Talk:Zionism/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 29

Edit Request: Addressing Ideological Bias and Inaccuracies in the 'Nakba' and 'Zionism' Articles

I am requesting an edit to both the "Nakba" and "Zionism" entries, which have been severely compromised following the outbreak of the Iron Swords War. These articles now contain anti-Israel content that is not only inaccurate but also disconnected from the present-day situation. I must question the reasoning behind how the horrific, modern-day atrocities—such as the massacre at Nova, where over 1,200 Israeli civilians were brutally murdered, women were raped, and infants were beheaded—somehow alter historical events from 76 years ago.

Furthermore, it is deeply concerning that these articles are being edited by individuals who, it seems, do not possess a profound understanding of the complexities involved. Instead, many appear to be following directives from far-left, "woke" movements, imposing a distorted narrative that serves a political agenda rather than historical truth. This is evident in the portrayal of the current conflict as solely between Israel and Hamas, when in reality it involves a broader coalition of Iranian proxies, including Iran itself, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and Fatah. Ignoring this broader context dangerously misrepresents the conflict.

As a platform committed to objectivity, neutrality, and historical accuracy, Wikipedia risks its credibility by allowing articles to be co-opted by those who prioritize ideology over facts. This is not an isolated case but a worrying trend that undermines the integrity of the platform as a reliable repository of knowledge. These ideological distortions not only manipulate historical records but also jeopardize Wikipedia's standing as a neutral and independent source of information.

I respectfully urge the moderators and administrators to address these issues, ensuring that historical entries are not exploited for present-day political agendas. Wikipedia must uphold its core values of accuracy and neutrality, or it risks becoming a tool for propaganda. GreenWolverine (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests should generally be formatted as "please change [x] to [y]", accompanied by reliable sources. What, specifically, do you wish to see changed?

Please also review Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. My specific request is to revert the article to the version that existed before they were edited with politically motivated, biased content following the start of the Iron Swords War. These changes reflect a clear ideological slant that doesn't adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality, and they distort the facts of both historical and current events.

By reverting the articles to their previous versions, we can restore the integrity of these entries and ensure that they reflect historical accuracy, free from recent bias.

Thank you for your consideration. GreenWolverine (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Which version is that, exactly? AntiDionysius (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not an edit request and we generally revert edits like this, it has been explained at the user talk page. Archiving this. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the conversation page, if you don't agree with me you can list the reason here, you can't just cancel anything you don't agree with without having a rational discussion GreenWolverine (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

archiving

Would anyone object to setting the archives to 15 days (from thirty) for now? Valereee (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

None here. I was about to raise this, too, I would advocate for sending a bunch of these threads to the archives now. I think the "RFC Workshop" thread, from July, being resurrected in September, has been disruptive (like: let's ignore two months of work?), and that's the harm that letting old threads sit on these (active) talk pages can cause.

So I'd archive:

• #Colonial project? - this giant thread from this past summer, riddled with now-blocked socks, is stale
• #Recent additions done against consensus, and request to get collaborative - from last month
• #Revert - started by a blocked sock, only use is to document consensus for one particular sentence (it can do that from the archives)
• #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2024 - edit request doesn't have consensus and has been superseded by further discussion
• #Bat Signal - stale
• #Colonization or decolonization - duplicative
• #Definition - duplicative
• This thread once a decision is made

Maybe keep:

• #NPOV balance issue in lead - I think it's duplicative but it's also recent
• #Language in the lead - Consensus?? - same

Definitely keep on this page as fresh/ongoing:

• #Best sources
• #Looking for feedback on history section
• #Penslar on colonialism/settler colonialism
• #Statist Zionism?

I think it'll help focus newcomers if there were fewer threads open on this page. Levivich (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Could someone perhaps help write a {{FAQ}} for the discussions which has talken place here if archived? Currently VRT get a lot of tickets and email, and I myself at least has pointed to this talk page and urged people to read all discussions- But it would be good to either have a summarized FAQ to point to, or quick snippets to copy+paste as answers, for examples: why do we use the word "colonizer" and not "de-colonizer", and "why have we recently rewritten the entire article"? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich, I've boldly implemented your suggested archives. TarnishedPath^talk 00:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee done. TarnishedPath^talk 00:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Neturei Karta & the ADL

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Under the "Anti-Zionism" section, specifically "Haredi Judaism and Zionism", their description is sourced to the ADL. As the ADL is considered generally unreliable in regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict, I suggest removing the phrase "viewed as a cult on the "farthest fringes of Judaism" by most mainstream Jews" & instead sourcing a description from Forward's article on the subject

Secondly, though less significant, I believe the line in the same section, "Their approximately 5,000 members worldwide make up about 0.03 percent of the world's Jewish population", should be given an in-line citation as it's sourced to The Jewish Chronicle.

Apologies for any potential formatting errors or mistakes on my part. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with inline attribution for the JC but please suggest a specific replacement for the ADL material from the Forward article as edit requests should be of form change X to Y. Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The necessary edits have been  Done. Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statements not substantiated by references provided

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

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

+

Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with a substantial Jewish majority, as a way to secure the Jewish people's survival following the persecution of Jews in Europe.

)

• Why it should be changed:

The old text is not supported by the current references provided. Additionally, the references represent the authors' opinion without providing sources substantiating the claim.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Intolerablelies (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Those sources aren't as high quality as the books and journal articles we'd be looking for. Andre🚐 05:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Looking for feedback on history section

If you have time, please read my draft rewrite of the history section. Specific suggestions and feedback are welcome on the associated talk page in bulleted form. Thank you. DMH223344 (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"Traditionalist Jews strongly opposed collective Jewish settlement in Palestine," - that's overstating what the source claims and misleading. I would strongly oppose using a new draft. Please propose and make changes incrementally to the existing article, word by word sentence by sentence (since this article is under the consensus required restriction) so we can see everything that will added, removed, or changed, that is the Wiki way. Andre🚐 20:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"The Talmud does take up the right of individuals to settle in Israel, but there is a con­sensus against collective settlement." ?

There's plenty of quotes from Rabkin that also support it Traditional Jewish culture discourages political and military activism of any variety, particularly in the Land of Israel... In the traditional view, settlement in the Land of Israel will be brought, about by the universal effect of good deeds rather than by m ilitary force or diplomacy... The Talmud (BT Ketubot, 111a) relates the three oaths sworn on the eve of the dispersal of what remained of the people of Israel to the fourcorners of the earth: not to return en masse and in an organized fashion to the Land of Israel; not to rebel against the nations; and that the nations do not subjugate Israel exceedingly... The idea of return to the Land of Israel achieved by political means is alien to the idea of salvation in Jewish tradition.

and from shapira (also cited on that line): To ultra-Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, the idea of Jews returning to their homeland flew in the face of the fate decreed for them. To them such an act ran counter to the three oaths the Jewish people swore to the Almighty: not to storm the wall, not to rush the End, and not to rebel against the nations of the world, while the Almighty adjured the nations of the world not to destroy the Jewish people.4 They saw an attempt to bring about redemption by natural, man-made means as rebelling against divine decrees, as Jews taking their fate into their own hands and not waiting for the coming of the Messiah. Consequently ultra-Orthodox Jews vehemently opposed this perilous heresy. DMH223344 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

But please take these comments to the corresponding talk page. We can bring in the commentary into an archive here when the discussion is done DMH223344 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

So, no, this is the talk page where changes to this article need to gain consensus; I'm not going to participate on your user draft page. And as the fuller quote you pasted shows, it does not contain the sentence or a substantially similar paraphrase to "Traditionalist Jews strongly opposed collective Jewish settlement." Traditionalist Jews means more than simply ultra-Orthodox Jews, so "ultra-Orthodox" would be the wording you want for Shapira, and I don't see "strongly oppose" but "discourage" in Rabkin. There were indeed anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews and there still are today. But you need to contextualize that with other context and other sources. Rabkin is not one of the BESTSOURCES we agreed on; while reliable in general, he represents an anti-Zionist view and should be balanced. You should contrast this material with how it's presented in more mainstream sources. Andre🚐 21:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've swapped out "traditionalist" for "ultra-orthodox" so it reflects shapira more closely. It is quite mainstream to introduce zionism as a revolt against tradition, as I've done in that opening paragraph. DMH223344 (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There are many issues to object to in this draft. For example, simple errors in naming, you've written Hebrewization of Names, which is commonly referred to as Hebraization of surnames, Leo Pinsker, instead of Leon Pinsker. Your draft removes all the content in the current version under "Historical and religious background" and "Pre-Zionist initiatives," it doesn't mention Moses Montefiore, Judah Touro, or much at all about the First Aliyah. I continue to believe that the way to improve the article is not in forking a brand new draft with some significant issues, but to edit incrementally and gain consensus for each change. Andre🚐 00:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Morris and Avineri also use "Leo"
2. Yes, I've followed RS to determine where I start discussing the history of zionism. You can confirm that most secondary sources on Zionism will start with the same period I did.
3. I do discuss "forerunners to zionism." Interestingly, the section titled "pre-zionist initiatives" in the currently published article totally misses the thinkers and movements usually referred to as prezionist. I have not checked every source cited in that section, but it seems pretty clear to me that it is not the mainstream narrative to include these as prezionist efforts.
4. As for individual prezionists, we have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm happy to have a discussion about inclusion of additional thinkers.
5. Discussion of the first aliyah was pointed out by another editor to be lacking as well.

Really, thanks, this was good feedback. If you have the time, read the rest of the article too, I think you will find that it tracks the mainstream narrative quite closely. DMH223344 (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

(I have multiple old and new sources for both Leo and Leon Pinsker.) Back on topic, there is a problem with the backwards projection of modern ideology onto the past. Essentially all ideologies create a myth that their forerunners thought the same way, and this is true also of Zionism. Claims that Zionism was a predominant ideology in the past often fall apart on close examination. For example, rabbis who wrote about the mitzvah of settling in Eretz Israel were often referring to the time after the arrival of the messiah, but this detail is frequently elided in Zionist literature as also is the fact that those rabbis were not proposing a secular state and would probably have been horrified by the idea. Uncomfortable facts about secular forerunners, such as the fact that Pinsker argued literally until the day he died that Palestine was not the destination Zionists should aspire to, also tend to be omitted. We should look for sources that tell a more factual and transparent story. The fact that Zionism in its early modern stages was vehemently opposed by the religious community in Europe has to be included. Zero^talk 04:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, while I see that you are both correct that many sources use Leo, the point is to wikilink the entry using the WP:COMMONNAME. That is maybe a small nitpick, but a good example of how articles are built by the wisdom of many people using a collective process, and not one person taking a draft and saying how's this to replace the article with. It's a hard no no matter what the draft says, in my humble opinion. Andre🚐 04:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Until about 10 years ago, Leo was more common than Leon. However I wasn't able to find a source that investigates the disagreement. The correct thing is to link directly to our article on the person and leave commonname discussions for over there. I think this is far too petty to indicate anything at all about the value of DMH223344's work. Zero^talk 05:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

My point was in the draft attached, he used the name without a link at all, and it wasn't the name that we use in the article. This would pose a major problem if we were to import this text. Overall, the text as is is not an improvement. Andre🚐 05:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If that's a "major problem", the minor problems must need an electron microscope. Zero^talk 05:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand why you say that, because it seems small in the scheme of things. What I mean is that constructing an article is a complex process of creating a multifarious semantic graph over time. That's why it's a collaborative project done over time by many people, and not monopolized by an individual or a small group, or a small group of sources. So a blind spot could be in forgetting to link Leon Pinsker or in not knowing that Hebraization of surnames is already an article. The proposed draft has significantly fewer blue links and significantly less information on certain aspects of Zionism. This is the overview article of Zionism and includes a smaller history section, but we also have History of Zionism as a main article for that, this article also summarizes Types of Zionism and links to the main article. So I think the proposed draft suffers from a narrowed scope and a paucity of informational breadth. Andre🚐 06:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As long it is not affecting a recently agreed consensus no reason why someone can't do a rewrite in summary style if they want to and also no reason why it can't be reverted or edited with good reason either. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

We can of course add additional wikilinks. That's not challenging or time consuming. DMH223344 (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is able to access this source, can we add a few sentences about malaria in Mandatory Palestine and how it was tied to the Zionist movement?[1] The malaria and both Zionist and Palestinian contributions to combatting malaria helped make the region a safer place to live. Israel Jacob Kligler was the pioneer in malaria eradication, and there was also Tawfiq Canaan. DMH223344’s draft looked mostly ok to me until it got to the part about land purchases and Jews getting 40% of the fertile land. Early settlers were initially sold land that had high malaria levels which turned out to be fertile lands and help map the current state of Israel.

Here’s another source about Jewish colonization and malaria https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11186-020-09402-4

Wafflefrites (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think that this article should focus on Zionism as an ideology, and not get into too much detail about the historical development of Palestine. We have plenty of other articles for that. In the 19th century, pretty much everywhere in the world with the right climatic conditions had malaria. See this map of the United States in 1882 for example. Some of the land purchased by Zionists was malarious and some wasn't. Some of the land not purchased by Zionists was malarious and some wasn't. Zero^talk 06:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In any case this discussion should take place on the draft page. Andrevan is wrong is asserting that all wiki pages are done by piecemeal line by line consensual edits. With complex articles numerous editors have been given leeway to rework them into shape and this indeed is how GA/FA articles are mostly done, with one or two editors at the helm in a redraft. Slim Virgin and myself, to name but a few, have done this without objections and the resulting texts have proved to be stable, without the endless bickering over minutiae which is characteristic of too many areas of wikipedia. The main editor here has consistently worked on this article and workpage collaboratively, and hisseveral editors have followed the work on his draft page. So go there, and, rather than make TLDR arguments, bullet points one thinks need further examination.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Which RS about the history of Zionism cover this detail? DMH223344 (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

“ Sufian bases her title on the traditional Zionist slogan of "healing the land" as a means of "healing the nation." This ideological axiom of the Jewish national movement held that transforming the land and transforming the Jewish people who moved to Palestine were inseparable objectives.” [2]

Maybe one sentence about malaria is enough. Eradicating malaria was one part of the “healing the land” Zionist ideology. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds very niche. Land "redemption" is often discussed in RS about Zionism and Zionist ideology. But "healing" the land (whatever that means) does not sound like a key component of zionist ideology or praxis according to RS which give an overview of Zionism.

I'm not necessarily opposed to its inclusion. But a single sentence on this would really come out of nowhere. In the middle of the description of the Peel commission you want to include a sentence about how some zionists saw themselves as "healing the land" which had high rates of malaria?

If this omission is your main issue with the draft, then it sounds like the draft is in pretty good shape. (also there's no mention of malaria anywhere on the currently published article) DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

it’s how the Zionists argued for their land policies to the British. The slogan is “havra’at hakara” which means healing the land or also “havra’at Haaretz “. Redemption of land is Geulat Haaretz.[3] Wafflefrites (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

havra’at hakara should be havra’at hakarka. One could note this but it is rather complex since those early Zionists saw 'healing the land' as a technique of 'healing the Jewish people', so the physical effort of cultivation the land was conceived of as a mode to redeem the physically (in the racial terminology opf that period in which much of this argumentation is embedded) degenerated Jews of the diaspora. That is one reason some 60,000 were deselected for aliyah by 1914, because they were deemed unfit to become good material for the kind of new muscular Jew being imagined by Zionists. Touch one minor point and one must draw in contexts that demand broader treatment. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Penslar on colonialism/settler colonialism

Assuming we all agree that Penslar's latest missive qualifies as a best source, at Part II Zionism as Colonialism (p 67-96), I lifted out some pertinent quotes

"There is a deep divide, however, between scholars who do and do not conceive of Zionism as a variety of colonialism. Debates about virtually every aspect of the history of Zionism and Israel boil down to clashing conceptions of the essence of the Zionist project—whether it has been one of homecoming and seeking asylum or one of colonial settlement and expropriation."

"Two key questions run through the debate over Zionism and colonialism. First, is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self- determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land? And second, has Israel been willing to integrate into the Arab Middle East, or is it determined to dwell in isolation, buttressed by alliances and cultural ties with Western powers?"

"In many ways, the debate about Zionism and colonialism still operates within the terms that Said established." [1979 Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims]

"One final introductory point: Zionism and Israel are not identical. Zionism is a nationalist project that originated almost 150 years ago and whose relationship with colonialism is as variegated as the subforms that we examined in the last chapter. Linkages between policies of the Israeli state and colonialism are more clear-cut, but we need to determine, rather than merely assert, that these policies were formulated in the name of Zionism and what Zionism has meant to Israelis in positions of power."

"Of all the varieties of Zionism discussed in the first chapter, Statist Zionism is most clearly linked with colonialism because of the alliances its leaders sought with the West’s Great Powers"

"Zionism’s strongest links with colonialism lie in attitudes and practices toward Palestine and the Palestinians."

"There are, in fact, good reasons to place Israel within a settler-colonial framework, but that framework requires considerable expansion, both geographic and conceptual, beyond what is commonly found."

In the Conclusions

"Our comparative examination of colonial indigenization places Zionism within a settler-colonial matrix while allowing for its particularities, like a celestial body with an eccentric orbit around its sun." "The questions underlying this chapter, like its predecessor, are about Zionism’s most essential and salient qualities."

Also worth looking at Penslar's earlier thoughts on the matter and Cole's analysis of it in Colonialism and the Jews Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Those are very pertinent and germane quotes. In particular, Penslar points out in this excerpt you've helpfully highlighted that Zionism's relationship to colonialism is very much a matter of scholarly debate. When there's a debate amongst sources Wikipedia should highlight it as well. Andre🚐 14:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Language in the lead - Consensus??

There's a note claiming that there's consensus about this language, but I don't see that consensus anywhere. I just see an unresolved dispute:

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

This language is very confusing and misleading though technically correct. Yes, at some point in history more than one Zionist had this goal. But early Zionists hadn't even agreed upon Palestine let alone having few Palestinians there. So, It needs clarifying language.

Which Zionists wanted this, and at what point in history?

I suggest this change:

"By 1948, mainstream Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."

-- ~~ Bob drobbs (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Refer to Talk:Zionism#Revert. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ps, the note was added by @ScottishFinnishRadish at Special:Diff/1246182977 after a discussion I had on their user talk at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Full protection at Zionism. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs: see Biltmore Conference. Wellington Bay (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

While it may be true today that "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" it was not until the Biltmore Conference that there was a broad consensus among Zionists for the creation of a separate Jewish state as opposed to a Jewish homeland which isn't necessarily a state with a Jewish majority. The statement " Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" is too absolute and needs to be modified either by indicating a time (ie "by the end of World War II") or by indicting that this was not a unanimous position, or even initially the dominant position. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) was published in 1896. Uganda Scheme was 1903. Decades before Biltmore. Levivich (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you're making my and Wellington's Bay's Point.

If in 1903, Zionists leaders were calling for a state in Uganda, then why does is this sentence at the top of the lead imply that Zionists through history sought to usurp land in Palestine and cleanse Arabs? Uganda isn't in Palestine, and Ugandans aren't Palestinian Arabs.

If this sentence is going to remain at all it does need to be qualified with a timeframe and a clarification of which Zionists had this goal at that particular time.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The answer to "why is it there?" is "because that's what the sources say."

To your substantive point: how many leaders called for a state in Uganda, and how did the Zionism movement respond to those calls? Did they agree, or did they reject it overwhelmingly in favor of Palestine? And if it's the latter, what does that say about whether Palestine was the goal in 1903 or not?

More to the point, we are, right now on this page, in the middle of working on rewriting the first sentence (or confirming it's fine the way it is, if that's how the sources shake out). Check out the thread right above this one, where we're gathering sources for this endeavor.

By the way: the Basel Program was adopted in 1897 and remained in effect through the founding of Israel 50 years later. "In Palestine" was an official goal of Zionism from the beginning, and when one leader (Herzl) suggested otherwise, he was damn near thrown out. Levivich (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The Uganda Scheme was for a Jewish homeland, not a Jewish state per se (and as Bob drobbs points out, Uganda isn't Palestine). While Der Judenstaat called for a state, Herzl was not fixed on a location - the book suggested Argentina or Palestine and in any case, regardless of the name of Herzl's tract, the (World) Zionist Organization's original stated goal was for the creation of a Jewish homeland, not necessarily a state. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: The Basel Program states: "Zionism seeks to establish a home in Palestine for the Jewish people" - note the use of the term "home" rather than "state". Wellington Bay (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Shlaim: The Basel Program stated, “The aim of Zionism is to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.” By adopting this program the congress endorsed Herzl’s political conception of Zionism. The Basel Program deliberately spoke of a home rather than a state for the Jewish people, but from the Basel Congress onward the clear and consistent aim of the Zionist movement was to create a state for the Jewish people in Palestine. In his diary Herzl confided, “At Basel I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it.”3

RS in general describe zionism as aiming for a jewish state from the outset.

To be clear, even the biltmore program didnt use the phrase "jewish state" (it said "commonwealth") but it was understood at the time and is understood by historians now as being the first public and official declaration of the aim of a Jewish state. DMH223344 (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Der Judenstaat is literally called "The Jewish State." Also, if you read about Zionism, you'll learn that early Zionists intentionally hid their true intentions to create a state as a political maneuver; there's a reason Basel said "home" and Balfour said "homeland," that was calculated, and there was a particular point where the Zionist leaders decided to publicly start saying "state" instead of "homeland," and reasons why they chose to do so when they did. But their private correspondence, their diaries, letters, etc. -- which we all have access to now, and which secondary sources summarize and analyze -- make it clear that it was always a state. Those sources by the way are the same ones that are cited in the article for the sentence you're questioning.

Interpreting primary source documents is not what editors are supposed to do. We summarize secondary sources, particularly for this reason: so that we don't read and believe that what the primary sources say is true, when there are other primary sources that contradict it. Leave the historical interpretation to the experts. Stick to discussing what secondary sources say. That sentence is cited to 10 sources. If you think it's wrong, please support your argument with some secondary sources. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

"even the biltmore program didnt use the phrase "jewish state" (it said "commonwealth")" - A commonwealth is a term for a state. From Wikipedia's article: In the 17th century, the definition of "commonwealth" expanded from its original sense of "public welfare" or "commonweal" to mean "a state in which the supreme power is vested in the people; a republic or democratic state". Conversely a "homeland" or "home" is not synonymous with "state" but is a much vaguer term and within the Zionist movement prior to the Biltmore program (and even after) there were Cultural Zionists who did not advocate for statehood and also binationalists such as Hashomer Hatzair who advocated a joint Jewish-Arab state. The reason the British used the term "home" in the Balfour Declaration and successfully advocated for that term to be used instead of state at the San Remo Conference is because the British did not want to be committed to a Jewish state rather than a homeland. Indeed British Foreign Minister Lord Curzon wrote "[W]hile Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home—an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification"[4] and French Prime Minister Millerand wrote after San Remo that France “had never admitted that Palestine could become a Zionist state or that a Zionist regime could be established in Palestine.” To the contrary, it had always made clear, "in the most explicit way, that Jewish groups would not enjoy any degree of political, civil, or religious rights superior to those of other populations or Christians or Muslims. . . . At the San Remo conference, the explanations exchanged between Lord Curzon and myself left me in no doubt on these points." So "national home" is not the same thing as "state". Wellington Bay (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That can be your interpretation, on wikipedia we argue with sources, not be providing our interpretation of primary sources. DMH223344 (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not the article, and I am responding to Levivich's interpretation of primary sources such as Herzl's Judenstaat, the Biltmore Program, and the Basel Program. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting primary sources, I'm telling you what secondary sources say about them (if you read about Zionism, you'll learn...). Read about Zionism. If you have questions or concerns about that sentence and its accuracy, the place to start is with the sources cited. That's what the reference are there for. That's what the quotes are there for. Levivich (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

So your misunderstanding of the term "Commonwealth" as not meaning a state and misreading of the Basel Program as advocating a state is based on secondary sources and not your own misinterpretation? Um ok, sure. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You are confusing me with DMH, I didn't say anything about "commonwealth." That "Der Judenstaat" means "The Jewish State," and what I said about the Basel Program and the Uganda Scheme, is all from secondary sources, yes. (DMH quoted one.) Levivich (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't say much for the quality of your secondary sources if they interpolated the term "state" into the Basel Program when it used no such term. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That was Theodor Herzl who interpolated the term "state" into the Basel Program when it used no such term. DMH quoted Avi Shlaim above: The Basel Program deliberately spoke of a home rather than a state for the Jewish people, but from the Basel Congress onward the clear and consistent aim of the Zionist movement was to create a state for the Jewish people in Palestine. In his diary Herzl confided, 'At Basel I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it.' (Herzl was right: in 50 years, everyone knew it, though after 100 years, some conveniently forgot it.)

This is a great example of why Wikipedia uses secondary sources. High-quality scholars like Avi Shlaim, they know that, even though the text of the Basel Program said "home" and not "state," Herzl admitted in his diary that he meant "state" but had to use "home" instead. Shlaim, due to his subject matter expertise, is able to combine multiple primary sources and interpret them together. Shlaim doesn't make the mistakes that many Wikipedia editors make of reading one primary source and being ignorant of other relevant primary sources. That's why Wikipedia publishes summaries of high-quality secondary sources, rather than the analysis of editors. Levivich (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what the top listed source says:

" in the 1948 war, when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians"

Do you have objections to adding the appropriate context given by the reference source - "In the 1948 war..."?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's great that after a two year break from editing Wikipedia, you've returned to discuss this particular sentence. Welcome back!

Of course I object. How many quotes are there for that first source in that bundled citation? 3. And how many sources are cited? 10. So yes, I'd object to picking one quote out of three from one source out of then and then changing the sentence to match just that one chosen quote. I object even more to your describing this as "appropriate context." I think you know that one quotation is just one of many cited there. Levivich (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich Yeah, this sentence just seemed egregiously bad.

There are indeed a bunch of sources. None of them individually, nor do they collectively imply that every Zionist throughout history wanted to create a state in the Levant and ethnically cleanse as many Palestinian Arabs as possible. So do you have any suggestions to fix it either so that it accurately represents at least one of the sources or correctly summarizes them in their totality?

A simple clarification of which Zionists, wanted which of these things, when, shouldn't be too much of an ask.

Here's one idea: "Various Zionists at various points in history had goals including..."

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a common mistake in these discussions to think that when we say "zionists" (or "zionism") we mean "every zionist ever". That's not what that means. It reflects the usage of the terminology in RS. That's why we use the terms this way. DMH223344 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is bad and misleading. Early modern Zionists wanted a Jewish-majority state, that's a better way to explain what they wanted. It also ignores that Zionism is more than just early modern Zionism. Andre🚐 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

"That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs inside it as possible is hardly open to question." - Avi Shlaim Levivich (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, but presumably there are some other equally reliable historians like Morris who would criticize his contemporary commentary, I'm guessing. To state something like that flatly in the lead should have a consensus of academics beyond reproach or impeachability, that is my view of what a lead is. A lead is supposed to be pretty boring and uncontroversial. The fact that you read that sentence and raise your eyebrows, despite perhaps being literally true of many Zionist leaders such as Jabotinsky, is a sign that it's not a good sentence for paragraph 1. It might be more defensible in the body, and attributed, and balanced and contextualized. Andre🚐 05:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

"As was suggested by Masalha (1992), Morris (1987), and other scholars, many preferred a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible, and plans for population transfers were considered by Zionist leaders and activists for years." - Hillel Cohen. The fact that the sentence makes you raise your eyebrows says nothing about the whether the sentence is correct. I'd suggest that it means the sentence is educating you. Levivich (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said, many preferred a state with a large Jewish majority and therefore small Arab minority, but the wording of the current phrase in the article, is worded in such a way that makes it sound like they knew about Arab individuals and personally wanted to remove them, which is a stretch. Andre🚐 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not a stretch. They did know about the Arabs, they called it "the Arab Question," and they knew that they were displacing the Arabs.

This is neither surprising nor controversial. Of course Zionists wanted as much land as possible. Obviously!

And of course they wanted the largest Jewish majority possible in that land. Obviously.

And of course that means the smallest Arab minority possible. That's the only way to get the largest Jewish majority possible. It's a zero-sum game.

What people don't like about the sentence is that it says it plainly: the Zionists wanted as much land, as many Jews, and as few Arabs as possible.

People don't like reading that because it makes it sound like the Zionists wanted to take land from Arabs and kick them out of the land.

Well, guess what, that's what Zionism always was. It was always about taking land in Palestine from the Arabs so that it can be used for a Jewish state, and that means a state with as many Jews as possible, which means removing Arabs from the land. That's Zionism. I know it makes it sound like Zionism is a bad thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What can I say? That's what the damn ideology is: it's about taking land from other people and giving it to themselves. The scholars are extremely clear about this, even Zionist scholars like Morris are extremely clear about this. The fact that people find it surprising or uncomfortable just means they're ignorant about what Zionism is. Fixing that ignorance is the purpose of this article.

BTW, I don't have a problem with making changes to that sentence. In my opinion, it doesn't have to say "state". And it doesn't have to say "Zionists wanted," it could say something more like what Morris says, like "Inherent in Zionism is the desire for as much land with as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible," or something like that.

But there is no need to be euphemistic about, as Masalha put it, "maximum land and minimum Arabs." That's a key part of Zionism, as Morris says, inherent in the ideology, from the beginning, and it's the whole thrust of the enterprise. The whole point is to take land from Arabs (by purchase, by grant of imperial powers, by force, however it had to happen) and give it to Jews. There is no avoiding this uncomfortable truth. Levivich (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a euphemism, but Zionism isn't a monolith. It's true that the harder liners and many Zionist leaders had no trouble with violent displacement if that were to be an option, as it became so. I'm not looking to hide that fact from readers at all. But the current phrasing ignores the fact that many people in the Zionist movement were simply buying up junk, poor quality land, land that was only even allowed to be sold to Jews by the Ottoman authorities because it was junk land and the Arabs were selling that land willingly. Those people were also Zionists, just a different strain. Andre🚐 05:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Those people still wanted as much land as possible with as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible. That sentence doesn't say or imply anything about violence or the use of force, it just states what the goal was. Levivich (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That fact is not in evidence AFAIK; while many or most Zionist leaders wanted that, it's not at all clear that all Zionists rank and file wanted that. Many were refugees or religious pilgrims or the poor and they didn't know or have an opinion on the majority but wanted a place to go. I'll certainly stand corrected if you have a source for the rank and file and the poor Zionist refugees' ideologies being Arab-exclusionist. I know that is true of some prominent Zionists, but it doesn't say that AFAIK about every last stinkin random Zionist moving to small agricultural colonies for decades, some of whom weren't up on any kind of intellectual current of thought. Andre🚐 05:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I think (and suggested at #Revert) that it be changed from "Zionists wanted" to something like "Zionism wanted" or "inherent in Zionism" -- I agree this goal should be ascribed to the ideology or the movement, and not to individual Zionists.

Although Adel Manna does say explicitly "The Zionists," and, by '48, "unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations". Cohen says "many," Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury say "most" and "the mainstream". The others (quoted in the citation) ascribe it to leaders, policies, the ideology, or the movement.

But I still think a more faithful summary is to ascribe it to the ideology/movement rather than to individuals, or at least not suggest all Zionists.

I'm curious to see how the "best sources" frame it. Levivich (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

"But the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise. The piecemeal eviction of tenant farmers, albeit in relatively small numbers, during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement naturally stemmed from, and in a sense hinted at, the underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority." - Benny Morris himself. Note, and I've pointed this out on the page before, that he says it's inherent in Zionist ideology, and that it's "in Zionist praxis From the start of the enterprise," that it's the "underlying thrust of the ideology." This is, as Shlaim said, not open to question. There's a lot that Nur Masalha and Morris disagree about, but not about this. Levivich (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Although, in our discussion below, I do not think Shlaim nor Morris has become part of the BESTSOURCES list, have they. When we get to the source survey I think we would be writing something like this sentiment, just phrased better and more neutrally. The facts are facts and I'm not disputing facts, but the wording is not worded to explain the complexities, which it oversimplifies and glosses over. Andre🚐 05:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

We agreed that we weren't going to limit this article to just the BESTSOURCES list, but, I do agree this sentence should be revisited as part of the BESTSOURCES source survey to see if they say the same thing or something different. Levivich (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutral is what the balance of sources say, not what we think is "neutral". Ditto complexities, if there are any, they will be in the sources and not merely opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich Please keep your personal views out of this. We should be looking at the RS. And there are lots of RS which say that groups of early Zionists were opposed to statehood and other Zionists looked at a state in Africa, not Palestine. So, your claims here just are not true:

"...that's what Zionism always was. It was always about taking land in Palestine from the Arabs so that it can be used for a Jewish state, and that means a state with as many Jews as possible, which means removing Arabs from the land. That's Zionism. I know it makes it sound like Zionism is a bad thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What can I say? That's what the damn ideology is:"

Above you referred to this from a RS:

"That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs inside it as possible is hardly open to question"

So, are you okay with updating the text to reflect that source?

"Most Zionist leaders wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land..."

I read the lead again and I think the timeframe is clear enough based on the context. So I think the one change would be sufficient.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Once we have the sources we will decide this as well as the other issues, this back and forth is not useful at present. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That's fair.

But it seems clear there isn't consensus around the current text. Are you okay with it being removed from the article until after all of these issues are addressed?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus, it says so right in the text, an admin recorded that here so there is presently no consensus to remove it at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Note - I edited my own comment. I read through the Revert section in here again. It seems there was consensus, but there was consensus on the text proposed by Levivich. Not really consensus about the text currently on the page.

I don't think that Levivich's is perfect, but I think it's certainly better than what's their current. Are there any objections to making the change to the text which had agreement below swapping "Zionists" with "Zionism"? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Levivich mentioned the following as a possible alternative to "Zionists", that the article should convey that this was an inherent part of Zionist ideology, of Zionism itself and then in this section they said But I still think a more faithful summary is to ascribe it to the ideology/movement rather than to individuals, or at least not suggest all Zionists. So that's not quite the same as just swapping out to "Zionism". Levivich also said that I'm curious to see how the "best sources" frame it, I am equally curious and why I said above Once we have the sources we will decide this as well as the other issues, this back and forth is not useful at present. Is there some desperate hurry to address this now? Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier As I said up top, I think the current version is very misleading. That's why that's why I think we should move forward on an interim fix rather than letting this version sit as-is until some future version is (hopefully) agreed upon. I think by swapping just a couple of words ("Zionism" vs" Zionists") it would be both less misleading and closer to what there was previous consensus on.

@Valereee As I said, above I don't love Levivich's version but I think it's an improvement. I'll keep following along and probably contributing. I'm curious what people can collectively come up with to accurately pack a bunch of sources viewpoints on an ideology that a bunch of shifting views over time and a bunch of dissenting voices into a sentence or two. I could be mistaken, but this seems like a difficult, if not impossible task, which highlights the need for an interim fix while waiting.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, to respond directly to your question, yes, I object per my reasoning above. In addition, the difference between Zionists and Zionism is not that much to get excited about tbh, I see no need for an interim fix. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs, there is no urgency to polish the language. Editors here could spend hours getting language polished that may end up being completely revised in the end, which means they'd have been wasting their time making your interim fix. And multiple people coming in here and demanding such interim fixes can quickly become disruptive to the process of creating the update. There's a reason this talk page is semi'd. It's because we know editors with fewer than 500 edits may not understand the process of working in the most contentious areas. You're going to need to respect that process. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, this page is currently under a consensus required restriction, but there doesn't really seem to be a consensus for the current text. Andre🚐 20:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to figure out what there's consensus for or against here. If you think there is consensus for something and other editors here are refusing to follow it, show what that consensus is. Preferably in as few diffs as possible.

The entire community is hyper aware of the problems in this CTOP, and some of the accusations of cherrypicking I'm seeing from you over the past week or so are making me wonder if you're going to be a net positive here. You've been making these accusations of cherrypicking over your argument that a list of BESTSOURCES about Zionism shouldn't be limited to a list of books primarily about Zionism when (as far as I can tell from this behemoth of a discussion) no one else seems to be arguing that books on the BESTSOURCES list are the only sources that can be used, period. Let's ignore the question of how that actually falls under the definition of cherrypicking: your basic argument feels like nitpicking, and nitpicking here -- especially at a point when people are trying to develop a vision and an overall plan -- is probably not productive. Valereee (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, the current leading sentence was added in July and has been maintained through edit warring, despite strong opposition on this talk page. There was never consensus on the new framing of 'colonization of a land outside Europe.' A quick look at the edit history will show what I mean. The ongoing opposition stems from controversial changes made without consensus, not from any other issue. I have yet to see a source that defines Zionism as we do on Wikipedia after this forced controversial change. Previous discussions (now archived) with quoted sources have clearly shown that the earlier description was more in line with the majority of sources, while the 'colonization'. WP:ONUS suggests that those seeking to change an article should achieve consensus (possibly through an RfC at this point), yet in this case, and only in this case, it seems to be working the opposite way. ABHammad (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Lots of things have happened since July, no need to go looking in archives, see #RFC Workshop: WP:DUE definition of Zionism in the lead for example, being the final round of 5 on this subject before we started to look at best sources in an effort to address recurrent issues. Of course, no-one is preventing an RFC if anyone thinks that's the way forward. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

ABHammad, I've found that a quick look is seldom really a quick look. :) What may seem obvious to you after having contributed here for six months is not likely to be obvious to me at this point. I'm not here to take a side on content or decide who's right. I'd really prefer not even to close RfCs but leave it for someone else to come in and do that. I'm really only here to deal with behavioral issues. If you believe there is consensus for something that other editors are refusing to follow, show that, preferably with as few diffs as possible. Something like diff where consensus was found to change X to Y, diff of me making that change, diff of editor Z reverting is the kind of thing we need to see. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Valereee, I'm engaging in the discussion of BESTSOURCES below, and I agree that only BESTSOURCES are not the only ones should or can be used. I believe there are more issues with the current article than just nitpicking and it seems I'm not the only one that feels that way. It would be unintentional cherrypicking to write a lead section about Zionism that seems to exclude any mainstream Zionist historian's perspective for mostly critical work. A balanced article would include both. That's a legitimate perspective. I continue to believe the current article has a NPOV balance issue. Andre🚐 13:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee the semi has expired on this talk page. TarnishedPath^talk 03:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

TP (or anyone), if disruption starts up from non-EC editors, ping me. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, see Special:Diff/1247597286. Not a lot at the moment but it's started. TarnishedPath^talk 01:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, TP. Hm, I shouldn't probably do anything about it right this minute, as whether I'm involved is being discussed. Since it's just the one so far, maybe not worth pinging another admin quite yet? Valereee (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

FFS, this is only going to get worse if some of the motions at WP:ARCA get up. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Just revert them out and if it gets too bad request protection, not that big of a problem. Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My last comment was in regards to claims of "involved" only getting worse if some of the motions at ARCA get up. TarnishedPath^talk 03:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs, if you'll familiarize yourself with the discussions on this talk page, you'll see that editors here are preparing to do a rewrite. If you are primarily interested in changes like "change Zionist to Zionism in paragraph X", it might be better to give them a chance to do their rewrite, then circle back in a few weeks to help tweak. Valereee (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

And there are Christians who are atheists, etc.Zionists endorsed consensually the idea of making a homeland/state for Jews in a land that was 90-95% Arab. They all knew what that implied or would entail. That is what Zionism meant. One cannot talk one's way around sources, and history.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Statist Zionism?

It says in the article "Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the prominent architect of early statist Zionism" but in Types of Zionism it says that Jabotinsky is associated with Revisionist Zionism. Penslar, p47 "Statist Zionism’s distinguishing characteristic is a focus on Jewish self-determination as the keystone supporting all other forms of Zionism......"Initially, Statist Zionism did not necessarily demand a sovereign state for Jews in Palestine." Is this a "Type" of its own or a convenience terminology? Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a great question. I'd say it's not a separate altogether distinct type. Statism itself is a political tendency which in this case describes Political and Revisionist Zionism. Andre🚐 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to describe it as it's own type. In Penslar's discussion he describes it as one of the eight "ingredients" which "blend" to various degrees. DMH223344 (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

True, he refers to the "types" as a "heuristic", but does call them "The eight types of Zionism laid out here all correspond with varieties of nationalism throughout the modern world". It seems though that the Statist type is the currently predominant type? "Well into the twenty-first century, the word “Zionism” signified the Israeli state’s paradoxical blend of vulnerability and strength, achievement and unfulfilled purpose. The same dual definition of contemporary Statist Zionism as a celebration of the state’s very existence and a belief in its permanent impermanence has had currency in the Jewish diaspora." Selfstudier (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Statism is not its own type, but it's contrasted with socialist and labor Zionism where they were basically kibbutzim, ie self-organizing collectives. Political and revisionist Zionism, which became the predominant type, are also statist because of the role of the centralized authority. Andre🚐 01:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Christian Zionism

Provocative question: "Is it only a "Jewish thing"?

I'm putting this down here because it is part of "what do we cover". There are strains of Zionism that run beyond perhaps more narrow forms of ethnonationalism per se, including Christian Zionism. (See eg. "The phenomenon of Christian Zionism is complex and takes many forms, both distinct from and overlapping with the numerous Jewish forms . . .has been promoted especially by Christians operating within a premillennial dispensationalist frame of reference and that this particular form of Zionism has had significant public impact and influence." Moberly RWL. GENESIS 12:3A: A BIBLICAL BASIS FOR CHRISTIAN ZIONISM? In: The Theology of the Book of Genesis. Old Testament Theology. Cambridge University Press; 2009:162-178. Chapter 9) (For some reason with Cambridge I am having trouble beyond pasting beyond https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-theology-of-the-book-of-genesis at FD8D9B82E904E55D1424583B423B68F1 but you can search in your browser)

Covering such here more has at least two effects, which I think might benefit understanding and editing the subject (and also make it less perhaps Jew/non-Jew, and more ideas/critique): reception/support in "the [Christain influenced] West", so to speak, in modern times, and that criticisms are not always or even principally concerned with ethnic makeup of adherents. That's my suggestions, and I really don't have more to add but I thought I would suggest these thoughts for you all to consider. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an article covering Christian Zionism. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That's what I said, but my point was its part of understanding modern Zionism, particularly in its modern effects ("significant public impact and influence"). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not one of the Types of Zionism tho, so they are essentially supporters of (religious) Zionism? Second coming and so on plus political support (for Israel), US in particular in more recent times. Earlier, it was associated with imperial (British) colonialism and there was also quite a bit of support in England in the run up to the Balfour Declaration altho Idk how much attention the British government actually paid to it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If a society is raised on the stories of the Christian Old Testament, it stands to reason it might have some significant effect or impact beyond the stories or theology to world view. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with that, and it's always nice to have support for a cause, I just don't quite see the effect on Zionism per se. Selfstudier (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a cause? Surely also matters that Zionism was and is an idea, or set of ideas, and continues to have ideological expression, and ideological affinities. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Not disputing that, I am talking about CZ support for Zionism (however it is described, I too usually think of it as an ideology). What I am asking is whether CZ support affected Z in any meaningful way. Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw mention of it when I was flipping through the opening chapters of the best sources list yesterday, but I don't remember exactly what they said or how much time they spent on it. I'll check again later. My vague recollection is that it was included in discussion of forerunners of Zionism. Levivich (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The perennial danger is reading the past in terms of contemporary perceptions or interests. Religions and ideologies generally make immense claims on the past: the use it is a warrant for their contemporary positions. But if you want to know about, say, the origins of Christianity, doing that, from any modern Christian viewpoint, won't get you far. Scholarship tries to suspend or brackets retroactive reinterpretations by restricting analysis to all relevant documentation specific to the period of its emergence. Likewise with Zionism, we want to know as far as possible what the documentary record for its formative period tells us about what Zionists, their thinking, perceptions and organizing principle - here, for rexample, to what degree its central European principles were influenced by the evangelical proponents of a Jewish homeland who had some currency from the 1840s onwards. We connect the two if the literature on the history of early Zionism does, according it the weight those works do generally.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Limitation to a point in time? If these currents of Zionism ("both distinct from and overlapping with the numerous Jewish forms") significantly "influenced public cultures" at any time or at several times since the 19th century (including up to today), they would probably do so beyond any historical claim or theological claim they particularly make. It would be the world view, the culture, they engender that likely matters. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's links to some discussion of Christian Zionism in Penslar, Wagner, and (very briefly) Sachar. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Referencing problems

I have cleaned up several referencing problems in this article, but I think it could still use a pass from someone familiar with the bibliography to finish straightening things out. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI I've posted a warning about mikeblas's edits on his talk page. Levivich (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2024 (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Change Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.[8] to Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine's area to be a beacon and a destination for all jewish people around the world to come up to.

As for my reliable source, I will present the declaration of independence of Israel. Your phrasing of this article is knowingly inciting hate, demonization of the jewish people and the zionist movement.

If hate's what wikipedia promotes, I guess my hands are tied. I saw what the ads look like when you read wikipedia in arabic. but if I'm wrong, you might want to look into the declaration of independence, written by some of the first people to the zionist movement, and it goes as so: THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

Your phrasing presents what enemies of the jewish people and anti-israelis want people to think: that zionism is about eradicating arabs. your sources, throughout almost all of the zionism page, is backed by sources that are, literally, books written by islamists that strongly and boldly oppose jewish existance in the middle east.

Barely any of the texts in this article are backed by people related to the subject, and it honestly seems intentional and disrespectful. if you let hate edit your site, you can't call yourselves reliable.

Declaring the intention of a movement usually involves using information from the movement's leaders or creators and not book phrases or studies made by the movement's enemies from an unrelated nation, opposing movement, twisted information or lack thereof.

Noam300896 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Change Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.[8] to Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine's area to be a beacon and a destination for all jewish people around the world to come up to.

As for my reliable source, I will present the declaration of independence of Israel. Your phrasing of this article is knowingly inciting hate, demonization of the jewish people and the zionist movement.

If hate's what wikipedia promotes, I guess my hands are tied. I saw what the ads look like when you read wikipedia in arabic. but if I'm wrong, you might want to look into the declaration of independence, written by some of the first people to the zionist movement, and it goes as so: THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

Your phrasing presents what enemies of the jewish people and anti-israelis want people to think: that zionism is about eradicating arabs. your sources, throughout almost all of the zionism page, is backed by sources that are, literally, books written by islamists that strongly and boldly oppose jewish existance in the middle east.

Barely any of the texts in this article are backed by people related to the subject, and it honestly seems intentional and disrespectful. if you let hate edit your site, you can't call yourselves reliable. Declaring the intention of a movement usually involves using information from the movement's leaders or creators and not book phrases or studies made by the movement's enemies from an unrelated nation, opposing movement, twisted information or lack thereof.Noam300896 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It is and good to see you working to improve Wikipedia, and good to see you coming to this talk page.

But you haven't yet made an adequate case for your proposed changes.

The declaration of independence of Israel may be a valid document, but it is not a Wikipedia-defined reliable source, because it is a primary source issued by an interested party, a fact potentially damaging for its claim to be a reliable source. Please read carefully the article Source text. A reliable source is not defined only by its truthfulness. It is defined also by other features. A secondary source is often a report of a primary source, made by a competent person, such as a professional historian, often in an established textbook.

To make your case, you will need to carefully assess the already offered ten sources. I don't know how reliable they are. You will need substantial expert knowledge to assess that. Are they independent of the interests involved? How independent?

On a controversial topic, it is often very laborious to find and establish reliable sources. And often enough difficult to establish their reliability. It often happens that first-come–first-accepted seems to apply in Wikipedia: regrettable, but to be circumvented only by diligent investigation and reporting on reliable sources. If you don't do this extensive work, I guess it is very likely that your efforts will be undone, quite possibly unjustly or mistakenly; but that's how Wikipedia works; it's a jungle here.

Many of your comments just above are partisan and even personal, and out of place on this page. No matter how right you may be, this not about what you think. It is only about getting the sources right. I wish you well in your efforts.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See Wikipedia on Zion. Zion and Zionism movement even mentioned in Bible ... when Romans still didn't conquered Israel and didn't gave name palestine to Israel. " In Psalm 137, Zion (Jerusalem) is remembered from the perspective of the Babylonian Captivity. "[1] By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. " 176.231.70.21 (talk) 08:26, 14 October 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. TarnishedPath^talk 09:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The lead paragraph, though well sourced, is arranged in a confusing, and at times self-contradictory way. The following edit request seeks less to change and more to rearrange redundant elements which already appear elsewhere in the article so that the paragraph is presented in a more logical way.

Request to change:

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 eventually focused on the establishment of a Jewish homeland 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.

to:

Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged among Jews in Europe in the late 19th century and which 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 eventually focused on the establishment of a Jewish homeland 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.

I will attempt to defend each of the proposed edits. I can see based on the talk page that there is no consensus whatsoever on the lead as it currently exists now, so I will cite the narrative styles of other, less controvertial wikipedia articles as examples of why these changes and ommissions may be more reasonable than the current version. (Again, I have no issue with any sources in the existing version and am not trying to change the content of the article in a significant way).

•Edit 1: "and" to "which" - just a small grammatical change.

•Edit 2: adding "among Jews" - This should hopefully be a non-controvertial edit. The current version of the page labels Zionism as an "ethnocultural" movement, but there is no mention of the ethnos which the movement represents.

•Edit 3: removing the section of "outside of Europe"/alternate proposals for a Jewish homeland outside of Palestine - Of note, I'm not questioning the veracity of this information or its sources, but rather its level of historic/practical importance and placement in this lead paragraph. The concept is already described in much greater detail in the second paragraph (a more logical placement). Indeed, the text there indicates that these alternative proposals were only considered by "some Zionist figures" (that is to say, not all Zoinist figures) and that they were only considered during the "first decade of the Zionist movement" which at this point is well over a century old. As such, these proposals had very little practical impact in the history of Zionism or its current idealogy. Its presence in the lead is therefore confusing and inappropriate.

An example of another wikipedia article which I feel might serve as an example of why this edit request is logical is the article for Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. She is, for those not familiar, an American politican who worked as a bartender before entering politics. It would of course be wholly inappropriate for the lead to begin by saying that she is an American politician who began her career as a bartender and eventually became a politican because, though verifiably true, that information is minimally important and almost irrelevant to her current role. Because of that, her history as a bartender, though mentioned in the article, is not mentioned in the lead.

And while the alternative proposals outside of Palestine were of less importance, the specific location of Palestine, on the contrary, is and has been of much greater significance to the larger Zionist movement since its inception and up to this day, as indicated by the lines already in the lead "a region ... of central importance in Jewish history" and by multiple examples of the subsequent paragraphs in the article which are too numerous to list here.

Again, I'm not arguing the veracity of the information which I'm proposing to remove. I just feel that it's already well presented in the second paragrah and that the lead is not an approprate place to mention it.

•Edit 4: removing the line "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." - This line has been the subject of rigorous debate on the talk page and is present in the current lead without clear consenses as it stands anyway. I won't repeat the whole discussion here in this edit request, but suffice to say, in its current, extremely generalized style, without further specified qualifying elements, it seemingly contradicts other parts of this page numerous times, and even a part of the lead itself.

What I mean by this is, by simply beginning the sentance with "Zionists wanted"... is there supposed to be an implication that this is something that all Zionists throught the history of the movement have all wanted? Only some Zionists? Only at certiain times in Zioins history? Does the word "wanted", in past tense, imply that this was but is no longer the case? And what of those early Zionists who, as indicated in the current lead, were considering a Jewish homeland outside of Palestine - were they concerning themselves with making sure Palestine had "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." And conversely, if this generalized sentance is in fact true, and all Zionists from the beginning of the movement until today have in fact wanted "a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible," then of by definition, the portion of the lead which deals with Zionists who considered alternative proposals outside of Palesine cannot also be true.

Again, based on the talk page, as it stands now, there is no consenses on the wording or content of this sentance, which, in the meantime, causes internal contradictions elsewhere on the page and even within the lead itself. In addition, this line appears verbatim elsewhere in the article, in the "Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section. I won't get into whether it should be edited there too, but at the very least, it's redundant and causes the article to be self-contradictory. Unless and until a consensus on the wording of this sentance can be established, I feel that removal of the line from the lead entirely would be the most appropriate course of action at this time. Eblashko (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Race and genetics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The section "race and genetics" contains a paragraph ostensibly summarizing the opinion of "Hassan S. Haddad" including the following:

> A Jewish "biological self-definition" has become a standard belief for many Jewish nationalists, and most Israeli population researchers have never doubted that evidence will one day be found, even though so far proof for the claim has "remained forever elusive".

There is literally an entire wiki article about modern Jews containing middle eastern DNA:

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jews

> Several genetic studies demonstrated that approximately half of the genetic lineage of Ashkenazi Jews may be traced to the ancient Middle East and the other half to Europe, proving proximity to both ancient and present Middle Eastern and European groups.

I wont get into the rest of the section, but the sentence claiming "forever elusive" genetic links certainly does not belong and should be removed. 147.235.209.135 (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Editors engage in extensive reading to compose articles. Readers of this material should spend more than a quick glance before raising queries about the reliability of what a page reports. In this case, you cite

A Jewish "biological self-definition" has become a standard belief for many Jewish nationalists, and most Israeli population researchers have never doubted that evidence will one day be found, even though so far proof for the claim has "remained forever elusive".

Had you read the whole paragraph, you would have noted that this comes from a major book on the politics of genetics and identity by Nadia Abu El Haj, not Hassan S. Haddad. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, and this is particularly true of the mess at Genetic studies of Jews. That I have 'Irish blood' does not mean I am a lineal descendant of the Irish, anymore than the English and Indian component in my ancestry entitles me to claim that my origins are in England or in Goa. Compare Kevin Gordon. One can privilege one of a score of elements, but that does not mean one origin. Lastly, the Middle East is not at issue. The southern Levant area of Israel/Palestine is for concepts of a 'return to one's ancestral homeland' and there, the genetics evidence for the Ashkenazi as lineal descendants of Israelites has collapsed. The only modern population we know of for whom evidence of direct Israelitic descent exist in this sense, are the Samaritans Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What is cited over at Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism

"Testament to the legacy of racial thought in giving form to a Zionist vision of Jewish peoplehood by the mid-twentieth century, Israeli population researchers never doubted that biological facts of a shared origin did indeed exist, even as finding those facts remained forever elusive... Looking at the history of Zionism through the lens of work in the biological sciences brings into focus a story long sidelined in histories of the Jewish state: Jewish thinkers and Zionist activists invested in race science as they forged an understanding of the Jewish people and fought to found the Jewish state. By the mid-twentieth century, a biological self-definition—even if not seamlessly a racial one, at least not as race was imagined at the turn of the twentieth century—had become common-sensical for many Jewish nationalists, and, in significant ways, it framed membership and shaped the contours of national belonging in the Jewish state." Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

“Colonisation”

Apologies for the long entry.

I feel like the repeated references to colonialism in the lead and intro paras are problematic. As it currently stands, the intro is basically saying:

1. Zionism is definitively and factually colonialist in nature, no debate; 2. People criticise Zionism for being colonialist; and 3. Zionists themselves have accepted the label of coloniser.

There appears to be significant present (legitimate?) debate around whether Israel’s actions/Zionism generally is colonialist in nature or not, particularly bearing in mind Israel/the Jews’ historic claim to certain areas of the Levant (I know, it is a claim rather than universally accepted). This is distinct though from say British colonialism where there was never any suggestion that Brits had any historic connection to Australia or New Zealand etc. Furthering the point, Native Americans who leave their local area for a period, then returned to it years later would hardly be said to be “colonising” it. All I’m saying is that Israel’s status as colonial is far from a clear cut case, but the article makes it sound like it is. The term is a bit like “Terrorism”, in that there are many varying definitions of what the term means, and we would be wrong to assume that all academics have the same definition just because they use the same word. Especially so since many of the sources refer to the use of that word over 100 years ago, often citing a passing comment by a person who might have used the word “colonial”, as opposed to the source actually grappling with the specific issue of colonisation as it pertains to Zionism, and landing on the affirmative side. I note that as an example, Osama Bin Laden has been described by many reliable sources as a terrorist (indeed a paradigm case of one), yet our wiki article for him is (rightly) careful to avoid outright calling him one, presumably for similar reasons. Having looked at the sources for the first claim that Zionism is definitely colonialist, much reliance appears to be placed by cited sources on Zionist’s’ (either historic or present) acceptance that they themselves are “colonisers”, to prove the fact that Zionism is colonial in nature. That seems problematic to me, since proponents of Zionism are not necessarily educated on the ins and outs of academic disagreements on the debated definitions of colonialism. As an example, I suspect the vast majority of Zionists would claim an historic connection to the land of Israel/Palestine, and if that key fact was an effective defence to a claim of coloniser (despite my examples above, I accept that is an “if”), I suspect they wouldn’t so readily accept that definition of themselves after all. All in all, people are not necessarily experts on themselves or what they are doing. Yet here it appears to be held up as if to say, “see, they accept they’re colonisers themselves, so it must be true”, effectively taking away legitimate nuance in an article already troubled by claims over neutrality (fair or otherwise). I appreciate that we strive to reflect what is in reliable academic sources, however here we appear to be allowing said academics to use a logic that we on Wikipedia don’t allow- for example, we don’t just let celebrities control what is on their wiki pages as experts of themselves. The risk in being so definitive (and repetitive) about Zionism being colonialist from the get go is that it risks implicitly answering the question of whether there is a historical claim by the Jews to that land as “no” (as many readers will intuitively interpret “colonialism” through an outsider vs indigenous lens), when clearly that question is still wide open.

Although this is is partly just to see what others’ thoughts are about this, if a “change x to y” is required, I’d suggest changing the first couple instances of “colonisation” to a more neutral term like “settlement” (itself not perfect but in my view better, though I’d be open to other alternatives). That bolsters the relevance of the next bit on criticism of Zionism as “colonialist” which can stay (it is after all a fair criticism to argue, though far less relevant if it is purely factual and properly accepted by zionists themselves as the article currently suggests, like “Water is criticised by some for being wet”). The last sentence can then remain as it is; I am not suggesting that Zionists’ own self identification isn’t important and interesting, just that that identification needs to happen in better context, and avoid circular reasoning in such a contentious topic. Thoughts? Cbe46 (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You're confusing colonization with colonialism, and thus your statement #1 is incorrect. #1: it was factually colonization (not colonialism); #2: people criticize it for being colonial; #3: some Zionists accept it was colonial. Levivich (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the distinction is important (if it is, the article should be clearer on this), indeed some sources appear to use the terms interchangeably. First sentence on colonization wiki says “establishing occupation of or control over foreign territories or peoples”. For colonialism wiki “exploitation of people and of resources by a foreign group”. The key similarity is “foreign”, ie do Jews/Zionists constitute a “foreign” presence in Israel / did they in 1948. Again, to use an imperfect example, displaced Ukrainians returning to the Crimea in the event of Russian withdrawal would not be considered “foreigners”, and therefore definitionally incapable of being colonisers or colonialists of Crimea (given the distinction you make). I’m not suggesting it is a clear cut case either colonialism/colonization or not (though you seem to be quite sure, “factually colonization”), just that there is nuance here that the current article does not reflect Cbe46 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)