Talk:Zionism/Archive 17

Definition
Its not a POV push, its facts. Before Palestine was chosen as the location for the State of Israel there were several previous proposals; Uganda Scheme. Not to mention the fact that you preferred Jewish sources over other sources, ehm, bias?--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Say what? I reverted your edit to whatever was there before. No idea what you're talking about re "Jewish sources" but I'll assume you're projecting. Anyhow, once upon a time there were other proposals which were rejected. It's pretty clear (and amply sourced) what Zionism is now, and it's not what you put in the article without discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What was there before, was content from jewishlibrary.com ... Zionism still focuses on one thing 'the right of Jews to a state of their own', which is provided by several sources.--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're either trolling or have no clue, and neither option makes me want to continue this conversation. So kindly gain some support from other editors before changing the longstanding version again, per BRD and CONS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

While there were several proposals to establish a Jewish state elsewhere, the primary location was always historical Land of Israel. The term Zionism is derived from Zion, one of the names of Jerusalem. Uganda is mentioned in the article and I'll wikilink to the Uganda Scheme there, but this wrinkle is undue to be mentioned in the lead.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not undue, even Theodor Herzl defined Zionism as the right of Jews to have a state anywhere in the world... Yet despite using Zion as the name of the movement, Herzl defined Zionism as a movement to obtain an autonomous state for the Jewish people by diplomatic negotiations. In his very first act toward the realization of this aim, his meeting with the Jewish philanthropist Baron Hirsh on 2 June 1895, he insisted that the establishment of a political centre for the Jews was his focal concern. However, neither at this meeting, nor in a letter sent to Baron Hirsh on the following day, was Palestine mentioned as the location of the future state. Palestine did not become his until he published his principal Zionist manifesto 'Judenstaat' in 1896, and even then he was hesitant. After weighing in the pros and cons of Palestine and Argentina he decided in favor of the former because of its historic meaning to the Jews . Check these too, , .--Makeandtoss (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And since the Zionist movement was founded in 1897, his former views are not very relevant for the definition of Zionism. Even when he later asked for moving to Uganda, it was proposed as a temporary solution before moving to the land of Israel. Benjil (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not founded in 1897, it was formally established. Plus if the Jewish state plan in Palestine failed, they would have obviously opted for a Jewish state elsewhere...--Makeandtoss (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering there are no strong arguments opposing this, I will soon re-change the definition.--Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Several editor objected to your position, so being an involved party in a discussion you cannot determine that consensus is in your favour. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any broad consensus for the edit. Obviously opted? I don't think we can know that with any certainty. The focus on a return to Zion and "next year in Jerusalem" goes back a long time before 1897.  We're not here to change history, and should tread very carefully. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is changing history here. I provided sources that are reliable and they deserve to be on this article.--Makeandtoss (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You may wish to read about Hovevei Zion. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

So? You too may want to read about Jewish Territorialist Organization. the article also answers "Theodor Herzl hoped for a Jewish homeland in Palestine but recognized that global events demanded an immediate solution to the Jewish problem, in Russia at least, even if that solution required Jewish refugees to settle outside of Eretz Israel."--Makeandtoss (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hovevei Zion were "organizations that are now considered the forerunners and foundation-builders of modern Zionism". Jewish Territorialist Organization "first arose in 1903" after Zionism was "formally established", so its positions are irrelevant to definition of Zionism. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsourced. Also, let me copy paste this again in case you havent read it "Theodor Herzl hoped for a Jewish homeland in Palestine but recognized that global events demanded an immediate solution to the Jewish problem, in Russia at least, even if that solution required Jewish refugees to settle outside of Eretz Israel.". Zionism was never completely based on immigration to Palestine.--Makeandtoss (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a source that says "Early Zionist groups such as Hovevei Zion predated the beginning of political Zionism founded by Theodor Herzl". With all due respect to Herzl, there were many other opinions and most of them were concentrated on Israel as the only viable long-term solution. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not most.Makeandtoss (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First Zionist Congress passed the declaration that "Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine", presumably by a majority vote of the people who formally established Zionism - so yes, most. I do not see point in further discussing it with you if you are refusing to WP:HEAR. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not binary. I provided several sources and evidence, it at the extreme least deserves to be mentioned in the lead. That Zionists did not always support Palestine as their homeland.Makeandtoss (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that could be deemed a fringe aspect, compared to the "main" and "primary" goal as already mentioned in the lead, and not in need of further elaboration there. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The current lead appears to be misleading as it suggests that the only proposed territory was in Palestine. For the lead to be neutral it should also reflect the fact that there are independent, reliable sources which support that the Zionist vision of an independent Jewish state and homeland also included the possibility of a state in other parts of the world such as Uganda and Argentina, whether as a temporary solution or as an alternative if the preferred proposal(s) were not accepted. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

1. was canvassed by his long time tag team partner  to comment here. That's a big no-no. 2. Perhaps either of you could find a source that explicitly says what you're trying to put in the article? You know, that Zionism is about Uganda or Argentina or whatever. Not that once upon a time 100+ years ago someone made the suggestion and it was rejected, but that it's actually the definition of Zionism. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As Hertz1888 stated, the idea that Zionist could establish elsewhere than around Zion (ie in Eretz Israel from the point of view of Zionists, ie in the region of Palestine), is wp:fringe for the definition. It is just worth mentioning in the article but as briefly as this idea/proposal was followed at the time. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said. Wikipedia is not binary, if changing the definition would not work then atleast we can mention it in the lead.Makeandtoss (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose some text and say where exactly you want to put it. I'd be surprised if you could squeeze these anecdotes into the lead without an UNDUE violation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to be in the lead, but it should get more attention in the article than it does. For a number of years it was not fringe but rather mainstream, especially when Herzl himself supported it. The 1903 Congress voted by a large majority to send a investigative party to East Africa, that's not fringe.  Ultimately it came to nothing, but it remains a notable part of the history. Zerotalk 06:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land). Zionism initially but not exclusively sought the establishment of a Jewish homeland anywhere in the world, several areas were considered for the homeland including; Uganda, Texas, East Africa and Argentina. However, only Palestine became considered due to having the greatest historical connection to the Jewish people. Zionism was seen in the late 19th century in central and eastern Europe as a national revival movement, called Hovevei Tziyon. Something like this.Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Are you claiming that attempts to find an alternative location is one of the most important characteristics of Zionism ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it was not always finding an alternative location, it was sometimes finding a location! So yes it is one of the most important characteristics of Zionism.Makeandtoss (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your proposal adds half a paragraph to the 4-paragraph lead, which is 5%-10% of total lead content. In the article there is but a brief mention of the alternative locations, less than the addition to the lead you are proposing. "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic", so according to the MoS these alternative should not be mentioned in the lead unless there is a substantial paragraph in the body dedicated to them. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So, we can either summarize my addition or add substantial paragraphs dedicated to them.Makeandtoss (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Moreover, it explicitly contradicts the body of the article itself: "The common denominator among all Zionists is the claim to Eretz Israel as the national homeland of the Jews and as the legitimate focus for Jewish national self-determination". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, I put initially in the added content. The statement you talked about is the current situation.--Makeandtoss (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the correct read of WP:LEAD here is that since this issue isn't in the body, it doesn't belong in the lead. However, it does belong in the body and should be discussed there, and subsequently be introduced in the lead. The main point is that Zionism, in agreement with anti-semitism, felt/feels that Jews shouldn't live among European nations, and so a separate national home should be established. While the preferred location would be Palestine, a location in general was seen as preferable to no location. --Dailycare (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then help me expand the content that I just added, to establish dedicated content in the article showing this point of view.--Makeandtoss (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean WP:UNDUE? The main discussion was about emphasis in lead relative to body. Also, I am not saying this is a current viewpoint. But this was a past majority viewpoint and is definitely notable.Makeandtoss (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD. It says "he lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents".
 * Your addition to the lead is about as long as its previous coverage of history of Zionism. Are you saying that considered alternative locations are as important as the rest of history of Zionism combined ?
 * Your paragraph contradicts the history section: "Palestine did not become Herzl's choice until his principal Zionist manifesto 'Judenstaat' was published in 1896" and "In 1903, the Zionist congress declined an offer by the British to establish a homeland in Uganda." versus your new "Until 1948, where the main focus became re-establishing Jewish sovereignty in Palestine or the Land of Israel". Is this last statement supported by any source ?
 * Through the article we have statements like "he common denominator among all Zionists is the claim to Eretz Israel as the national homeland", "In its early stages, supporters considered setting up a Jewish state in the historic territory of Palestine", "Throughout eastern Europe in the late 19th century, numerous grassroots groups were promoting the national resettlement of the Jews in what was termed their 'ancestral homeland'", "Ingathering of the Jewish People in its historic homeland, Eretz Israel", "In the 19th century, a current in Judaism supporting a return to Zion grew in popularity", etc. The lead should summarize the article, not to contradict it in order to give undue importance to a minor historical fact. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Its only two sentences
 * You could have easily changed 'until 1948', I didn't notice it
 * It doesn't contradict, it shows a different aspectMakeandtoss (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Undue argument is invalid, I am not saying that this is a minority view of ZIonism. Rather, this is a view of Zionism in its earliest days. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You made your point very clear. I disagree, and apparently so do others. Please see WP:IDHT. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus here. Dailycare agrees and so might others. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus for your changes either, so we are following WP:NOCONSENSUS. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am following WP:NOCONSENSUS by not re-adding the material, yet I am here trying to encourage a discussion to form a consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Details aside, I don't see how anyone can disagree with the additional to the lead in concept? Since this topic is now in the main article, it is appropriate to have some mention in the lead. WarKosign, if you don't like Makeandtoss's drafting, what would you prefer? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't be bothered to check who wrote it, but the current section is one of the most badly written texts I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It includes, but is not limited to:
 * Nonsense sentences such as "Despite the fact that Zion was used as the name of the movement, Herzl defined Zionism as a movement seeking to obtain an autonomous state for the Jewish people by diplomatic negotiations". Despite reading that text, it's raining outside.
 * Tendentious summary of sources, see for example what current source 44 actually says and compare to what we have in the article.
 * Sentences lifted whole cloth from the sources. Do I hear the COPYVIO police?
 * Texas? Not in any of the sources.
 * Both Uganda and East Africa. I wonder where Uganda is?
 * No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * NMMNG, I suggest you review the article Melodrama. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Please clarify. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead is "a summary of its most important content". The subject of alternative location is too minor to be mentioned in the lead. It is now mentioned in the body, and it's all that it deserves. Doing otherwise would be coatracking. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds like "just don't like it" to me. Once there is consensus on the text in the main body, perhaps we need an RFC to agree whether this goes in the lead. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with WP:JDLI, It's a clear-cut case of WP:UNDUE. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On what objective basis? Everything you have written above is purely subjective, and therefore influenced by your own subconscious whether intended or not. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The paragraph "Territories considered" is 294 words out of a 17734 word artice, about 1.6%. Currently the lead is 338 words, so proportionally this subject should take 6 words in the lead. I do not mind adding "Other territories were considered and rejected" or something as concise to the lead. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Even the sources that are used to support the alternative locations give the subject the same prominence: New Jews: The End of the Jewish Diaspora, source #44, mentions Uganda or Argentina 2-3 times each in a 200 pages book. Even counting each mention as a whole page it's 1.5% of the content. Are these numbers objective enough ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is very sensible. The six words you proposed seem reasonable. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the text. It was implying that the Land of Israel was a last choice, which it wasn't, and that that discussions were ongoing until 1948, which they weren't. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. "After" contradicted all the sources. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but WarKosign you have to be kidding me. You "agree"? You proposed the text.. No More Mr Nice Guy removed the whole text not only "After". Makeandtoss (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * NMMNG is behaving poorly. We have consensus to add back without "after". Oncenawhile (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Two editors support adding it, One objects and one (me) is neutral. It's not a clear-cut consensus yet. NMMNG, what do you think about my version of the addition ?&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * lol @ "behaving poorly". I don't think this anecdote should be in the lead at all. Neither does Zero above and neither does WarKosign below. Where's this alleged consensus Once is talking about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to have this sentence at all. If it is present, it must not present counter-factual claim that Land of Israel was chosen as a location of the Jewish state only after trying every possible location elsewhere; the opposite is correct - other locations were considered only because they were easier to achieve. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled. Warkosign proposes the text and then starts attacking it. This is really ridiculous. Zionism once strove towards the establishment of a Jewish state outside of Palestine and this can get no place in the lead?!?!?!? Makeandtoss (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your confusion stems from your obvious lack of familiarity with the subject matter, your fishing for content on google and copying whole paragraphs notwithstanding. Zionism never "strove towards the establishment of a Jewish state outside of Palestine". Some people suggested it and it was roundly rejected. That was over 100 years ago. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh wow over 100 years ago, it magically becomes irrelevant? What type of logic is that? Zionist logic I'd assume. Fishing for content on google=research? "Roundly rejected"? You mean dismissed after the establishment of a Jewish state in Israel. Let me take this opportunity to remind you that you do not own Wikipedia. Makeandtoss (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said at the top of this discussion - you're either trolling or have no clue, and neither option makes me want to continue this conversation. Your proposed changes do not have consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The content had consensus until you decided to remove it. I didn't even propose anything, your buddy WarKosign did.Makeandtoss (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's do an RFC. NMMNG is attacking and goading you, which is wholly unacceptable. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * RFC or DR? What do you think? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong here but it appears that after a lengthy and exhaustive discussion, a compromised proposal was put forward by WarKosign which was approved by all other parties who were involved in the discussion at the time. This change was then disputed and removed by No More Mr Nice Guy (who had a couple of months of hiatus while the discussion was ongoing), and Warosign (who made the proposal in the first place) then strangely agreed with this. If WarKosign disagreed with the wording of the change, then why did he not suggest another alternative proposal rather then just agreeing with No More Mr Nice Guy's outright removal?


 * No More Mr Nice Guy, if your opinion that an editor is "trolling" or has "no clue" makes you not want to continue this conversation then why don't you do just that instead of the disruptive and unproductive contribution because if anyone is trolling here it is you.


 * In my opinion, the spirit of the proposal that the lead paragraph part of "other territories considered" should proportionally reflect the amount the subject is covered within the main body of article seemed to be fair, reasonable, balanced and impartial. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. I'll correct you. Zero, Pluto, Hertz and myself said putting this in the lead would be undue. I can't speak for WK but it seems to me he thought there was consensus to add something, and proposed some text in that spirit, but he also thinks it's undue and his preference is not to add anything. There is quite clearly no consensus to add this, not to mention that where you keep putting it makes it not only undue but also false. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging   - please could you confirm NMMNG's assertion that you oppose the addition of the 6 words proposed by WarKosign? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't find the exact six words, but as I said much earlier, I think we're discussing a fringe matter that deserves no place in the lead – regardless of wording. In the long history of Zionism, any brief flirtation with possible alternative locations is trivial at best. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about what is discussed but if it is about talking in the lead about the fact that Palestine was not the only option to establish a Jewish home nation or State, I think it is wp:undue indeed. The reason is that except during the few months during which it was considered it has never been considered. And many Zionists had already installed in Palestine before this political idea emerged. And last but not least, I think it is more a topic which is put forward today in the "war of words" around the I-P conflict rather than a real option at the time. I doesn't deserve the lead of this article. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop crying undue, its getting boring. I just expanded the territories section and will be expanding it more. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You can put as much filler as you like in there, UNDUE is not about size. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you are referring to fringe theories. As I said for the millionth time, we are not saying that this was/is Zionism, we are saying that this was a PART of Zionism in its earliest stages. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yesterday you said that "Zionism once strove towards the establishment of a Jewish state outside of Palestine", but today you're not saying that "this was/is Zionism"? Cool. Anyhow, I didn't say anything about fringe theories, just noted that UNDUE is not about size. By the way, I don't have access to "Schreiber, Mordecai. The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia, 2003. Page 291". Could you please post some of the text there so we can see there's no COPYVIO? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I did say that, I wanted to say part of Zionism. WP:UNDUE says "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects" Does the 295 to 177 votes in the Uganda Scheme look like a minority view to you?!? I copied that text from a Wikipedia article, I just tried to paraphrase it, just in case... Makeandtoss (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you've never actually laid eyes on the source you put in the article, and are paraphrasing "just in case"? That's awesome. Please read WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. You also obviously don't understand what "minority views" means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are more interested in degrading me than in having a discussion. I will refrain from commenting until some logic pops up, not expecting it from you tho. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What's there to discuss when you're adding sources you've never seen? WP:SWYGT is a content guideline that must be followed. And "minority views" refers to the prominence of a view within reliable sources, not a vote people had. Even if it's within the scope of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason I added that source was laziness. The content already exists on several other sources, I didn't feel the need to change the source. That view is prominent. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really care why you did it, as long as you correct this violation of Wikipedia guidelines. If the information appears in other sources, sources you've actually read, then you can use those as references. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On the same vein, have you actually seen In Harness: Yiddish Writers' Romance with Communism. Judaic traditions in literature, music, and art or did you copy that from somewhere? Because I have a source that says they were comitted to the creation of a Jewish state "in Palestine or elsewhere". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't remember adding that statement, it was probably already there in the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Issa El Issa
The question has been raised as to whether it is appropriate to call him a Palestinian Christian or an Arab Christian. I suggest we discuss at Talk:Issa El-Issa.

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Makeandtoss (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Problems under "non Jewish support"
Under "non Jewish support" it states that India is the most supportive of Israel followed by the U.S. The article cited however only interviewed some 5,000 people total and it's methods are very questionable. The subjects of the poll were shown through clips etc life in Israel, from cuisine to tourism. They did not use clips showing criticism of Israeli policies. After "Lear ing" they were then tested on their sympathy using a scale of 1-10.

This very article lists Russia as being one of the biggest supporters of Israel while here on Wiki it's stated SSR states are anti-Zionist. It cites China as largely sympathetic.

The citation isherevy disputed on the following grounds: a. The citation which wiki uses to say India is the biggest sympathizer of Israel polled far too few of people. b. We have no evidence on who was polled by geographical location within countries. If videos and qualitative methods were used, it can probably be assumed polling subjects came from particular areas. Is west India very pro-Zionism? The cited data is inconclusive in sharing this. c. The citation is contradictory to later claims as it shows large support from Ruusia which wiki disputes.

Summary and Concusion: the poll used to show Insia has the most sympathy for Israel is questionable due to its subjective qualitative methodology used. The cited article even lists the UK as least sympathetic but shows large support among China and Russia. In reality, and we have data to prove it, while the UK, Framce, and Spain are growing in being critical of Israel, the majority of people could still be defined as "liberal Zionists" as they stil support its existence and do kit criticize people as they do government.

I think we need better empirical data to show who is most or least sympathetic.

THIS ISSUE is of concern as one may quickly infer people in India love Israel more so than Americans or other nations while using a highly questionable source. People shouldn't "learn" from Wiki based on the horrible source. SOURCE Ynet article 2602:306:CCB9:9F20:300A:39B9:A81D:C4D0 (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Kyle Fontenot, Feb 6 2016

RfC
{{{archivetop|NAC:This is poorly formed RFC with back-and-forth discussion rather than regular answers, and too few users. I will be closing this RFC as No Consenus, but will recommend that a new, more structured RFC with neutral wording be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)}} some users are opposing the addition of "alternative territories were considered and rejected" on undue basis, or is it?Makeandtoss (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the basis for the objection. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it's undue. The whole point of Zionism is to return to Zion. If the early Zionists needed to look into other territories for some reason, that may warrant a mention in the article, but it most definitely doesn't warrant a mention in the lead. Sir Joseph (talk)  00:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read the "territories considered" section.--Makeandtoss (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and that's where it should be, it doesn't belong in the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing 'does not belong to the lead'. The lead is a summary of the article. --Makeandtoss (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * no, it's not. It's a summary of the key points. Read WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. " Sir Joseph (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How the focus of Zionism progressed in its earliest stages is important. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No,the lead again, includes a summary of its MOST important contents. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How the veryy essence of this ideology progressed is not very important?!?Makeandtoss (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Essence of Zionism was always return to Zion, as every single source says. Any other location was a minor distraction. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * False. "espite using Zion as the name of the movement (a name after the Jebusite fortress in Jerusalem, which became synonymous with Jerusalem), Palestine only became Herzl's main focus after his Zionist manifesto 'Judenstaat' was published in 1896, but even then he was hesitant." Makeandtoss (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't quote a wikipedia article as a source, especially not a sentence you wrote yourself. You are dragging this discussion for 5 months now, you had no consensus then and Zionism hasn't changed since. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can quote a sentence in a Wikipedia, when it is properly sourced, which is exactly the case here. "Dragging", you want to portray this as a continuos 150 day discussion? Go ahead. But do not claim that "every single source" says what you chose to believe. We had consensus for the six words you proposed, but then you magically changed your mind when you saw how fierce other users were in attacking your proposal. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact that some people suggested that the Jewish State could be established somewhere else than in Eretz Israel/Palestine is wp:undue for the lead of the article Zionism. A way to evaluate is something is worth being in the lead is to see if most scholars report the information in summaries or conclusions of their studies, or if it brings something important for npov. I think that it doens't comply with these criteria. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Undue as amply explained in the section above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Problems under "non Jewish support"
Under "non Jewish support" it states that India is the most supportive of Israel followed by the U.S. The article cited however only interviewed some 5,000 people total and it's methods are very questionable. The subjects of the poll were shown through clips etc life in Israel, from cuisine to tourism. They did not use clips showing criticism of Israeli policies. After "Lear ing" they were then tested on their sympathy using a scale of 1-10.

This very article lists Russia as being one of the biggest supporters of Israel while here on Wiki it's stated SSR states are anti-Zionist. It cites China as largely sympathetic.

The citation isherevy disputed on the following grounds: a. The citation which wiki uses to say India is the biggest sympathizer of Israel polled far too few of people. b. We have no evidence on who was polled by geographical location within countries. If videos and qualitative methods were used, it can probably be assumed polling subjects came from particular areas. Is west India very pro-Zionism? The cited data is inconclusive in sharing this. c. The citation is contradictory to later claims as it shows large support from Ruusia which wiki disputes.

Summary and Concusion: the poll used to show Insia has the most sympathy for Israel is questionable due to its subjective qualitative methodology used. The cited article even lists the UK as least sympathetic but shows large support among China and Russia. In reality, and we have data to prove it, while the UK, Framce, and Spain are growing in being critical of Israel, the majority of people could still be defined as "liberal Zionists" as they stil support its existence and do kit criticize people as they do government.

I think we need better empirical data to show who is most or least sympathetic.

THIS ISSUE is of concern as one may quickly infer people in India love Israel more so than Americans or other nations while using a highly questionable source. People shouldn't "learn" from Wiki based on the horrible source. SOURCE Ynet article 2602:306:CCB9:9F20:300A:39B9:A81D:C4D0 (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Kyle Fontenot, Feb 6 2016

RfC
{{{archivetop|NAC:This is poorly formed RFC with back-and-forth discussion rather than regular answers, and too few users. I will be closing this RFC as No Consenus, but will recommend that a new, more structured RFC with neutral wording be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)}} some users are opposing the addition of "alternative territories were considered and rejected" on undue basis, or is it?Makeandtoss (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the basis for the objection. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it's undue. The whole point of Zionism is to return to Zion. If the early Zionists needed to look into other territories for some reason, that may warrant a mention in the article, but it most definitely doesn't warrant a mention in the lead. Sir Joseph (talk)  00:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read the "territories considered" section.--Makeandtoss (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and that's where it should be, it doesn't belong in the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing 'does not belong to the lead'. The lead is a summary of the article. --Makeandtoss (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * no, it's not. It's a summary of the key points. Read WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. " Sir Joseph (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How the focus of Zionism progressed in its earliest stages is important. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No,the lead again, includes a summary of its MOST important contents. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How the veryy essence of this ideology progressed is not very important?!?Makeandtoss (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Essence of Zionism was always return to Zion, as every single source says. Any other location was a minor distraction. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * False. "espite using Zion as the name of the movement (a name after the Jebusite fortress in Jerusalem, which became synonymous with Jerusalem), Palestine only became Herzl's main focus after his Zionist manifesto 'Judenstaat' was published in 1896, but even then he was hesitant." Makeandtoss (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't quote a wikipedia article as a source, especially not a sentence you wrote yourself. You are dragging this discussion for 5 months now, you had no consensus then and Zionism hasn't changed since. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can quote a sentence in a Wikipedia, when it is properly sourced, which is exactly the case here. "Dragging", you want to portray this as a continuos 150 day discussion? Go ahead. But do not claim that "every single source" says what you chose to believe. We had consensus for the six words you proposed, but then you magically changed your mind when you saw how fierce other users were in attacking your proposal. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact that some people suggested that the Jewish State could be established somewhere else than in Eretz Israel/Palestine is wp:undue for the lead of the article Zionism. A way to evaluate is something is worth being in the lead is to see if most scholars report the information in summaries or conclusions of their studies, or if it brings something important for npov. I think that it doens't comply with these criteria. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Undue as amply explained in the section above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement
"Opposition to Zionism in principle has also been charged as racist and as fostering the segregation of peoples that should seek peaceful coexistence." I hope this is some kind of joke..Makeandtoss (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Makeandtoss (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the view of authors of the references, in widely cited sources. Cpsoper (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * by saying " that should seek peaceful coexistence", you are presenting this as fact, needs to be rephrased. Anyway " fostering the segregation of peoples that should seek peaceful coexistence." sounds a bit of a spinoff of the source used. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Cpsoper, you say thise sources are "widely cited"? I highly doubt that. Please prove your statement. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Terminology: 'anti-Semitism' vs 'racism'
I'm curious about something. When we describe the events in Europe that motivated Zionism, they are labelled anti-Semitic, but not racist. Is there a reason for choosing one over the other? BabyJonas (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)