to me to be a good compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a need for compromise here? Either fact seems entirely unnecessary, and already clarified by the reference to the "Land of Israel," which already asserts a historical claim. If the reference were only to the kingdoms portion, I wouldn't necessarily consider it biased, but why muck up the sentence?

The thing is, there's not even a concern here about reverse-bias. It's solely whether or not to put a questionably appropriate fact in the first sentence, which three people have agreed seems out of place, and nobody has strongly defended. Jay already prettied up the paragraph by calling Israel a "success" of Zionsim, and obscuring the contemporary usage with flowery language about "self-determination." Many people seem to think the entire article is chock-full of bias. I'm by no means trying to make it go the other way. Simply cleaning up the first sentence, I'd say, is very much a compromise. Mackan79 18:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Change made based on support and weak opposition. Please feel free to expand historical basis section in body of article. Mackan79 20:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your edit is substantially worse than the original version, for reasons we discussed on your talk page yesterday. Your version now suggests an evolution of Jewish nationhood 3000 years ago which impliedly continued there until today. But you don't even state this as the position of Zionism, but rather simply as a fact, endorsed by Wikipedia. This is obviously biased, retaining all of the problems discussed above, except that it is slightly less confusing and slightly more POV.

As you have said, everybody knows what the Land of Israel is. According to Wikipedia's first sentence, "The Land of Israel is a term and concept in Jewish and Christian thought concerning the historic territory of the Israelites from Biblical times to the present day." Why is this additional assertion of fact necessary? Mackan79 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(copied [by SlimVirgin] from SV talk) Slimvirgin, your reversion was without concensus and without explaining the need for your change. Three people have suggested that the facts do not belong there, while only you and one other person who did not comment suggested that the information should be partly kept. I have responded on the talk page; please respond. Mackan79 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, why do you keep seeing implications in words that no-one else can see? The current version implies nothing about an evolution of Jewish nationhood 3000 years ago which impliedly continued there until today; which words imply that? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. If you say something evolved 3000 years ago, and then you say nothing about what happened thereafter, there is a resulting implication that this is something that continued existing after that time. Otherwise, you would say that it evolved and existed for a certain time. Similarly, if I'm talking about "Israel, which was created in 1948," a person would rightly assume that Israel still exists, or I probably would have mentioned that. Am I wrong? In any case, I actually had an extended discussion with SlimVirgin on her talk page where she insisted that, yes, the Jewish nationhood DID continue to exist ever after that time. Do you disagree? Mackan79 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the only implication there is that Zionists were interested in the Land of Israel because that's where the original notion of Jewish nationhood evolved; I don't see any implication of continuity. Indeed, the introduction is clear that Zionism started in the 19th century. Tell you what, as an attempt to compromise, I'll move it to the second paragraph, where you preferred it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayjg, I appreciate it. Not to push my luck, but isn't the first paragraph actually clearer now? Something funny: again, my statement about removing the sources for your benefit in the edit summary wasn't a jibe. I was simply sure that if I put them back where I had, you were going to revert it based on that reason alone, which I didn't want to happen. Assume good faith! It's easy to misread people.

Leftover idea: with the simplified first sentence, I actually think the third one about why Zionism continues isn't necessary. Before, the first sentence sounded aspirational: "We want a homeland in the LoI, where this and this and this happened." With the current version, though, it's already consistent with the SoI existing. That does kind of make the third sentence redundant. Just a thought, if that makes sense. Thanks again. Mackan79 03:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Which sentence would you remove, and where would you put it? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The current initial four sentences work for me:

Definition
Past
Current
Aspiration - WAS 4.250 10:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan79, just in case you wish to know what a neutral observer (me) thinks about your interactions on this page; you have the superficial appearance of someone who is only here to cause trouble. You might want to deal with that appearance in some way. But don't ask me how, because my answer would be to not deal with SlimVirgin or any article she is involved with and I have no doubt that you would find that an insulting outrageous objectionable presumptious thing to say so I won't. WAS 4.250 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, thanks very much for the comment. Like I said, I started off as nicely as I could, but then found it somewhat impossible to get through, and found the reception very cold, so I tried various other styles. I'm certainly not here to cause trouble; I think I've been making a very modest suggestion for the first sentence, which I actually think would help everyone by increasing the article's credibility, but I appreciate your comment nonetheless. Mackan79 01:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, gee whiz, that's such a nice response; that I would like to respond by saying that your efforts have resulted in the first sentence being made better - even if you don't see it that way - and that I really really suggest that you accept victory at this point. I'll bet you could improve other articles for a while, then get back to making this article even better afterwords. I could go on and on about factors that make a reception cold or why a break from this article right about now might possibly be useful, but I'm just not a very talkive sort of guy. Again, thanks for such a nice response. WAS 4.250 07:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

First Sentence is POV

Zionism is a political movement rooted in religious doctrine.

If wikipedia doesn't state that Zionism is both religious and political right from the beginning (which is why it is undemocratic) then wikipedia is giving bias to the term in favor of the State of Israel.

It is like saying that christianity is a political movement because they support republican motives to make abortion illegal. Sure christianity has political motives, but it is still religious.

Nice try, but since Theodore Herzl, David Ben Gurion, most of the founders of the State of Israel, and most of the Zionist pioneers to Israel were all left-leaning, relatively secular, and many were even athiestic, your statement really doesn't hold up in the court of NPOV and crosses the line into outright ignorance. --GHcool 20:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well you bring up the other problem with this article. It should say that there is a difference between supporting a homeland that includes and protects jews as well as all others, and supporting a Jewish State that discriminates against all others. That is the difference betweeen the people who support and do not support the State of Israel. Nevertheless, to deny that it is rooted in religion and separatism, when the whole concept is based on "to be or not to be a jew" is just ridiculous.

No matter how much support you are able to get for the killing of Arabs by misleading the public, that will not change the fact that murder is murder and genocide is genocide. And there is no such thing as pre-emptive strikes in self-defense, because that also equals murder.

If I decided to make California for Atheists only (come on in if you agree to denounce your religion), then you would see that as a racist and religiously discriminatory idea, but if you convolute the meaning of zionism and confuse the issues with a ton of unimportant details, then maybe people won't see the truth about modern zionism. This article is intentionally not stating the information clearly. Zionists are of two types, those who support a homeland that is not segregated, and those who support a state that is segregated. No one would call zionism racism if the goal of the state was not obviously to deny the existence of all non-jews. Do Palestinians have a right to exist?

I guess you would reply "Sure, but not in my neighborhood". -- the above nonsense was written by 71.135.36.250.

I've already answered these exact same accusations before:

The Accusation: "Zionism is a political movement rooted in religious doctrine. If wikipedia [sic] doesn't state that Zionism is both religious and political right from the beginning (which is why it is undemocratic) then wikipedia [sic] is giving bias to the term in favor of the State of Israel. ... If I decided to make California for Atheists only ..., then you would see that as a racist and religiously discriminatory idea, .... No one would call zionism [sic] racism if the goal of the state was not obviously to deny the existence of all non-jews.[sic]" The Reality: Like most proponents of the "Zionism is racism" UN resolution, 71.135.36.250 have probably never heard or read an NPOV definition of Zionism so they could decide for themselves whether or not Zionism is actually racism. According to Random House Webster's College Dictionary, Zionism is simply "a worldwide Jewish movement for the establishment and development of the State of Israel." It does not mention anything about any racial or religious doctrine. Without a doubt, Israel practices racial discrimination, but then again so does every other government in the world preferring certain citizens more than others. Therefore, proponents of the "Zionism is racism" campaign should equally insist that Hindutva, Kemalism, and pan-Arabism are all racist or "undemocratic" ideologies.
The Accusation: "No matter how much support you are able to get for the killing of Arabs by misleading the public, that will not change the fact that murder is murder and genocide is genocide." The Reality: The Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines "genocide" as "the deliberate and systematic exterminization of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" (emphasis added). The word genocide has been used accurately to describe what happened in Armenia during the 1910s, Europe during the 1940s, Rwanda during the 1990s, and Darfur today. The term has also been used innaccurately with malicious intent to to twist the facts about the reality of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This may burst the bubble of anti-Israel propogandists, but Israel does not impliment forced labor of Arabs (as the Turks did to the Armenians and the Nazis did to Jews), send Arabs to concentration camps (as the Nazis did to the Jews), military roundups and execution of Arabs without due process of law (as the Nazis, Turks, Hutus of Rwanda did and the Janjaweed of Darfur currently are doing), or any other action that could be described as the "systematic exterminization" of Arabs of Palestinians based solely on their "national, racial, political, or cultural" background. --GHcool 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The major problem with this article is that it is so focused merely on how Zionists perceive Zionism, as opposed to what it is considered generally. On the one hand, I think this is appropriate, to have a movement defined by the people who support it. On the other hand, if there is a very significant opposition who see it differently, then it seems their views are entitled to discussion as well.

Even beyond that, though, there is Zionism and there is Zionsim. In the US, if you look at the Republican and Democratic party platforms, you'll see that basically the only major difference regards their positions on abortion (or at least, that's how it used to be). Everything else is about low taxes, strong defense, freedom and apple pie. Does that mean the Republicans and Democrats agree on everything? Of course not; it simply means that when they define themselves, they do so in the least controversial terms possible. While an encyclopedia isn't supposed to be controversial, though, it should be able to come up with more than you'd find in their party platforms. This article, though, seems like it is largely taken simply from the Zionism party platform. That's all accurate, but it leaves a whole lot out.

I'm not an expert on Zionism, but my understanding is that one of its most controversial aspects is its religious and racial components. That doesn't mean these are the most important components to Zionists themselves, but controversy does make something noteworthy, I think, particularly since the controversy is probably what brings the majority of people to this article. Mackan79 03:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan79, I agree with much of what you are saying. Where I disagree is that people in opposition to a given ideology have as much of a right to define that ideology as do the people who subscribe to it. Take, for example, the two major American political parties. How would it look if the lead paragraph for the Republican Party went something like this: "The Republican Party is the more more socially conservative and economically libertarian of the two major parties. Some people regard Republicans as generally homophobic." The first sentence is undeniably true because all of the Republicans define themselves in that way and their opposition defines them. Republicans often disagree with each other about specific issues (such as gay rights), but they all fit under the broad umbrella of the first sentence. The second sentence is an interpretation, original research, biased, and narrow-minded. If you agree that these two sentences together is an unsatisfactory definition for the term "Republican Party," you must accept that a similar two sentence definition of "Zionism" such as "Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. Some people regard Zionists as racists because that the notion of a Jewish state is discriminatory," would be equally satisfactory. --GHcool 08:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Briangotts

Unless I've missed something here, you have reverted, without comment or explanation, an edit I made in which I removed a passage that put forward dubious POV claims concerning racism and Zionism. [12] What's the deal? BYT 19:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's POV, but I think it should probably be made NPOV rather than simply removing. The problem is that the charge and counter-charge of racism don't really make sense in context. The point being made here is that people oppose Zionism because they see it as racist. The fact that Zionists also see their critics as racists isn't immediately relevant to that thought; it simply muddles it. It's something that should go elsewhere. I'd have something like this (as a starting point):

"Critics of Zionism often assert that it is a form of racism, although this is a contention Zionists vehemently deny. These critics see the changes in demographic balance which created a Jewish state and displaced over 700,000 Arab refugees,^[3] and the methods employed along the way, as inevitable consequences of Zionism. Critics also point to current inequities between Jews and Arabs in Israel, similarly viewing them as attributable to Zionist beliefs and ideologies. Some consider this ethnic and cultural discrimination to be a form of racism."

I'd put the counter accusation of anti-Zionists being racists below, since it's a rather unrelated counterattack, whether or not it is valid in its own right. Mackan79 01:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll change it now. --Sefringle 02:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There are too many references to "some critics" in this article, particularly in the racism section. That has to be rewritten with sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, with a subject like this, it's better to quote the sources. Say X said, rather than "some critics," with one reference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Gave example of how to attribute, as in the case of Joseph Massad. That way readers know who are these "some". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, my edits were simply intended to make it more NPOV. I don't know all the sources; that's one I ran across on Massad's page, but I do think these are pretty standard arguments (meaning the sources must be out there). I'll leave other sourcing to others though. I simply think this is a view point which kind of needs to be included on this topic. Mackan79 04:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

MOST JEWS???? WHERE IS THE SUPPORT FOR THIS - OF COURSE, THERE IS NONE, BUT LET'S KEEP IT ANYWAY, BECAUSE WE LIKE THE IDEA. Since 1948 most Jews have continued to identify as Zionists, in the sense that they support the State of Israel even if they do not choose to live there. This worldwide support has been of vital importance to Israel, both politically and financially. This has been particularly true since 1967, as the rise of Palestinian nationalism and the resulting political and military struggles have eroded sympathy for Israel among non-Jews, at least outside the United States. In recent years, many Jews have criticised the morality and expediency of Israel's continued control of the territories captured in 1967. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.36.250 (talk • contribs)

To user 71.135.36.250: Please note that these pages are not a substitute for a discussion forum. These pages are made available to contributors to discuss the article, and not to discuss the subject. If you persist in using these pages to discuss the subject, do not be surprised if these off-topic comments are removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it "off topic" to say that there is no support for this POV statement in the article?

"Since 1948 most Jews have continued to identify as Zionists, in the sense that they support the State of Israel even if they do not choose to live there. This worldwide support has been of vital importance to Israel, both politically and financially. This has been particularly true since 1967, as the rise of Palestinian nationalism and the resulting political and military struggles have eroded sympathy for Israel among non-Jews, at least outside the United States. In recent years, many Jews have criticised the morality and expediency of Israel's continued control of the territories captured in 1967.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.36.250 (talk • contribs)

71.135.36.250, in Wikipedia we do not really care if editors support this or that statement. What we expect from contributors to this article (or any other article, for that matter) is that editors provide material that is attributable to a reputable source that describe the notable published opinions of others about the subject of the article. If the material that you dispute is not attributed to a reliable source, you can tag it with the template {{fact}}, alerting other editors that you are asking for sources to support that material. And if supporting sources are not forthcoming within a reasonable time, you may delete the unsourced/unattributed material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

71..., if you put the {{fact}} symbol by it, it will say "citation needed" in the article itself. This tells editors to look for a source, but also generally alerts readers that it is disputed. Mackan79 03:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

{sniff sniff} Do I smell a sockpuppet? Compare 71.135.36.250 with Pco. --GHcool 08:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism section

The Anti-Zionism section is one of the largest sections in the article, 7 full paragraphs, even though it has its own whole article devoted to the subject. We manage to summarize all of Jewish history, 3 millenia worth, in 3 paragraphs, Aliyah gets 2 paragraphs, and we amazingly summarize Christian Zionism in just 2 sentences. On top of that, there is a second whole section devoted to the subject, "Opposition or ambivalence", comprising 4 more paragraphs. This kind of POV-pushing nonsense has to stop. There is a separate article Anti-Zionism, it's not going away, so get used to that, and work with it. I've cut out some of the irrelevant or unsourced stuff from the Anti-Zionism section, and it will be getting even smaller. Please decide on the critical points to keep, and remove the rest, so I don't have to cut it all myself. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's be candid here. The article itself is about 100 paragraphs long. About 85 paragraphs in, conservatively speaking, we have a section on anti-zionism and post-zionism, which is 7 paragraphs long. This section begins with a highly POV introduction framing the issue as continuing "misgivings" despite Israel's very long and well-estabslished existance. It then suddenly becomes very interested in religious motivations, discussing several religious Judaism-based objections to Zionism. Of the entire section, I'd say the 6th is the only one properly described as criticism, now the shortest, while much of the 1st and 7th paragraphs express strong support for Zionism and criticism of anti-Zionists.

I appreciate your statement that the main stuff should go in the anti-Zionism page, and I agree that the criticism needs to be better sourced. To call the current page overly critical at this point, though, or before your most recent edit, doesn't seem supportable.Mackan79 19:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

As we have a full article on Anti-Zionism, guidelines advises us to summarize that article in a section in main articles. See Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles. As such, a short but accurate summary of this topic would be most suitable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You forget the paragraphs on "Opposition", much higher in the article. Also, Zionism, anti-Zionism, and "anti-anti-Zionism" are three separate phenomena. Anti-Zionism is a movement, and a set of beliefs, and that movement has attracted its own detractors; arguments against anti-Zionism are not identical to arguments for Zionism. In any event Jossi is completely correct; a "summary" of the Anti-Zionism article should be a summary of the main article, placed in one section; I suspect a paragraph would be enough, perhaps two at most. Do you want to take a crack at it, before I take out the trash? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, a few issues. 1. I'm not an expert on anti-zionism by any means. I simply think Zionism is a controversial topic with opposition that should be discussed. 2. Having said that, the anti-zionism page is clearly a mess. For instance, it's really not clear that it's a movement at all, or if this is simply the word for any kind of opposition to Zionism. 3. In addition to needing attention, I think that makes it a poor representative for all criticism and opposition to Zionism for the reason you say, that anti-Zionism may be its totally own thing. 4. You're right, I didn't really see the opposition section above.

That said, my general feeling is that the opposition section should probably be beefed up to include more than simply Jewish opposition, since as you say, opposition and anti-Zionism are different things (or at least, they are in a sense, and it's certainly not possible to characterize all non-Jewish criticism of Zionism as anti-zionism) This could be done in an NPOV way, though I don't think it needs to be done right now, but if that were done, the anti-Zionism section would become less important. Even now, though, the anti-Zionism section on the Zionism page is actually strongly POV pro-Zionism in many aspects. If it's being cut down, I'd suggest cutting down anything but the 6th paragraph, which I believe is currently the only non-Judaism-based criticism in the whole article.

So sure, I'm going to try to look at it, but I think step one is figuring out what should actually be in the anti-zionism page, before trying to summarize that into the zionism page. Mackan79 19:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I made my first effort. As a starting point, don't assume I'm aware of delicate implications. Some of the language is strong, but I tried to make it as reasonable to both sides as I could. The section might also include further brief Zionist responses to the anti-Zionist arguments. I added the reasons people say Zionism isn't racist, but I'm sure others know those arguments better than me.

I reincluded the more moderate forms of anti-Zionism because I think they're of interest and relevant and place the more radical criticism in a proper context. The section is also significantly smaller now, though. Mackan79 03:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is too long, at or around 73 kilobytes. The section in question has already been split. Please summarize it in 2-3 paragraphs. Right now, there is an enormous amount of unnecesary verbiage. —Viriditas | Talk 03:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed a little. I'd tend to disagree that it's undue weight though. The article itself is very long, with this criticism not appearing until the very end, less than 1/10 of the article. Moreover, the criticism is actually (at least) two things: anti-Zionism and post-Zionism. Each topic is given merely a paragraph or two, then with one paragraph for response and counterarguments. Would someone really look at this article and say "Whoa, they spent way too much time on the criticism"? My feeling is that to many, perhaps most readers, the controversy is going to be of primary interest. My suggetion would be a more involved pro-Zionist defense, which I think would also be of great interest to many readers.Mackan79 04:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that's how you see the world, and that's fine, but an encyclopedic level of analysis should elevate itself above mundane dualities. Editors don't have to defend anything. The view we take is broad in outlook, but narrow when important details require expansion. History, cultural influence, notable persons involved, and associated groups each contain their fair share of issues. This is not a battleground for ideas or an ideological death match; this is a botanical garden, where each concept must be tended and cared for, trimmed and trained, so that one idea does not crowd out another but instead complements its opposite, forming a complex symbiosis, an interconnected whole. —Viriditas | Talk 05:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, just to respond, I agree with that generally. Of course, it's a balancing act. Controversy shouldn't overwhelm, and it ideally shouldn't just be a list of pros and cons, but when there's a huge controversy attached to an idea, you can't ignore that either. IMO, the current version is a much more defendable article than it was previously, though, and much closer to removing the POV banner. Mackan79 14:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned out some more of the mess. The "Haredi anti-Zionism" stuff didn't belong in the article, and was really just a POV fork of Anti-Zionism started by now-banned editor Daniel575. As well, the Canaanism paragraph was a confusing morass, filled with POV (e.g. describing itself as an "important minority thread"), admitting itself that it "remains poorly defined", and filled with back-and-forth argumentation; it's some completely unsourced business that was created before there was an Anti-Zionism article, and somehow managed to stick around after the sub-article was spun-off. There's still more work to do, but those were two obvious targets for removal. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that material really unnecessary? It seems to me an important aspect of anti-Zionism: the belief that Israel should continue to exist but should no longer organize itself as a Jewish state. The material is from the post-zionism page, which indeed is half of what the section is supposed to be about (but now ignores). It is indeed unsourced, like the vast majority of material on Wikipedia. I'd suggest putting a ^{[citation needed]} symbol by it rather than simply deleting it. I'm the one who called it "poorly defined," incidentally, but that hardly means it's not worth discussing; anti-zionism itself seems to be extremely poorly defined. I'm not sure what makes it a mess, or which of the back-and-forth arguments are POV or inappropriate. Seems like very good material to me. Mackan79 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The two cites so far actually provide extensive info re: the post-zionism movement and its notability; I'm not sure the cite should go so early. As to Canaanism, I don't know anything about it, other than that somebody seemed to think it was interesting context, which I tend to agree (also, the Wikipedia pages explain the movement and its leader pretty well). I called the view notable simply to suggest there may be other positions which aren't discussed, though both cites seem to agree on its notability. I'll look a little more for additional material; there are several cites on the post-zionism page. Mackan79 20:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, we're going to get the material down to a reasonable size for a summary of another article, and that means 2-3 paragraphs, not 5 and growing. Something has to go, and from what I can tell, this is a very small minority view. Can you really tell me it justifies a whole paragraph, or even a sentence? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, comments out of order there. Well, I don't think this is simply a summary of another article. If anything, the other article is an inappropriate spinoff. This is the entire section on why people oppose Zionism (other than a brief thing on intra-Jewish opinion above). Also, it's multiple ideas: anti-zionism, post-zionism, other things too, and a response. Other sections in the article are already longer. To me, this information seems very important; I can't say that's my opinion as an expert, but from the sources I've found, it appears to be a well-discussed view. The sentiments, also, that Israel should continue existing, but with totally equal treatment of all races and religions, is I believe in fact a very widely held opinion. It clarifies that all anti-Zionism isn't about destroying Israel, which I think is very important in fairly representing the position.

Honestly, in a 100 paragraph article, I don't see how we can't spare five pagaraphs on opposition. Also, the paragraph is actually getting shorter, simply with cites. Mackan79 20:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Having made several efforts, I would rather strongly oppose any further efforts to cut the anti-zionsim and post-zionism section without specific reason. If anything, a 100+ paragraph article on Zionism with only 5 paragraphs on opposition is rather ridiculous in its underweight of the opposition. This is not a tangential topic. As is, the section gives 1 paragraph on Arab opposition, 1 paragraph on Jewish opposition, 1 paragraph on post-zionism, 1 paragraph on binationalism and 1 paragraph on anti-anti-zionism. This, for a word which is probably most often used by critics. I really can't see the argument for shrinking this section any further. Mackan79 22:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hardly see why the almost 70 paragraph Anti-Zionism article is an inappropriate spinoff. The only inappropriate spinoff is Haredim and Zionism, a POV fork which is mostly unsourced or cites unreliable sources, and needs to be re-merged. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not inappropriate by itself, but inappropriate as a substitute for its discussion in the article, I think. The thing is, anti-Zionism really seems just to be a phrase for opposition to Zionism, entirely dependent on the definition of Zionism itself. That's why I'm saying it's really more of an aspect of Zionism than its own thing. Only on Wikipedia is anti-zionism a 70 paragraph article... Mackan79 00:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Real Issues

As GHcool says above "Without a doubt, Israel practices racial discrimination......Therefore, proponents of the "Zionism is racism" campaign should equally insist that Hindutva, Kemalism, and pan-Arabism are all racist or "undemocratic" ideologies."

We are not talking about other articles right now, we are talking about zionists.

The racial discrimination is based on religious principals stated by zionists and proclaimed as 'ZIONISM'. Discriminatory laws are promoted by ZIONISTS such as Haim Druckman. Separatist policies are initiated by zionists such as Olmert. You don't want to mention these things regardless of the citations from BBC and elsewhere that I inserted, but they are the basis for the controversy and they are the most important things to point out about Zionism. It only takes one sentence to say that Zionists support a homeland for the Jews in Palestine and Zionism is a religious doctrine with political motives. The rest of the story is based on why people criticize it, whether you want to state it or not. Pco 17:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

President Olmert recently said that he wishes to "dilute" the meaning of zionism so that it will appeal to jewish citizens of both left and right wings [13].

Gush Emunim is an Israeli political movement that sprang out of the conquests of the Six-Day War in 1967, though it was not formally established as an organization until 1974, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War. It encouraged Jewish settlement of land they believe God has allotted for Jews. Gush Emunim was closely associated with, and highly influential in, the Mafdal - National Religious Party (NRP), the party which is identified with religious Zionism.

Rabbi Haim Druckman is a member of the National Religious Party. http://www.sas.upenn.edu/penncip/lustick/app1.html

In 2002, Zionist Haim Druckman gained the support of 17 Israeli Parliament officials in an effort to pass a law that would deny Arabs the right to live on State land. [14] BBC World News.

- In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 was passed. It stated that "zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination"[28] The resolution 3379 was rescinded in 1991 by the Resolution 4686[29]

PCO, if you can be clearer about exactly what you'd like to include, exactly where and why, it might be easier for others to respond. Also, based on my brief experience, I'd recomend avoiding accusations, whether justified or not, which go against Wikipedia principles, and which simply give people a pretext to disregard you. Just my two cents. Best, Mackan79 18:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pco, you can't add personal essays to Wikipedia, no matter how well sourced. Please read our content policies very carefully, particular WP:NOR, which your edits violate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

FW - The fact that my statements are well sourced proves that they are not personal essays. Maybe you need to read the policies. Pco 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern Zionism

Dear Slim Virgin: If you have a reason to delete this section, then state what it is, don't just revert it.Pco 18:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

When the president says he needs to dilute the meaning of the term that is used to create policy for the state, then it is relevant - any idiot can see that. When people try to make laws based on the doctrine of zionism, then that is relevant. Any idiot can see that. Pco 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Your revert actions are not in wikipedias best interest. There are 20 paragraphs of praise and excuses for zionism over the past 300 years. A little current news is a lot more interesting and relevant for wikipedia. Pco 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if your comments remain civil. "Any idiot can see that" is too close to a personal attack for comfort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern Zionism

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently said that he wishes to "dilute the definition of zionism" so that it will appeal to jewish people in both left and right wings of politics [15]. In an effort to gain blanket support for Zionism regardless of the amount of land that Israel chooses to occupy in Palestine, the prime minister stated: "Whoever believes in the right of the Jewish People to have a sovereign Jewish state in any part of the Land of Israel is a Zionist."

Due to separatist policies for segregation of jews and non-jews by Zionists within the Israeli Government, there is much controversy over today's use of the doctrine in politics. In 2002, a leader in the Zionist movement, Haim Druckman gained the support of 17 Israeli Parliament officials in an effort to pass a law that would deny Arabs the right to live on State land. [16] BBC World News. This legislation was widely criticized as being racist and religious discrimination. Rabbi Haim Druckman is a member of the National Religious Party.[17]

Gush Emunim was closely associated with, and highly influential in, the National Religious Party (NRP), and is the party which is identified with religious Zionism. Gush Emunim encourages further Jewish settlement of land they believe God has allotted for Jews.

Much of the controversy surrounding Zionism in politics is that the proponents of Zionism have used political means to avoid applying the UN Resolution 242, which called for Israel to return land to Palestinians. The land has not been returned and more Jewish-only settlements have been constructed on territory designated for Palestinians (citation coming).

In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 was passed. It stated that "zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination"[18] Resolution 3379 was rescinded in 1991 by the Resolution 4686 after pressure from the United States toward member nation representatives. [19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pco (talk • contribs)

Best place for that type of content may be your website. Please read WP:NOT ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

PCO, if you want to get somewhere, I think you'll really need to take a step back and start asking yourself not what the world needs to know, but what makes a proper encyclopedia article about Zionism. Statements like "In an effort to gain blanket support for Zionism regardless of the amount of land that Israel chooses to occupy in Palestine, the prime minister stated:" are clearly POV. You're making a derisive statement about Olmert's motives. Encyclopedias don't say things like that (or at least, they're not supposed to).

If you read the article you will see that "blanket support" is what he is trying to achieve. Pco 19:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, you can't simply introduce a loaded and controversial phrase like "separatist policies" as a factual description without having explained it. This is a characterization which only one side of the argument is going to accept. Off-hand use of controversial phrases like that, whether you intended it this way or not, is a hallmark of biased writing.

Generally speaking, I think your information suffers from the fairly common problem that you're trying to make several political points, whether valid or not, without having put it into proper encyclopedic form. Encyclopedias don't simply make points like that. They include evenhanded discussions of specific topics. If you want a discussion of Modern Zionism, it has to be an actual NPOV discussion of Modern Zionism. It can't simply be a list of critical one-sided political points. Unfortunately, that seems to be what you've provided, which makes it hard for others to work with or make suggestions. Make that my 10 cents. Best, Mackan79 18:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You zionists clearly don't want to include the facts of what Olmert himself, Druckman or the UN have to say about zionism. It is you who are forcing POV, not me. I have asked Mr. Wales to review the content, so why don't you leave it there until he has a chance to do that. Afraid of the truth? Pco 18:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that since you are zionists, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing this article. Pco 19:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Pco, someone needs to award you the chutzpah barnstar, so you have something to admire during your long block. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

I am addressing anyone editing this article. Are you a Zionist? Gordon? Slim Virgin? Jossi? Humus Sapien? Mackan? Pco 19:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking for the political orientation of editors is against etiquette. The reason is that we assume the good faith of editors, and that rejection of an edit based on the political, religious, or any other editor's affiliation is considered to be a personal attack. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, PCO, you've got to stop with the accusations. You can't go around insinuating things about people's personal beliefs any more than they can do the same back to you. Conflicts of interests don't relate to simply supporting large political movements. I'd like to be on your side here, but I can't do it if you're going to throw around personal attacks. Regarding your article, the thing is, even if your article supports something controversial, that doesn't allow you to state it as a fact on Wikipedia, which is what you did. You'd have to say "It was alleged in this and that article that Olmert is trying to justify his seizure of any land he wants." Then we'd have an issue to debate: is this a prominent enough viewpoint that justifies inclusion in the article?

Unfortunately, the material you're suggesting is several steps away from something that could actually be included. This makes it hard to get people to work with you. I'd strongly suggest you try to remove any POV from it that you possibly can before bringing it to the table. And please, don't bite people who are trying to help you! That's at least me here, and possibly others as well. Mackan79 19:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not one of you have come up with a single valid reason for denying the content. All you want to do is praise zionism - not educate people about it. When Olmert speaks on zionism it is relevant - if you don't like the wording, then modify it, but instead you do a total revert because you have no good reasons. Pco 19:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC) When Mr. Wales views the content, we will see what he thinks. You are a click of zionists who want to deny the truth. It is obvious. Pco 19:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it you are calling it an attack when I ask people if they are zionists? I did not think of it as an attack on anyone, I am simply trying to show why the article is POV in the first place. Do any of you refute the issue of Olmert's statement on Zionism this year being relevant? Pco 20:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone has pointed this out, sorry if I missed it: Part of the problem with the "quotation" from Ehud Olmert is that the part about "dilute the definition of Zionism" was not spoken by him. In fact, the only thing that was said by him as reported on that web site is "Whoever believes in the right of the Jewish People to have a sovereign Jewish state in any part of the Land of Israel is a Zionist." All the rest of it is the opinion of the writer on that web site. There is nothing remarkable about Olmert's statement, nor does it represent any change or dilution in the definition of Zionism. Some, of course, might disagree, such as the writer on the web site, as well as a small proportion of the Israeli population. I think most Israelis (and non-Israeli supporters of Israel) would agree with Olmert's statement and find it to be nothing new, as it merely allows for the possibility of relinquishing some of the land captured in 1967. 6SJ7 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

PCO, you can't ask someone whether they're a Zionist any more than they can ask you what your race or religion is. It's not allowed. I'm not going to say I'm a Zionist or an anti-Zionist, because anything I say will be used against me by one side or the other. I understand your frustration. I've been frustrated with the very same people. I agree that people who revert you should provide a better explanation. I'm simply telling you: if you want to include your material, you're going to have to work harder at making it NPOV /yourself/ before bringing it to the table.

Other than that, I don't know what to say. I'm trying to help you here; if you would realize that, it would make things a lot easier. Mackan79 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, the us-and-them attitude doesn't really help. Pco has been given a lot of explanations as to what's wrong with her edits. She's been directed to the policies, which she won't read. She's had them explained to her, but she waves away any advice, because, as she said elsewhere, she is right and we are wrong. There's not a lot anyone can do to help so long as that's her position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. From my perspective, though, I can see why she's angry, even if I wish she'd deal with the situation differently. Also, the fact is that arguing effectively as a minority in a situation like this requires overcoming pretty much all of your instincts, which tell you to fight back. This is kind of a strange debating environment, isn't it? Mackan79 21:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be a debating environment. We're supposed to be working cooperatively to build the best encyclopedia we can. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You speak with wisdom :) All the same, debates happen, and I think being able to do it semi-constructively is pretty key.Mackan79 22:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I just can't help but smile. The world is still turning, eh Mackan79? --GHcool 01:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

^ BBC World News [20]
^ BBC World News [21]
^ The U.N.'s final estimate of the total number of Palestinian Refugees was 711,000 according to the General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the Period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, published by the United Nations Conciliation Commission, October 23, 1950. (U.N. General Assembly Official Records, 5th Session, Supplement No. 18, Document A/1367/Rev.1)

[1] BBC World News [20]

[2] BBC World News [21]

[3] The U.N.'s final estimate of the total number of Palestinian Refugees was 711,000 according to the General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the Period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, published by the United Nations Conciliation Commission, October 23, 1950. (U.N. General Assembly Official Records, 5th Session, Supplement No. 18, Document A/1367/Rev.1)

[1]

[2]

[3]