Wikipedia:Peer review/Zionism/archive1

Zionism
This article has continuous editing disputes, which often concentrate on details. The overall perspective is poor. As the note at the top implies, it is largely a history of the Zionist movement, and that is not sufficinet for an article with the general title Zionism. It has a disputable linear perspective, "from King David to David Ben-Gurion". The article would benefit from more theory, and more history other then Jewish history. It needs more background on Jews in 19th-century Europe, and an explanation of why Zionism grew from a minority to a majority opinion among them. (Remember that Zionists said that millions of people should simply migrate to another continent, a far-reaching proposal). Peer review would open up the editing to a wider group, which this article badly needs.Paul111 11:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This article will never be NPOV if there isn't a balance between sources. Currently, all sources are Israelis or at least western. Arab sources should consist of a great part in this article since this controversial subject is the center of discussion in the Arab world. CG 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "Zionism" was created by the Jews and is strongly linked to their history. So, and as long as the article shows undeniable facts, I can't see why Arab sources should be more credible.Free2day 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is to find authoritative sources, regardless of who they are, but they must be authoritative. Similarly, opening up the editing to other editors is a good thing, so long as they have read the authoritative sources and have something they can bring to the table. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what Paul111 means by "more theory" and "more history other than Jewish history," and not at all what he means with "poor... overall perspective." --Leifern 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Zionisme issue is directly related to arabs. You can't deny this fact. It was the reason for the controversial Arab-Israeli wars. So Arabs have also a very strong opinion about the issue and have even become part of their history. That's why numerous Arab sources are a must. CG 08:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionism emerged in response to continued oppression and persecution of Jews in Europe. The Zionist movement's program was/is aimed at promoting the return of Jews to their historical homeland, where Jews would be free from persecution and able to develop their own lives and identity. The Arabs just took the chance and moved in when the Jews were forced to exile. There is no record of a land known as Palestine ruled by an Arab leader before 1964, yet they keep telling us that the Zionists have stolen their land... Also if you have a closer look at the Koran you won't find any reference to a land called "Palestine" or "Palestinian". Free2day 10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionism may be a Jewish movement, but its historical impact is not limited to Jews, far from it. The article also needs to be more than simply a history of the Zionist movement. I think nationalism theory is the most appropriate perspective for this article, but others (social movement theory) are also relevant.Paul111 11:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please be civil and respond to my comments appropriatly. I never mentioned the origins of Zionism nor began a debate about whose fault it is. Wikipedia is not the place for these silly disputes. Like Paul1111 said, the impact of Zionism on Arab people, politics, history is a true fact that should be extensivly explained in the article. Plus, I don't know if you have prejudices, but arab scholars, researches and historians exist and they also have made extensive studies of zionism. Ignoring their ideas is a violation of NPOV policy. CG 12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, so you mean that only you and like minded have the right to express your criticism here… but yet you have failed to show where in the article you find biased or less credible information that needs correction from the Arab sources. And why don't you tell us which Arab sources are worth being trusted, could they be the same sources that have inspired Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian President Mahmoud? just wonder...Free2day 15:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't even answer to your response which in no means can help improving the article. Again, I'll let Wikipedia policies (which I advise you to consider) do the talk:


 * Oh I see, so you mean that only you and like minded have the right to express your criticism here…
 * per No personal attacks: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.


 * per Neutral point of view: I'll imagine that Arabs are the only ones in the world which are hostile enough not to comply to the zionist/israeli/jew/american/western (you choose the word) school of thought. According to the article Arab, there may be 250-300 million of them in the word. Again according to the policy:
 * the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
 * Which means that these 250 millions arabs deserve (no they don't even deserve to exist), should have their viewpoint fairly represented in the article. And how could they have been represented if not one of their sources is used?


 * And again, please be civil. Wikipedia is a centre for all opinions, ideas and thoughts in the world. And every user (even terrorists like me) should have their words considered. Your behavior for criticising and attacking everyone which objects to you ideas won't lead to any solution and will make Wikipedia a harder place to live :) Anyway, I see that you are a new user and I recommend you to read the list of policies that every user must respect. If you're too lazy :-) try the five pillars of Wikipedia and thee extremely important Neutral point of view and the civility policies. And if you need anything just tell me. Thank you. CG 05:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've shown you my point of view (My opinion) about the issue here without accusing anyone in particular, it's not my fault if you consider yourself accused just because I have a different opinion. And, you still have failed to show us where in the article you find biased or less credible information that needs correction from the Arab sources. So, enlighten us!


 * According to the article Arab, there may be 250-300 million of them in the word.
 * Oh, do you mean that the Zionism aimed at promoting the return of Jews to their historical homeland (the tiny Israel) has directly affected 250-300 millions of Arabs all over the world?!! Free2day 20:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why only Arab sources? Judging by the amount of attention to Zionism, it directly affected the entire planet. Malaysia, for example, is quite outspoken on the subject. Shall we quote Mahathir Mohamad? CG, you are wrong saying that "Wikipedia is a centre for all opinions, ideas and thoughts in the world." WP is an encyclopedia, see also WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that more neutral sources need to be used in the article. The article should make it more clear that Zionism is nationalism and is based on the same ideas as all forms of nationalism. Right now it promotes a nationalist mythology. Also there needs to be heavy, neutral COI monitoring. I would use the word "patrolled," to describe the articles state right now, and a little bit of enforcement of COI would go a long way. SOme of the comments here are enlightening as to the extent of the COI problems. I would be surprised if anyone would tolerate an article about Serbian nationalism being edited primarily by outspoken Serbian nationalists, but that is the case with this article. Basejumper2 00:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)