Talk:Zionism

Zionist symbols and modernizing of Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In introducing Zionism, Avineri:

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

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

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

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

Sure, but once again there is glossing over the differences between the rank and file and leaders, and political with the cultural. There are many other Zionists than those listed. The article talks about them, Kook is mentioned several times. So it's an oversimplification to say that Zionism was anti-religious. Yes, Zionist political leaders or at least the famous ones and the ones mentioned there, were almost all secular to some degree. Yehuda Amital was not, on the left, Dov Lior is not, on the right. Naftali Bennett is a more contemporary and well-known example of a religious Zionist.[1] The example of Bennett, who was prime minister for a brief period after Stanislawski wrote that, makes his statement out of date.Andre🚐 07:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Lede problems

1- Opening sentence is too specific and contains chronology

2- Lede overall is too long and overdetailed

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

Opening sentence

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

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

Length

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

Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

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

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

Edit request

• What I think should be changed

−

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

+

• Why it should be changed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2024

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

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

Penslar 2023

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

Here are some of the relevant quotes in my notes:

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

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

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

to

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

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

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

 Not done: Requests to entirely rewrite the lead to have a completely different POV is not really the stuff of edit requests; it is not an uncontroversial edit. There is no consensus for these changes; discussion of changes to the lead is ongoing elsewhere on this page. When you reach WP:XC, you can join them. Levivich (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024

Change: Zionism[a] is an ethnocultural nationalist[b] movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization[2] of a land outside Europe. to

Zionism[a] is an ethnocultural nationalist[b] movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the de-colonization[2]of historic Jewish land.

Recommended Citation: Ukashi, Ran (2018) "Zionism, Imperialism, and Indigeneity in Israel/Palestine: A Critical Analysis," Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 25 : No. 1 , Article 7. DOI: 10.46743/1082-7307/2018.1442 Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol25/iss1/7

Alternative: Ilan Troen and Carol Troen Source: Israel Studies , Vol. 24, No. 2, Word Crimes; Reclaiming The Language of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Summer 2019), pp. 17-32, Indiana University Press, Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/israelstudies.24.2.02

Alternative: https://www.hoover.org/research/jewish-roots-land-israelpalestine SECschol (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no consensus for this request. Please review WP:XC. Once your account has reached extended confirmed user status, you can attempt to change consensus. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead paragraph wording

The opening sentence mentions Europe twice and Palestine not once, which is absurd. The second sentence oddly mentions fringe proposals ahead of Palestine. I propose to change it to this:

Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the colonization of Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism. Alternative locations were proposed, but rejected.

Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns generally, but I would write "through the colonization of Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism". Which land does "of a land in Palestine" refer to? Bitspectator ⛩️ 13:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bitspectator: Of course, my bad copyediting.  Fixed. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I would prefer your suggestion to the first two sentences we have now. Bitspectator ⛩️ 13:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the expression "homeland for the Jewish people" is of recent vintage (Balfour?), the Jewish religious connection being instead referred to as "Return to Zion". Regardless, Zionism from it's inception sought a Jewish State, at Basel, in the Declaration of Independence and politically speaking ever since. So I don't agree with that change. I am not bothered about the alternative locations bit, it could be left out altogether. As I said before, nor am I bothered by excluding "a land outside Europe". Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

In any case I am not disposed to agree to anything at all until it is explained in detail what fringe theories exist in the lead just seems like another of the frequent tag shaming attempts afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The fringe theories are that other places ("outside Europe," "alternative proposals") have more relevance to Zionism than Palestine. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not a fringe theory and nothing in the article suggests other places have more relevance to Zionism than Palestine.

Did you read the talk page before starting this section? There are many lead sections already, why start a new duplicative one instead of joining the discussion already in progress?

The point you're raising is already under discussion in another section above. Same with tagging the article.

Sadly you're not even the first person to tag the article and start a new talk page thread about something that was already being actively discussed in another thread. I never understand why people write before they read.

Anyway, my opinion on this is same as I stated in the other sections. Levivich (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Presenting other places as more relevant to Zionism than Palestine is of course a fringe theory. And that is what the lead does by mentioning Palestine after other places and outside the opening sentence. I read the talk page, not the archives, before starting this section, and did not find your opinion on the point I raised. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

#Lede problems is literally proposing striking the same "alternative proposals for a Jewish state" language (which I agree with btw) you've raised for discussion here. The language "a region corresponding to ..." has been discussed in Archives 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 29 [2], are we just going to discuss this over and over? In between August, when you were last here, and today, there's been a bunch of work done. You're welcome to join in the discussions and work, but keeping us stuck on the same place, arguing the same few words/sentences, for months... is not helpful. Look at the RSes, especially the ones in the article and vetted on the talk page (now in the archives), propose something that incorporates other editors' feedback over the last 3 months, or support someone else's proposals. It's like Groundhog Day on this page, with people coming here to argue the same points over and over without ever reading the discussion from the last time. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The original poster in #Lede problems suggested, among other things, moving the "alternative proposals" passage down, which is also a part of my proposal, but the discussion has moved on to other subjects. And I don't dispute the wording of "a region corresponding to ...", but suggest moving it from the second sentence to the first. I'm glad we can address the order of the word Palestine in the lead without getting distracted by other topics, and that a consensus is forming for change. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Boldly made an attempt at rewording the lead [3]. Hopefully other commenters think that this is an improvement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't so bad altho it seemed a bit like an attempt to keep everybody happy more than anything else. It's been reverted but fwiw, I didn't like the primarily focused on part, it should be something more like initially focused on the homeland thing (nor am I entirely convinced that Zionism was focused on that at all, I think people like the British were focused on that and Zionists just went along with it since it was progress toward a return to Zion/state.). Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

agreed, the new phrasing is misleading. DMH223344 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Tried to address this [4]. Obviously we're never going to have an article that's going to please everyone in every single aspect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

We can change "primarily focused" to "focused". DMH223344 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think an improvement, yes Andre🚐 17:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of the current first sentence ending with "...of Palestine." I think "Jewish state in Palestine" is so important to any description of Zionism--such a sine qua non--that it must be in the first sentence, as it is currently. I don't think it's accurate to say that Zionism "primarily" or "mainly" focused on Palestine, because that implies there was a secondary focus on somewhere other than Palestine, as if most Zionists were focused on Palestine but there were also some other Zionists who were busy colonizing somewhere else--that's not true.

More generally, I do not think that "alternative locations" is important enough to be in the first paragraph of the lead, and maybe not even in the lead at all. We have to remember what the Uganda Scheme was in the context of Zionism's overall development. First, remember that Der Judenstaat was published in 1896--I believe this is the starting point of Zionism according to most sources. The first World Zionist Congress was the following year, 1897--this is indisputably the official start of Zionism, and the latest point at which the start of Zionism can be placed. At that 1897 Congress, they adopted the Basel Program, which said "in Palestine"--there can be no dispute that "in Palestine" was a key part of the official Zionist program from their first Congress. Plus, the word "Zion" (the name of a hill in Jerusalem) is the root of "Zionism". There really can be no doubt that Palestine was part of Zionism from the get-go.

The Uganda Scheme happened just 6 years later, in 1903. It came on the heels of various events, like the 1903 Kishinev pogrom and 1899-1902 Second Boer War, as well as problems early Zionists had with the Ottomans. It was an idea by the British and Theodor Herzl. It was proposed and rejected at the Sixth Zionist Congress. As far as I know, never before, and never again, did the Zionists ever seriously consider any place other than Palestine. So we're talking about something that happened six years after the founding of this 125-year-old movement. It was a blip, an oddity. Not a core part of what Zionism is. I don't know why this article should put so much focus on this one-time non-event, so much that it's in the first paragraph of the lead.

I'd be convinced to change my opinion if it can be shown that books about Zionism heavily focus on, or put significant attention or importance upon, the Uganda Scheme or consideration of places other than Palestine generally. I could be wrong, but I do not think this is what they say.

So I think the line "several other alternative locations that were outside of Europe, such as in East Africa and South America, were proposed and rejected by the movement" should be removed from the lead. I don't even think it's true that "several" locations were "proposed" (I think just East Africa was proposed?), and I don't know what the reference to South America is about. This Wikipedia article says nothing about South America being proposed, just that one historian (Penslar) thinks Herzl may have had it in mind at one point, and that is not worthy of including in the lead. Levivich (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

South America is about the Argentinan proposal as mentioned in Zionism#Territories_considered. I don't see an issue with removing reference to the alternative proposals from the first paragraph (or maybe even entirely) because at least retrospectively they seem like minor asides to the movements clear focus on Palestine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah--thank you for pointing me to that section. I think the section actually reinforces my point. Wikipedia says, as does the cited source, that Herzl considered places other than Palestine and East Africa (source: "Zionism's prophet, Theodor Herzl, considered Argentina, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Mozambique, and the Sinai Peninsula as potential Jewish homelands."), which doesn't mean anyone else in the Zionist movement considered these places. Later in the same paragraph, Wikipedia says (cited to another source) that it's unclear if Herzl seriously considered the Argentina plan. That seems to directly contradict what the lead says ("several other alternative locations that were outside of Europe, such as in East Africa and South America, were proposed and rejected by the movement")... if Herzl considered these, and maybe not even seriously considered them, that doesn't support "proposed and rejected by the movement." AFAIK, and it seems like as far as Wikipedia/the sources say, only East Africa was proposed and rejected by the movement.

So for this reason--that the sentence in the lead isn't supported in the body--I'm going to remove the sentence from the lead. (If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and explain why.)

I'll note as an aside that I think even the body section on "territories considered" seems too long for this high-level summary article--though I wouldn't want to see this content removed from Wikipedia altogether--I wonder if the full detail should be moved to some sub-article, and a shorter summary left in its place. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, I made some changes to the first paragraph, hopefully my edit summaries were self-explanatory. Anyone should feel free to tweak/revert/whatever as you see fit. Levivich (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think your version is fine, and don't intend to make further changes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, let's give that a go, see what happens. Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Glad to see some positive improvements. Nice work everyone. Andre🚐 23:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Quickly dropping in to say I think "of Palestine" is an EGG link, since Palestine points to State of Palestine, not the linked Palestine (region). We cool switching it to "of the region of Palestine" or "of historic Palestine"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think "region of" is good Andre🚐 09:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW I'm not opposed to it, but to my ears, "region of X" means "in and around X" as opposed to "in X". The meaning we're going for is "inside X", as in "in a part of X" (there is some scholarly debate about whether it was really "in all of X").

Although my real quibble is that Palestine (region) should be moved to Palestine because the thing that existed for 2,000+ years is obviously the primary topic over the thing that was declared less than 40 years ago and doesn't even really fully exist yet right now. But that would be a discussion for another page (and I don't intend on taking it up). Levivich (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

OT Discussion of Palestine DAB
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I didn't really see the problem with Palestine, we often do that kind of thing elsewhere, I suppose you could put Palestine. Anyway there was a recent RM about it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC) After skimming that RM and the prior one, I see I'm not alone and that makes me rethink taking it up. There have been many unsuccessful State of Palestine RMs recently, but apparently, there hasn't been a Palestine (region) RM in 10 years. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Before, if you wanted to write Palestine, you couldn't, it would throw a DAB error, now it doesn't. It's not simple to deal with. Personally I prefer the current set up. Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC) That won't be a problem if Palestine (region) was moved back to Palestine (where it was before 2015). Here's my RM argument in a nutshell: if you look at the works listed at Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict#Palestine, almost all of them use the word "Palestine" to mean the historical region, not the modern state. This includes what I'd call the "Big 3 Histories": Khalidi's Hundred Years' War on Palestine, Masalha's Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History, and Pappe's A History of Modern Palestine. I'm curious if that changes your mind at all? Levivich (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC) What is Israel occupying is what interests me more. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Israel is occupying about 25% of Palestine (and owns the other 75%). Levivich (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Israel is occupying 100% of Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Or Israel is occupying Palestine, full stop. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Illegally. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Eh, 54% is legal: the world passed a law to allow it. Immoral, sure, but legal. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Occupation of SoP (ie Palestine) is illegal. As for the rest, it was never tested in court and is unlikely to be, so we'll never know. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

agreed about the phrasing. In RS the phrasing is usually "in Palestine", not "in the region of Palestine". DMH223344 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I liked it the way it was to begin with, in different articles it is customary to specify "which" Palestine is meant and I don't really see it as an EGG. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier I didn't see the original link as an MOS:EGG either, but if it had to be changed, I prefer your choice of historic Palestine. It reads better to me personally & seems more concise then the region of Palestine.

I will note however that your change was reverted, so I'd like to ask @האופה why they consider it a "pov term". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Include Dictionary Definition of Zionism in Lead

Opening sentence is biased and not from a neutral perspective.

Change opening sentence from:

"Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the colonization of the region of Palestine, an area roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history." to

"Zionism is a movement for the re-establishment, development, and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel."

Use the definition of Zionism from the Oxford Dictionary: Zionism is "a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel."

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803133512904 SECschol (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs of a Wikipedia article are written according to WP:LEAD guidelines. We can't add copyrighted text from somewhere else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! The guidelines you referenced say: [The lead] should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

Would it be a problem to include the dictionary definition if we cite the Oxford dictionary?

Alternatively, we could reword the definition: "Zionism is a movement dedicated to the re-establishment, growth, and safeguarding of a Jewish homeland in the region now known as Israel." and still cite the dictionary.

I think this defintion is a more balanced and neutral definition rather than suggesting it's a "colonial project" in the first sentence of the article...a widely disputed proposition. SECschol (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit Lead for Clarity

Change "Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the colonization of the region of Palestine, an area roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history."

to

"Zionism is a political and cultural movement that emerged in the late 19th century with the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine, which is today the modern state of Israel."

Helps clarify and is more concise. Original version is too wordy and complicated.

Also would recommend including as a second sentence: The term "Zionism" is derived from the Hebrew word Zion, which is a biblical reference to Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.

This is mentioned in the terminology section, but could be moved to the lead as such:

Zionism is a political and cultural movement that emerged in the late 19th century with the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine, which is today the modern state of Israel. The term "Zionism" is derived from the Hebrew word Zion, which is a biblical reference to Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. SECschol (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

Why is there this section?: Zionism as settler colonialism

But not this section: Zionism as an Indigenous Rights Movement

Zionism has increasingly been understood by some scholars and activists as a movement for the recognition and rights of an indigenous people. Central to this view is the assertion that Jews, as a historically oppressed group with deep historical, cultural, and religious ties to the land of Israel, possess indigenous status within the region. This perspective highlights the long-standing Jewish presence in the land of Israel, dating back over 3,000 years, with continuous settlement and cultural development despite successive periods of exile, foreign rule, and persecution. The rise of Zionism in the late 19th century, fueled by the desire to escape rising European antisemitism and the impacts of the Holocaust, was seen by its proponents as a necessary assertion of Jewish self-determination, akin to other indigenous movements around the world fighting for the right to self-govern and protect their cultural heritage. This view aligns with international frameworks on indigenous rights, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to maintain their distinct cultural identities, languages, and connection to traditional lands. As the discourse around Zionism continues to evolve, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the understanding of Zionism as an indigenous rights movement remains a contentious but important aspect of the broader conversation on nationalism, self-determination, and the politics of the Middle East.

Source: https://www.hoover.org/research/jewish-roots-land-israelpalestine See Also: Ukashi, Ran (2018) "Zionism, Imperialism, and Indigeneity in Israel/Palestine: A Critical Analysis," Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 25 : No. 1 , Article 7. DOI: 10.46743/1082-7307/2018.1442 Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol25/iss1/7

Either delete this section in its entirety: Zionism as settler colonialism

or include the above section to provide a neutral unbiased perspective by providing both sides of the debate. SECschol (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done: There is no consensus for this request. Please review WP:XC. Once your account has reached extended confirmed user status, you can attempt to change consensus. DMH223344 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)