Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:54, 23 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zionism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Restrictions placed: 2024-08-13 Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Other talk page banners

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Zionism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. Article milestones Date Process Result December 15, 2003 Featured article candidate Promoted November 10, 2004 Featured article review Demoted July 26, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed August 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former featured article This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Israel Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Jewish history Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palestine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Erez Linn (September 17, 2024). "Misplaced Pages entry on Zionism defines it as 'colonialism', sparking outrage". Israel Hayom. Retrieved September 17, 2024. A heated debate has erupted on social media over recent changes made to the Misplaced Pages entry for Zionism, sparking accusations of historical revisionism. Peter Cordi (September 19, 2024). "Misplaced Pages blasted for 'wildly inaccurate' change to entry on Zionism: 'Downright antisemitic'". Washington Examiner. Retrieved September 20, 2024. David Israel (September 17, 2024). "War over Misplaced Pages's Definition of Zionism Pits Provoked Users Against Biased Editors". The Jewish Press. Retrieved September 21, 2024. Breanna Claussen (September 22, 2024). "Misplaced Pages's redefinition of Zionism draws severe rebuke: 'History is being rewritten'". All Israel News. Retrieved September 23, 2024. Aaron Bandler (October 10, 2024). "Misplaced Pages Describes Nakba As "Ethnic Cleansing"". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Retrieved October 11, 2024. Mathilda Heller (October 21, 2024). "Misplaced Pages's page on Zionism is partly edited by an anti-Zionist - investigation". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved October 22, 2024. Shlomit Aharoni Lir (November 5, 2024). "The crime of the century? Bias in the English Misplaced Pages article on Zionism". Ynet. Retrieved November 5, 2024. Jo Elizabeth (November 8, 2024). "Your professor was right, don't rely on Misplaced Pages: Anti-Israel bias intensifies after October 7". Allisrael.com. Retrieved November 8, 2024. Shraga Simmons (November 11, 2024). "Weaponizing Misplaced Pages against Israel: How the global information pipeline is being hijacked by digital jihadists". Aish HaTorah. Archived from the original on November 13, 2024. Retrieved December 1, 2024. Debbie Weiss (December 4, 2024). "Misplaced Pages's Quiet Revolution: How a Coordinated Group of Editors Reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian Narrative". Algemeiner Journal. Retrieved December 5, 2024. Sharonne Blum (January 3, 2025). "Misplaced Pages holds court in the realm of anti-Zionism". The Times of Israel. Retrieved January 3, 2025. Arno Rosenfeld (January 7, 2025). "Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors". The Forward. Retrieved January 8, 2025.

On 16 September 2024, Zionism was linked from Twitter, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Current consensus (January 2025): In this RfC it was found that there was consensus that the sentence "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" is compliant with NPOV and should remain in the lead.

Section sizes Section size for Zionism (57 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 21,260 21,260 Terminology 4,228 4,228 Beliefs 14 48,523 National self-determination 1,580 1,580 Claim to a Jewish demographic majority and a Jewish state in Palestine 18,414 18,414 Zionism, antisemitism and an "existential need" for self-determination 3,926 3,926 Racial conceptions of Jewish identity 10,637 10,637 Conquest of labor 3,038 3,038 Negation of the life in the Diaspora 1,077 7,431 Zionism and secular Jewish identity 6,354 6,354 Revival of the Hebrew language 3,483 3,483 History 80 93,147 Historical and religious background 6,634 6,634 Forerunners of Zionism 5,078 5,078 Establishment of the Zionist movement 329 14,294 Jewish nationalism and emancipation 3,846 3,846 Leon Pinsker, Theodor Herzl and the birth of modern political Zionism 6,207 6,207 Territories considered 3,912 3,912 Early Zionist settlement 13,849 14,956 Second Aliyah 1,107 1,107 The Balfour Declaration and World War I 2,457 4,789 King-Crane Commission 2,332 2,332 British Mandate and development of the Zionist quasi-state 6,556 6,556 Zionist policies and the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt 3,999 3,999 The Peel Commission transfer proposal 8,748 8,748 Nazism, World War II and the Holocaust 8,412 8,412 End of the Mandate and expulsion of the Palestinians 9,291 11,216 Hebraization of names 1,925 1,925 Post-World War II 5,179 5,179 Religious Zionism and the Six-Day War 3,206 3,206 Types 2,531 29,017 Early Zionist Strains 3,032 3,032 Labor Zionism 9,582 9,582 Synthetic and General Zionism 3,282 3,282 Revisionist Zionism 3,140 3,140 Religious Zionism 3,385 3,385 Liberal Zionism 2,391 2,391 Cultural Zionism 1,674 1,674 Non-Jewish support 26 8,558 Christian support 6,379 6,379 Hindu support 2,153 2,153 Anti-Zionism 13,990 27,118 Characterization as colonialist and racist 5,495 5,495 Haredi Judaism and Zionism 5,208 5,208 Anti-Zionism or antisemitism 2,425 2,425 Zionism and colonialism 31 19,113 European Colonialism 7,855 7,855 The Transition from British sponsored colonialism to the Israeli state 4,655 4,655 Colonization and colonialism 3,678 3,678 Zionism as settler colonialism 2,894 2,894 Violence 52 52 See also 345 345 Notes 47 47 References 30 35,517 Works cited 35,487 35,487 Further reading 2,887 2,887 External links 864 864 Total 290,676 290,676

Length

This article is massively overlength, more than double the size identified at Misplaced Pages:Summary_style#Article_size. I propose, as a first step towards resolving this problem, reinstating this edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose wholesale specific diff, support some cuts. In my view it removes some things that are valuable while retaining things that aren't. However I do agree with some of the removals, such as the clause, "a term denoting the force needed to prevent Palestinian resistance against colonization", the Morris quote, the Herzl quote about antisemitism, the quotes in the section about Gandhi, the lengthy part about South Africa, and the lengthy quotes in the section about Chomsky and Finkelstein, the Sternhell and Busbridge parts. That should all be cut in my view. I'd leave the stuff about the declaration of independence and the framework of the Israeli government since I think that's fairly critical to Zionism, and I'd leave the stuff about the revival of Hebrew. Andre🚐 05:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Re: "retaining things that aren't": not proposing this be the only edit, just a first step. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that's fair, I just meant that in an area where you chose to cut I saw other nearby things I might have cut instead and flowed it out different. Andre🚐 05:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Sure. I think that's a reason to restore the tag, as it will encourage continued work on the problem rather than just a one-and-done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fine by me. I know other editors tend to reflexively revert the addition of maintenance tags to the article, citing the consensus required restriction. However I personally have no objection to a too long tag. Andre🚐 05:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  If an editor believes an article is too long, perhaps they'd be better of considering/starting a split discussion, rather than resorting to tagging. TarnishedPath 06:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  The two big targets are the History and Anti Zionism sections, without any progress there, overall progress is unlikely. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of the cuts make sense to me. Would be better to trim things one by one with an edit summary rather than in one swoop that will inevitably be contested. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

agreed, and also agree with self that we should focus on the longest sections. The antizionism section in particular seems excessively long and detailed. DMH223344 (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The current word count is 17,732, well into the zone where a split is recommended.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

adding some justification in the edit summaries wouldnt hurt either DMH223344 (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort you've put into this, it's important to be careful that our presentation here reflects that in RS. For example, the removal of "which began to emerge even before the appearance of modern antisemitism as a major factor" from the sentence "The development of Zionism and other Jewish nationalist movements grew out of these sentiments, which began to emerge even before the appearance of modern antisemitism as a major factor" gives it a different meaning, and minimizes the importance of antisemitism.

Also, there is now no mention in the article that Zionism was not the only form of Jewish nationalism. DMH223344 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Overall, I think the work done in these edits to trim the article while also to strengthen has been an improvement.

I also quibble with some of the specific trims, e.g. I agree with DMH that a brief mention of other forms of Jewish nationalism is due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we decide on a target length? Otherwise the tag will stick around forever. DMH223344 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we mention Altneuland at all?

I agree that Altneuland is important, but it doesnt seem to have been important enough for this article for there to be more than 2 disconnected sentences about it. I suggest we remove them since they dont seem to be adding much at the moment. DMH223344 (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Chomsky shouldn’t be cited in the intro

He’s a linguist and polemicist, not a historian. The claim that “ Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance” isn’t true imo but that’s probably more than I want to bite off.Prezbo (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a little reductive of Chomsky's career. Frankly there's a lot of people, particularly in Anthropology, who think Chomsky is at his weakest as a linguist. On the other hand Chomsky has been a political analyst since at least 1967 and he has published multiple very prominent books on world politics. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we agree that he has, how can I put it, a very particular viewpoint? And Chomsky has had his share of self-owns in the political arena as well. It's like citing William F. Buckley or Friedrich Hayek (without attribution) in the lead of the Soviet Union article. I'm just saying, when I clicked on this footnote, I expected to see sources written by historians or political scientists. Seeing Chomsky makes me trust the statement less rather than more. Prezbo (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

For the nth time this week a person being left wing does not make them unreliable as a source. I also don't agree with everything Chomsky ever said. For instance I think he decidedly lost his debate with Foucault. I've also been critical, in this thread, of his work on language acquisition. I am not suggesting Chomsky is infallable. However to suggest that citing possibly the most prominent Jewish anarchist political commentator in the world about Zionism is like citing Hayek without attribution for the Soviet Union is such a bizarre simile that I'm actually having trouble parsing it. For the record I do think statements from Chomsky should be attributed. I just think, considering his prominence as a political commentator over the last 60 years, his opinions are highly due inclusion, even in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Anarchism is an unpopular ideology, I'm not impressed by the "most prominent Jewish anarchist political commentator in the world" descriptor. He's a prominent left-wing commentator who has opinions on many subjects, not a widely acknowledged expert on this particular topic. If it was Edward Said instead of Chomsky I probably would have let it go. But if we agree that it's inappropriate to cite him in the lede without attribution then I suppose that's progress. Prezbo (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Sadly Said has been dead for more than 20 years which leaves him unable to speak to the suffering of Palestinians today. And, frankly, your personal opinions of anarchism are entirely irrelevant to matters of WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The Chomsky quote we're discussing is from 1999. Prezbo (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait so this is just about bundled citation 9? No that's obviously WP:DUE. It's from a very widely cited book produced by a venerable publishing house and, just to put a ribbon on top, Said wrote the foreword. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Your claims of WP:ONUS are entirely backward. WP:BRD is pretty clear - you were bold. I reverted. Now you are edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Please provide some justification better than disliking anarchists for cutting the Chomsky book. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with what Simon wrote. Your personal opinion is not grounds for deletion. DMH223344 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

To explain my edit summary a bit further: this just seems like an outlandish claim to me, no matter how many citations are alleged to back it up. The differences between Hashomer Hatzair and Irgun were stylistic? It's flattening a huge range of political opinions over a broad expanse of time. I don't expect to win this one bc my commitment to the topic isn't that great but it's not an appropriate statement for the lead. Prezbo (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Your instincts are not an appropriate measure - nor is your opinion of Chomsky's political ideology. This is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT only now you've created two threads about it. Chomsky is due inclusion for his attributed opinion. There are very few living people more prominent in this space. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Forget about Chomsky. Can you defend the claim that "Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance"? Prezbo (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't need to. A reliable source said it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Flatly you're now asking that we conduct WP:OR rather than include a reliable source and, in fact, are asking us to forget the source is reliable and just look at the words you dislike that the reliable source said. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Wikipedian. I'm sure I could dig up some sources for the counterclaim that "there is a wide range of opinion in the Zionist movement." Here's one. Of course it has a distinct POV but that doesn't mean it's unreliable, right? Here's another one from a University Press. This isn't really about sources. There's editorial discretion involved in which sources we cite and how we paraphrase their claims. I think this is not a good hill to die on but I'll try to make this my last comment on the issue. Prezbo (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Unlike Chomsky the ADL is not a reliable source for Israel / Palestine conflict discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

On the other hand Zionism and the Creation of a New Society would appear to meet WP:RS criteria and would likely be due inclusion. Though neither of the authors have the significant reputation of Chomsky. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In any case, there being a wide range of opinion in the movement does not contradict the statement that the differences between the mainstream groups were primarily differences of style. DMH223344 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The range of scholars cited for this claim is very wide: Shapira, Gorny, Ben-Ami, Shlaim, Chomsky, Penslar, Sternhell DMH223344 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not going to track down all of those citations to see how much they really support this sentence. I’ll note that Chomsky and Sternhell are controversial to say the least. Everything about this topic is controversial. Let me further note that the intro of Palestinian nationalism has a while section emphasizing the differences of opinion inside the movement. They’re different movements but not that different. Most political movements contain a diversity of viewpoints, while agreeing on some central tenets. If the article said that about Zionism I would be fine with it. To me that’s very different from saying the differences between Labor and Likud are primarily stylistic. And now I really will try to walk away. Prezbo (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It would seem that the Chomsky thing isn't attributed though but is being used to discuss a claim in wikivoice. While this sentence has been discussed in the past, WP:CCC. However, maybe this and the last thread should be combined since they seem to be the same thing. I believe this claim is unduly synthetic and an oversimplification, and we've discussed other sources which portray a range of ideological strains within Zionism. Engel, and Shindler, among others, not to rehash the same discussion again. Even Penslar doesn't really support this. Trying to be constructive, maybe there's a way to change the phrasing to accomplish what it's trying to say and summarize those sources that say it without getting into what appears to be a conclusion not stated explicitly in the sources, or portraying that WP:SOURCESDIFFER. Also, there's a change over time element to this. Zionist groups disagreed on quite a few substantial issues but consolidated over time; that fact is elided in the intro as it stands. Andre🚐 23:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No. You are mistaken. It's literally presented as a quote.Simonm223 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe you are the one who is mistaken or it's semantic, but not according to the conventional meaning of attribution on Misplaced Pages. It's quoted in the footnote, but that's not what we mean by attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Attribution in Misplaced Pages parlance would mean the article text would read something like "According to theorists a la Chomsky, mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance...." Andre🚐 03:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I support Prezbo's edit. Chomsky is not an appropriate source for the lead. There is no way that he is a best source for this contentious topic. It's simply not his area of expertise; he's not someone cited in the scholarly literature.

The claim is a highly contentious one, that some have made. We can report that, and attribute it. Other serious scholars say the opposite, which we can also report with attribution -- in the body not the lead. It's not something we can say in our voice, and definitely not in the lead.

The other sources cited don't really say what it was being used for either. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (PS speaking as an anarchist-adjacent person I want to add that Chomsky being an anarchist is a really bad reason to remove him. Plenty of serious scholars are also anarchists, and indeed for that matter a few major figures in the Zionist tradition. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC))

But it's not just Chomsky who is making this claim. Even if you remove him from the list the range of scholars making this assessment is very wide. DMH223344 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

While we may disagree about his relative significance as far as attributed opinion (and for the record I've never said the opinion shouldn't be attributed or should be in wiki voice) I really appreciate you giving a sanity check on those people who denigrated his politics as "unpopular" as if that was just cause to minimize his views.Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Chomsky has a huge number of extremely high-profile, highly-cited works on politics published in academic sources. The argument that his only expertise is linguistics is just wrong - he's also an extremely impactful political scholar, to the point where he could trivially pass WP:EXPERTSPS on politics alone (not that that threshold is necessary here, because these are published by reliable high-quality publishers.) He obviously has a stark perspective, and this does have to be evaluated when determining due weight, but his position on Israel is not fringe by any standard; as one of the most highly-cited authors alive (including, yes, in his work on politics) he's a logical source to attribute. Neither is the statement made here particularly WP:EXCEPTIONAL; it seems to be a common position. --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources used for style not substance

Per DMH comment on Chomsky not being only source, just pasting the sources previously cited:

• Sternhell 1999 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSternhell1999 (help): "The difference between religious and secular Zionism, be- tween the Zionism of the Left and the Zionism of the Right, was merely a difference of form and not an essential difference."
• Penslar 2023, p. 60 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPenslar2023 (help)
• Ben-Ami 2007, p. 3 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBen-Ami2007 (help)
• Shapira 1992, Conclusion harvnb error: no target: CITEREFShapira1992 (help)
• Shlaim 2001, Prologue harvnb error: no target: CITEREFShlaim2001 (help)
• Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2022). Prophets Without Honor. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-006047-3. Archived from the original on June 24, 2024. Retrieved June 23, 2024.
• Gorny 1987, p. 165 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGorny1987 (help): "As a member of the Zionist Executive in 1921-3, he soon discovered that what divided him from his colleagues in the Zionist leadership was not political differences, but mainly his style of political action"
• Chomsky 1999, Rejectionism and Accommodation: "In essence, then, the two programs are not very different. Their difference lies primarily in style. Labor is, basically, the party of the educated Europe-oriented elite—managers, bureaucrats, intellectuals, etc. Its historical practice has been to "build facts" while maintaining a low-keyed rhetoric with conciliatory tones, at least in public. In private, the position has been that "it does not matter what the Gentiles say, what matters is what the Jews do" (Ben-Gurion) and that "the borders are where Jews live, not where there is a line on a map" (Golda Meir).21 This has been an effective method for obtaining the ends sought without alienating Western opinion—indeed, while mobilizing Western (particularly American) support." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFChomsky1999 (help)

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We could add sources that take the opposite view. Here's two to start with:

• Conforti, Yitzhak (2010). "East and West in Jewish nationalism: conflicting types in the Zionist vision?". Nations and Nationalism. 16 (2): 201–219. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2010.00418.x. The very existence of opposing positions in classical Zionism regarding the vision of the future of the Jewish state reveals the great variety within Jewish nationalism. Zionism represented different Jewish dreams and yearnings that conflicted in their relation to consciousness of the Jewish past as well as to aspirations for the future
• Taylor, Alan R. (1972). "Zionism and Jewish History". Journal of Palestine Studies. 1 (2). Taylor & Francis, Ltd.: 35–51. ISSN 0377-919X. JSTOR 2535953. Retrieved 20 January 2025. The diversity of Zionism greatly facilitated this task, since every sectarian or political preference in the Diaspora had a counterpart within the Zionist movement.

See also Seidler, Boyarin and Shindler quotes in current notes 249-250.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

These quotes don't actually refute the quotes above. We would need something along the lines of "left and right in Zionism were essentially different movements, with fundamentally different goals, strategies and tactics." DMH223344 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The text some of us are disputing is “Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance, having in some cases adopted similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians.” That seems like an incoherent sentence, because to me the same strategies would equate to the same style while different goals would equate to a different substance. To refute the first half, we just need to show that they differed in substance. To refute the second half, we just need to show they didn’t adopt the same strategies. I think showing that lots of scholars say there were fundamental differences within the Zionist mainstream is enough to make it untenable to make the claim for homogeneity in our voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The statement being contested is saying that the differences were primarily tactical or political, rather than fundamental differences of goals or strategy.

The quotes from Conforti and Taylor both say there was diversity in the movement. Conforti mentions differing "visions" of the future state. Neither are really talking about fundamental differences in goals or strategy. DMH223344 (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So wouldn't it be better that different scholars take a range of positions on the degree to which there is a unitary, cohesive Zionism with shared goals and visions but differences in style and strategy (eg Gorny, Marsalha, Shimoni), or if Zionism is more heterogeneous and diverse (eg Shindler, Penslar, Conforti, Dubnov)? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Calling zionism diverse is fine, but here we are interested in strategies and goals. DMH223344 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s in the middle of a paragraph summarising the Types of Zionism section, not a paragraph about strategies and goals. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This issue seems to play out in a number of the disputes on the talk page. It would seem better to address for the article overall and decide what is best for the reader rather than focusing the phrasing of a particular sentence. fiveby(zero) 14:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It's two issues: (a) too many places in the article where one scholar or group of scholars' position is given the status of truth in our voice; and (b) a general tendency to favour homogeneity over diversity. It's there, for example, in the first sentence of the "Types of Zionism" section, where Gorny's homogeneity view is given in our voice (despite being criticised by Dubnow in the footnote) while the diversity view is attributed in the third sentence.

See previous discussions here, here and here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I skimmed the dunbnov article and am actually now even more convinced that our characterization of zionism in this article is fair and balanced when it comes to emphasizing the zionist mainstream rather than getting lost in the fringe variations and groups that label themselves (or are labelled as) "zionist". The quote in the section you referenced is from footnote 16 which comes at the end of this sentence:

Once we discard the assumption one can speak of a Zionist “idea,” “doctrine” or “ideology” in the singular, we will be able to reassess Zionist thought in a new light and produce a more critically and historically grounded narrative.

and is followed by:

Most significantly, instead of searching in vain for “germs” or “sprouts” of this Zionist core-doctrine, we might offer an alternative view of the “family resemblance” of Zionist ideas, which (to allude to Wittgenstein’s metaphor) are connected by a series of overlapping similarities, and which show no one feature common to all.

So Dubnov is explicitly starting from the position that he is rejecting the idea of a common zionist idea. Such works are not BESTSOURCES for this article, especially not for determining weight and balance in the article structure and overall treatment of zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

my trims/additions

It is entirely possible that these may be my last edits to this page for a while; wanted to leave a few notes.

• Regarding Hebrew, I removed the part that had no citations. I also concentrated the sentence on the main point, but I think it's worth noting that being the liturgical language meant that Hebrew did have a vibrant medieval life as the language of some poems and prayers, but also as a kind of lingua franca among Jewish communities. I suspect that some of the sources talk about this a bit as it relates to Cultural Zionism, which is really still underweight in my view.
• I continue to feel the technicalities of early Zionist parliamentarianism and early Zionists' views of issues of territory, transfer, etc. is overweight versus some of the modern stuff.
• "Zionist historiography" is basically the national-conservative historiography that is going to be opposed in a lot of ways to either the New historiography (Morris, and Pappe) and the Arab historiography. "Traditional historiography" is also a thing. I restored the mentions of the forerunners and the proto-Zionists and medieval aliyah and messianism because it's critical to understanding the traditional historiography. It has less weight in Arab and New historiography because they're focused more on labor issues, population issues, but let's not forget there are also aspects that we left out, such as the malarial swamp and technological developments which relate to labor and are covered by Shapira in her other book, that are also part of the modern historiography. Also, this article should consider patterning itself after a general world or general political history of the region in some sense, to get an outside-of-the-box view rather than this inside baseball stuff. The article still reads a bit like a term paper.
• We had a list of best sources and there is still plenty that either is over/underweight or left out altogether or probably not necessary according to my read of most of those.
• A few things I removed were tagged with "page needed" for months, but restore them if you can check the page and find a close enough, but not too close, paraphrase. I failed to. I think there are still some issues of synthesis and kludgy frankensteining to fix.

Andre🚐 04:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Reverted because I don't agree with your assessment of UNDUE or that stuff was duplicative. TarnishedPath 06:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Fine, on some of it, but this part: the decline of the status of religion in the Jewish community. What page of Yadgar is that summarizing? AFAIK, it's not a true statement that Zionism caused a decline in the status of religion of the Jewish community. Zionism was/is a fundamentally secular movement and a secularization of certain Jewish religious concepts that predate Zionism, but that isn't the same thing. Many Jewish communities are extremely religious, while other groups are less so, but in general, the religiosity of every group has been declining for a while - not just Jewish groups - and the Haskalah has more to do with the Jewish secularization, and is also a cause of/related to the growth of Zionism. Also, on another point, you restored a statement that had a citation needed tag, so you should provide a citation for it. And the ones with no pages numbered need page numbers. They've been tagged for months. Andre🚐 06:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@DMH223344 reverted the stuff to do with page numbers. You'll need to ask them about that. I took the revert further. TarnishedPath 06:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There were page numbers needed in that text you reverted too, if I'm not mistaken. Such as the one I just quoted. Fine for DMH223344 to respond too of course, as most likely he was the one who originally added it anyway.

Here is what you restored:

"The Zionist goal of reframing of Jewish identity in secular-nationalist terms meant primarily the decline of the status of religion in the Jewish community.Prominent Zionist thinkers frame this development as nationalism serving the same role as religion, functionally replacing it. Zionism sought to make Jewish ethnic-nationalism the distinctive trait of Jews rather than their commitment to Judaism. Zionism instead adopted a racial understanding of Jewish identity. Framed this way, Jewish identity is only secondarily a matter of tradition or culture. Zionist nationalism embraced pan-Germanic ideologies, which stressed the concept of das völk: people of shared ancestry should pursue separation and establish a unified state. Zionist thinkers view the movement as a "revolt against a tradition of many centuries" of living parasitically at the margins of Western society. Indeed, Zionism was uncomfortable with the term "Jewish," associating it with passivity, spirituality and the stain of "galut". Instead, Zionist thinkers preferred the term "Hebrew" to describe their identity. In Zionist thought, the new Jew would be productive and work the land, in contrast to the diaspora Jew. Zionism linked the term "Jewish" with negative characteristics prevalent in European anti-Semitic stereotypes, which Zionists believed could be remedied only through sovereignty."

Andre🚐 06:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but your edits to do with page numbers were at Special:Diff/1269740494 and Special:Diff/1269740570, those were reverted by DMH223344 at Special:Diff/1269747214. The fact that I reverted back to an edition without the page numbers is immaterial as the diff of the article I reverted from didn't have the page numbers. In any case I would have been restricted from overriding DMH223344's reverts because of the consensus required restriction. The only option available to me if I wanted to over-ride your edits, without reinstating what DMH223344 reverted, was to rollback to a time before you had made any adjustment that I disagreed with and which DMH223344 had reverted. TarnishedPath 07:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe you must be incorrect, because I just pasted the text and that text is restored in your diff. If you agree with removing that text, you may do so. Andre🚐 08:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a page needed tag is a good reason for removal. If there's doubt about the source, maybe a verify quote tag is better. I see page needed as more of a technical improvement issue. My main issue is that some of these claims are the opinions or interpretations of scholars that we should be attributing, rather than the scholarly consensus, so most of the deleted material doesn't look strong enough to keep in a bloated article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Yadgar 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFYadgar2017 (help)
2. Avineri 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAvineri2017 (help)
3. Shimoni 1995. sfn error: no target: CITEREFShimoni1995 (help)
4. Yadgar 2020. sfn error: no target: CITEREFYadgar2020 (help)
5. Masalha 2012. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMasalha2012 (help)

Ethnocultural nationalism

I have long been not a fan of the opening sentence use of "ethnocultural nationalist", currently citing one source, the Israeli philosopher Chaim Gans. Looking back over the talk archive, I don't see the establishment of consensus for this. It's been disputed by multiple editors, and supported by few. (Open to being corrected on that if I missed a robust RfC or similar strong establishment of consensus.) I've looked in Google Scholar to identify if it's a term used widely about Zionism in the academic literature, and it seems to me clear it isn't. It's a term used by Gans, but by almost nobody else that I can see. Open to persuasion if I'm missing something, but if my reading is right, it's not something we should say in our voice and certainly not in the opening sentence.

Even if we agree with Gans that it is an ethnocultural nationalism not a civic nationalism, we still shouldn't use it in our voice in the lead, given that his argument that it is one notes that Herzl and Pinsker were civic not ethnocultural nationalists; that it should specifically be understood as representing a sub-species: a "liberal ethnocultural nationalism"; that many have tried to generate a civic rather than ethnocultural Zionism; and that he is disagreeing with other scholars who don't share his analysis.

Conforti argues that Zionism is a clear case of ethnocultural nationalism, but with paradoxical civic elements: This research concludes that the state of Israel, which developed from a nationalist ethnic-cultural movement, integrated within it ethnic values as well as Western civic values. The founders of the central wing of the movement all aspired to create a Jewish national state that upheld these values... Since Zionism is a clear example of an ethnic national movement, scholars usually tend to ignore its civic components.... I will argue that the two characteristics, civic and ethnic, were continuously present in mainstream Zionist thought and activities from the 1880s to 1948. The primary aim of the 'Zionist consensus' was to create a Western Jewish nation-state, in contrast to two alternatives that were proposed by marginal movements within Zionism: a bi-national state or the messianic Israelite kingdom.

Michael Berkowitz makes the same argument: that Zionism, like Czech nationalism, contains elements of both ethnocultural and civic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

We've had discussions about NPOV previously and there has been consensus against adding such tags. Please don't do it. TarnishedPath 14:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Describing Zionism as civic nationalism is absolutely a fringe standpoint. Maybe it has "elements" of it, (wouldn't many other forms of ethnic nationalism also have elements of civic nationalism?) but it certainly cannot be characterized as civic nationalism (and is for the most part not characterized as such in RS).

Quickly flipping through my library:

Shimoni: It has identified Zionism as manifestly a case of ethnic nationalism

Masalha (doesnt use the term, but still describes it throughout his work): Zionist nationalism adopted German völkisch theory: people of common descent should seek separation and form one common state. But such ideas of racial nationalism ran counter to those held by liberal nationalism in Western Europe, whereby equal citizenship regardless of religion or ethnicity — not ‘common descent’ — determined the national character of the state.

Sand: Zionism from its inception was an ethnocentric nationalist movement

Shafir: Zionism was founded, like other types of nationalism, on a theory of political legitimacy, which requires that ethnic boundaries should not cross political ones."

Shapira (also does not use the same term, but describes it and uses a similar term): The concept of nation that originated in the French Revolution was not ser­ viceable as a basis for a Jewish conception of nationhood. A stateless people, the Jews could not embrace the idea of citizenship based on the notion of a state. Iron­ ically, it was the Romantic-exclusivistic brand of nationalism (whose prescriptions meant that the Jews could never be an integral part of the organic nation) that con­ tained certain ideas able to function as a basis for an elaborated notion of a Jewish nation and national movement.

Stanislawski: Indeed, in most ways Zionism followed the common pattern of modern nationalist movements, which began in the early nineteenth century in Western and Central Europe and then spread into Eastern Europe in the middle and late nineteenth century. These began as ideologies of cultural renaissance among small groups of intellectuals and writers who were heavily influenced by the ideas of philosophers such as J. G. Herder and J. G. Fichte, who argued that humanity was fundamentally divided into distinct “nations,” each of which had a unique history, culture, and “national spirit” ( Volksgeist in German). Thus, the word “nation,” which previously had a very loose meaning that could apply to essentially any group of people united by some common bond (one spoke, for example, of the “nation of students”), now acquired a highly specific and exclusive meaning: every person’s primary identification was as a member of his or her nation, rather than other forms of self-definition or loyalty—religious, regional, local, even familial. DMH223344 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Some persuasive quotes there, but not all unproblematic.

• First, I'd discount Sand as very fringe and contrarian, not an instance of the academic best source, let alone the consensus view (See, for example, Shapira's response. Among other things, she points out that Sand reject's Smith's theory, which includes the very distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism)
• Shimoni and Marsalha do indeed argue strongly (and often, to me, compellingly) that Zionism as a movement and labour Zionism in particular was an "eastern European" ethnic nationalism, at least in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. But this is their position, not the settled view of scholars in general that we can relay in our own voice.
• Shafir is quoting Gellner about all nationalisms: his position is that all nationalisms are essentially ethnocultural, in which case it's a redundancy. In fact Shafir immediately goes on to problematise the categorisation: Zionism was founded, like other types of nationalism, on a 'theory of political legitimacy, which requires that ethnic boundaries should not cross political ones." The conditions under which nation-states come into existence do, however, call for strikingly different methods of mobilization, which accordingly generate distinct societies. To which of these configurations does Zionism belong? Obviously, Zionism cannot be classed with the English or French cases. ... Faced with the multi-ethnic Habsburg, Romanov, and Ottoman Empires, which impeded modern state formation, the Eastern European method23 did require nationalist ideological mobilization for secession. This model is applicable to Israeli state and nation formation, but only in part. At the outset, Zionism was a variety of Eastern European nationalism, that is, an ethnic movement in search of a state. But at the other end of the journey it may be seen more fruitfully as a late instance of European overseas expansion, which had been taking place from the sixteenth through the early twentieth centuries.
• I haven't got Shapira to hand so maybe she works for "ethnocultural" although she doesn't use the term. On the basis of this quote alone it feels a slight stretch. I note she uses the term "ethnic" nine times in her book, and "ethnocultural" not once.
• Stanislawki is simply saying that Zionism is a form of nationalism. In most ways, he says, it followed the pattern of nationalism in general. The fact he uses the word "ethnic" just five times in his whole book and "ethnocultural" not once (versus "nationalism/t" some 50+ times) shows how central this is to his understanding, and why it shouldn't be in the first sentence.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Describing Zionism as civic nationalism is absolutely a fringe standpoint. That's not Conforti's view. He says This article analyses the ethnic and civic components of the early Zionist movement. The debate over whether Zionism was an Eastern-ethnic nationalist movement or a Western-civic movement began with the birth of Zionism.... The debate over the character of Jewish nationalism – ethnic or civic – continues to engage researchers and remains a topic of public debate in Israel even today. As this article demonstrates, the debate between ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ Zionism has its foundations in the origins of the Zionist movement. His conclusion: Ahad Ha’am’s vision was not entirely particularistic and ethnic, nor was Herzl’s vision entirely universalistic and civic. Both visions rest on the middle ground between East and West, ethnic and civic Jewish nationalism. The civic model per se cannot fully explain Jewish nationalism, which stemmed from the ethnic consciousness of the Jewish people and not from a territorial basis. On the other hand, from the outset Zionism adopted Western civic political thought, which intensified }through continued cooperation between the Zionist movement and the Jewish communities in the West... The current debate over the desired character of Israeli democracy – ethnic or civic – is based on questions raised by the classic Zionist thinkers. The approach of researchers who consider that Zionism expressed ethnic aspirations only and was devoid of civic elements is based on the belief that Israel as a civic state was preferable to Israel as a nation-state (Sand 2008: 277–92; Wassermann 2007: 377–88). But in classical Zionism, as we have seen, both elements, ethnic and civic, operated in parallel on the path to fulfillment of the Zionist project. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In that article conforti acknowledges that the mainstream view is to characterize Zionism as an ethnic nationalism. DMH223344 (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Where does he say that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Conforti is arguing in contrast to Kohn's characterization of Zionism which is the mainstream characterization. DMH223344 (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Kohn's view set the paradigm for nationalism studies in the 1940s (and shaped Gellner), but has been sharply under attack by people like AD Smith on one hand, who argue that all nationalisms are ethnic, and by people like Brubaker on the other who argue that Kuhn's dichotomy is a false one. Smith's and Brubaker positions have now overtaken Kohn's as the dominant ones in nationalism studies. Conforti: Kohn’s dichotomy is important as an analytical tool in research on nationalism; however, as many critics have noted, we cannot clearly separate between ethnic and civic, Eastern and Western models, in all nationalist movements (Brown 1999; Kuzio 2002; Kymlicka 1995; Smith 1998: 210–13; Yack 1996)... In the modern discourse, some follow Kohn’s approach and view Jewish nationalism as a development of ethnic nationalism (Dahan and Wassermann 2006: 11–28; Sand 2008; Wassermann 2007), but others believe that the Jewish nation-state follows the principles of Western liberalism (Yakobson and Rubinstein 2009). As Conforti notes, all of these positions are positions in a contentious terrain of scholarly debate, on which we should not rule in our voice, least of all in the first sentence of the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The emphasis on "others" here is key, especially noting that Conforti cites a single publication for this view.

As for Smith, Shimoni, cited above, heavily relies on Smith in his coverage of Zionist ideology and explicitly characterizes Zionism as an ethnic nationalism. DMH223344 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes as I said, Smith departs from Kohn in basically seeing all nationalisms as ethnic, making the prefix redundant. There are three major positions on this, and our first sentence privileges Kohn’s as the truth. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

So you just want to call it "nationalism" in the first sentence instead of "ethnocultural"? I never liked the use of the term "ethnocultural" here. DMH223344 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, just nationalism is cleaner and totally non-controversial BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The problematisation of the ethnic/civic dichotomy is an important one, and tbh that swings me a little against using the "ethnocultural". That said, it seems ridiculous to me that anyone can argue the ethnic components of Zionist rhetoric are balanced by the civic (especially given the Israeli state's treatment of Palestinians in Israel, which - by no definition - can be considered to embody "traditional liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights" that civic nationalism supposedly prioritises), but I guess we have to yield to sources.

Like Conforti, Uri Ram offers a brief picture of the appropriateness of such characterisations on Zionism at the beginning of this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-middle-east-studies/article/abs/critical-studies-of-ethnic-nationalism-in-israel/FACAED46EAC692C53802EF20AFAF162F

I wonder whether we can better reflect this tension somewhere in the article itself rather than getting bogged down in the lede. There's a bit about it here, but it's a little unsatisfactory at the moment. Yr Enw (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree and definitely wouldn't argue that Zionism is widely seen as a form of civic nationalism. The issue for me is this simplification in our voice in the first sentence of the lead, rather than more carefully phrased with attribution in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Only going off of the sections highlighted to this time in the discussion, for the pittance my view is worth, I would suggest moving back to the note we had previously in the article, where we describe it as a "nationalism", and then in a footnote point to ethnic/ethnocultural assessment, as can be seen in 'fn1' here. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This might be a good idea. Any idea why it was changed? Yr Enw (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Done in this edit with no explainer, and is the only edit to this article or talk page by the editor. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
• B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Top-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Top-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Top-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• High-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Articles linked from high traffic sites