Talk:Zionism/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Best sources

Source list

1. 16 GS cites Amar-Dahl, Tamar (2016). Zionist Israel and the Question of Palestine: Jewish Statehood and the History of the Middle East Conflict. De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110498806. ISBN 978-3-11-049880-6.
2. [too new] Conforti, Yitzhak (2024). Zionism and Jewish Culture: A Study in the Origins of a National Movement. Academic Studies Press. ISBN 9798887196374.
3. 34 Engel, David (2013) [2009]. Zionism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-86548-3.
4. 1 Forriol, Mari Carmen (2023). Development of the Roadmap of Political Zionism in the State of Israel. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5275-1260-3.
5. 28 Gans, Chaim (2016). A Political Theory for the Jewish People. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-023754-7.
6. 17 Halperin, Liora R. (2021). The Oldest Guard: Forging the Zionist Settler Past. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-1-5036-2871-7.
7. 75 Masalha, Nur (2014). The Zionist Bible: Biblical Precedent, Colonialism and the Erasure of Memory. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-54464-7.
8. 10 Penslar, Derek J. (2023). Zionism: An Emotional State. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-7611-4.
9. 85 Dieckhoff, Alain (2003). The Invention of a Nation: Zionist Thought and the Making of Modern Israel. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-12766-0.
10. 19 Wagner, Donald E.; Davis, Walter T. (2014). Zionism and the Quest for Justice in the Holy Land. Wipf and Stock. ISBN 978-1-63087-205-2.
11. 31 Brenner, Michael (2020). In Search of Israel: The History of an Idea. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-20397-3.
12. 59 Black, Ian (2017). Enemies and Neighbors: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917-2017. Atlantic Monthly Press. ISBN 978-0-8021-8879-3.
13. 33 Stanislawski, Michael (2017). Zionism: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-976604-8.
14. 1,021 Sachar, Howard M. (2013) [1976]. A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time (3rd ed.). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8041-5049-1.
15. 65 Alam, M. Shahid (2009). Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-10137-1.
16. 153 Gans, Chaim (2008). A Just Zionism: On the Morality of the Jewish State. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-534068-6.
17. 1467 Laqueur, Walter (2003) [1972]. A History of Zionism. Schoken. OCLC 52381659.
18. 264 Shapira, Anita (2012). Israel: A History. Brandeis University Press. OCLC 1298206385.
19. 35 Edelheit, Hershel (2000). History Of Zionism: A Handbook And Dictionary. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-70103-0.

Discussion

Here's 8, for discussion. They are (1) overviews of Zionism (2) published in the last 10 years (3) by subject-matter experts (4) by academic presses. These four criteria aren't necessarily the best criteria, and these 8 sources aren't necessarily the only ones that meet it, but I took a crack at putting together objective criteria that gives us a source list under 10. Additions? Removals? Other thoughts? Levivich (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

4 and 8 are on my list. Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd advocate for 3 and 7 based on those authors being very widely cited (same with 8). (No objection to 4 or any of the others of course.) Levivich (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

For sources generally about Zionism (for the details, I would include other sources):

1. Avineri, Shlomo (2017). The Making of Modern Zionism. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-09479-0.
2. Shimoni, Gideon (1995). The Zionist ideology. University Press of New England/Brandeis University Press. ISBN 978-0-87451-703-3.
3. Dieckhoff, Alain (2003). The Invention of a Nation. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-12766-0.
4. Flapan, Simha (1979). Zionism and the Palestinians. Croom Helm. ISBN 978-0-06-492104-6.
5. Gorny, Yosef (1987). Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822721-2.
6. Masalha, Nur (2014). The Zionist Bible. Taylor and Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-54465-4.
7. Sternhell, Zeev (1999). The Founding Myths of Israel. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00967-8.
8. Penslar, Derek J. (2023). Zionism: An Emotional State. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-7611-4.

When discussing the details (is zionism colonialism? what was the conquest of labor? What was zionisms relationship to diaspora jewry? What was the relationship between the zionist movement and the british mandate administration?) we would have to bring in other sources for sure. Some authors I would include are Rabkin, Yadgar, Shapira, Shafir, Khalidi, Roy, Shlaim, Morris. DMH223344 (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting these! My thoughts:

• I completely agree with you on relying on other sources for the details
• 6 and 8 on your list are the same as 7 and 8 on the #Source list, looks like we have some leaders emerging
• As I always say, I think sources from the 70s, 80s, and 90s are too old to be useful for our purposes. Anything important written in sources of the last century will surely appear in the "best" sources of this century. So, yeah, Flapan's work, as an example, is landmark in this topic area, but literally everybody writing in the topic area already incorporates it, so we don't need to go back that far. I really think we want the modern view, and a 30-year-old book can't give that to us. So I'd strike 2, 4, 5, and 7 as being too old.
• I'm not sure about #1 as being an overview (it's good for details).
  • First, it's really a book written in 1981, with a new preface and epilogue added in 2017 -- so not an actual "2nd revision" that was revised and updated throughout, although the author says updates are in the epilogue.
  • Moreover, Avineri in the 2017 preface: As stated in my original Preface, this volume is not a history of Zionism. My aim is more limited: to delineate a number of aspects of Zionist thought, as expressed through the writings of selected nineteenth- and twentieth-century individuals. I think we want sources that are a history of Zionism, and not sources (for general overview purposes) that are more limited to delineating the thoughts of certain selected individuals. This source is still excellent for many purposes of the body, but I don't think we can say it's one of the best modern overviews of Zionism, given the author expressly says it has a more limited aim.
  • It's not published by an academic press. Now, I know that many established scholars publish academic works via non-academic presses. And even though I chose "academic press" as one of the criteria in putting together my personal list, that doesn't mean we have to all agree with that. It may be that we don't want that as a criteria. But of not, it opens the doors to many more works that then should be listed.
• #3 hits all the criteria and should be on the list, so I'll add it as #9

Thanks again for suggesting more sources! Levivich (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

All of these are probably good for abstract analysis/interpretation, but it should be obvious to any careful reader that #5, #6, and #8 were composed without the benefit of any real ability to read Hebrew, and #8 with the additional handicap of no Arabic whatsoever. So be very careful using them for specific historical claims or quotes that don't match more technical works. I also second the Stanislawski rec in other comments. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Which list are you referring to? IIRC Zionism and the Arabs was sourced largely from primary Zionist sources. DMH223344 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I meant #3, not #5. I haven't read Zionism and the Arabs. not sure how I messed that up. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Stanislawski 2017 added as #13. Levivich (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Levivich's list is a good, balanced list. Andre🚐 21:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I would submit that we could introduce a source like In Search of Israel: The History of an Idea by Michael Brenner for consideration, even though it doesn't have Zionism in the title, it's clearly mostly about Zionism, it's published by a top tier academic press, and it and he are widely cited. Similarly, Khalidi (The Hundred Years' War on Palestine is his most recent work AFAICT) is AFAIK the most widely-cited writer in his particular niche and field, even though his work is filed under Palestine, I think we are remiss not to include Khalidi. The "title test" AFAIK is synthetic and arbitrary. We should ignore titles, much like we ignore WP:HEADLINEs, and focus on the content of the material regardless of whether the title name-checks the ideology it's analyzing. We may or may not need to use that source and maybe the exercise is cleaner to do without those sources for now and reintroduce them or other sources later. But also, isn't the point of the lead that it will eventually not have citations? Andre🚐 00:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources that make the connection between Zionism pre and post Israel would be useful too. Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the business with Zionism in the title arises because of the complaints about "definition" so it seems logical to get that from books about Zionism specifically and in depth. For subsidiary matter, I don't think that's absolutely necessary but I would still be wary of introducing minority viewpoints as if they were mainstream, provided things are well articulated in the article body and then accurately summarized, it would be better in the end to dispense with lead citations and make it clear by notes that the lead has consensus and ought not to be substantially changed without a new one. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"Seeming logical" is good, but not if it leads to a cherrypicked list of sources, which can be an unintentional blind spot. For example, in this list, can you identify any historians representing Zionism proper? Which is to say, wouldn't it be logical, if we're compiling a source list of the best sources, to determine representation and balance, and we've included a number of representatives of different academic schools of thought, and Nur ad-Din Masalha, a Palestinian anti-Zionist, shouldn't we also include a mainstream, anti-revisionist Zionist historian? Perhaps several from Israel, given that many of the world's Zionists are in fact Israeli, and many of the world's experts on Zionism are Zionist historians? Don't get me wrong, it's a good list and pretty balanced. I think Yitzhak Conforti is great to include, as I mentioned, he argues that Zionist was a cultural and not just a political project. I proposed two sources in the discussion above, the Gil Troy book and the Anne Perez book, I can see that maybe those don't have as many citations or as prestigious a publisher. I'm sure though if we look hard at all the sources recently added to the bibliography, we could find a few more that we're leaving out. For example the Dmitry Shumsky book. Andre🚐 14:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If the list of sources is agreed by consensus, what we are in the middle of doing, it is not cherrypicked, is it? Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Cherrypicking isn't related to consensus, cherrypicking would be a blind spot in our selection of sources. Andre🚐 15:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A consensual blindspot, then. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's possible for a group of people to collectively cherrypick, even to do so unintentionally and in good faith. But I think as long as our list is compiled based on objective, and content-neutral criteria, then we can avoid that risk of unintentional cherrypicking. This is one of the reasons why when I pick sources, I like to do it without first reading the source (beyond maybe the table of content, preface/intro, or back cover blurb)--so that I'm picking the source based on author, publisher, date, topic... but not based on, e.g., what this book says about colonization or whatever.

I added Brenner 2020 to the list as #11, I think it meets all four criteria.

Perez I didn't include because her book wasn't published by an academic press. I think I said before, "academic press" doesn't have to be a criterion, but if it's not, then there are other books that should be on the list along with Perez. A separate quasi-objection (mild objection) is that Perez's credentials aren't, at least in my view, on the same level as the credentials of the other authors we're looking at, e.g. Engel, Penslar, etc. Maybe I'm judging her too harshly on this point.

Troy's book isn't an overview of Zionism, at least in my view, it's an overview of different kinds of Zionist thought. I think it's a solid source for Types of Zionism, and a solid source for use in Zionism when we talk about types of Zionism, but I'm not sure it meets the "overview of Zionism" criteria (which, again, doesn't have to be a criterion if people don't agree it's a good one to use).

Same with Shumsky's book: it stops at Ben-Gurion, so doesn't give that full end-to-end overview of Zionism from conception until modern day. Again, a good source to use for the topics that it does cover (Zionism up to Ben-Gurion), but I'm not sure it meets the "overview" criteria.

Khalidi's book, I find this to be a difficult case. On the one hand, I'd say it's not really focused on Zionism, so much as it's focused on the I-P conflict. It starts in earnest in 1917, for example, and has very little about Zionism before that (and there's a lot of significance that happened pre-1917 in Zionism). On the other hand, he does cover Zionism pre-1917 to some extent (in the intro, in the beginning of Chapter 1), and then post-1917 there is of course a huge amount of overlap, maybe even 100% overlap, between Zionism and the I-P conflict. So I don't know where to draw the line between Zionism and the I-P conflict, and where Khalidi's book falls on that line. But I do feel like if we include books like Khalidi's, then there are lots of other books that should be included, too, books that may be about the I-P conflict but cover Zionism. I'm thinking about, e.g. works about the history of Israel (e.g. Shapira) or the Nakba (e.g. Manna). I'm curious what others think about this category of books, and where the boundary is between Zionism and Israel and I-P conflict.

BTW, I do not think a book has to have "Zionism" in the title to be about Zionism :-)

Also I want to mention that I don't think, and I don't think anyone else thinks, that this list should be exclusionary -- meaning, we shouldn't use sources not on the list in the article. I think the purpose of the list is to be a starting point -- a list of sources we all agree are among the WP:BESTSOURCES -- but not an end point, e.g. not an exhaustive list of all wp:bestsources. Levivich (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we still need to come up with the scope ie the title plus the opening sentence(s). Maybe we should start lifting out from the selection so far, what their version is of scope/definition. Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Brenner. That logic works for me to exclude Perez, Shumsky and Khalidi for now. And I think you are clerking fairly. I'm not sure that Black is writing in an academic press, though. Is he? Andre🚐 21:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Good question. I think so; Atlantic Monthly Press is an imprint of Grove Atlantic, which looks like it publishes both academic and non-academic works (including under the Atlantic Monthly Press imprint and its other imprints). At the bottom of their website pages [1] is a section "Academic Info." They publish textbooks. They publish novels, but also history and science books. I'm not 100% sure what makes a particular publisher an "academic press" tbh. But the book has footnotes and it looks like an academic book to me? What do others think? Levivich (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine to call it an academic press, but then we should include Howard Sachar's A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, which was updated with a 2nd editon in 2013, and while it wasn't put out by Princeton or Yale, it was published by Knopf Doubleday Andre🚐 05:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

3rd edition, not 2nd, and 2007, not 2013, according to the title page, unless there's a 4th 2013 edition?

There is nothing magical about "last 10 years," I don't have an objection to including books from 2007, but if we do that, there are several others I would suggest.

The other thing about Sachar's book that kind of perplexes me is that it doesn't have any footnotes. I've always considered footnotes to be one of the hallmarks that separates an academic work from a popular work (history v. pop history). But I feel silly saying that Sachar's 1000-page book that's in its third edition, in print for 30 years, is not an academic book because it doesn't have footnotes. So I guess the lack of footnotes doesn't matter? What do you think, both about this book in particular, and about going back to 2007? Levivich (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It has a set of endnotes and a bibliography, which I'd say is good enough (used to be good enough on Wikipedia, too), but if people feel strongly about footnotes, I'm willing to compromise. I would agree though if a book has neither footnotes nor endnotes nor a bibliography, it should be excluded. As far as the year and the edition, hmm, that is an unusual discrepancy. This google books entry lists 2013, which is getting copied to the cite toolbar output, but I see 2007 on Amazon, the page on Penguin's site lists a blurb apparently from 2nd edition, and the year 2007. I'm fine to call it 2007 and extend our reach to 2007. If we do, perhaps we could include Walter Laqueur also which would bring us back to 2003 for an even 20 instead of 10 year. 2003 still feels pretty recent to me, after all, that's when I started editing Wikipedia. If bibliography but not footnotes works, I'd also offer the Martin Gilbert book Israel: A History which was published by an imprint of HarperCollins in 2008. Andre🚐 06:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

We must not get too old maybe, Israel, although reluctant still to release pertinent archival documents, has nevertheless released many and we want modernish histories that have taken advantage of that. Gilbert's book was originally printed in 1998 and although updated a bit since, I think it is out of the picture, tbh.

How about we set a cutoff at 2000? For best sources I mean, not others that may suit for subsidiary details, Gilbert might still work for that. Still somewhat arbitrary but we should set one somewhere, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

2000 is fine with me. Andre🚐 20:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Me too. Levivich (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I added #14-16: Sachar 2013, Alam 2009, and Gans 2008; I don't think we've previously discussed the latter two, pulled them from the main bibliography page. Levivich (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd object to Alam. He's an economist, not a historian, or a Mideast specialist. Andre🚐 22:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Objection noted, but singling Alam out on the given reason is incoherent, because were not being an historian the criterion, then you would have to object to Gans as well, which you don’t. Both have written highly original analyses of Zionism. You do not have to be primarily an historian to write about any ideology’s development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

In my humble opinion, and others can respectfully disagree, a political philosopher and law professor has expertise to bear on the development of a political ideology, but an economist is a bit outside of the relevant subject area. Alam doesn't seem to be particularly widely cited nor are his credentials particularly impressive, either; I don't see this as a BESTSOURCE comparable to the others. Andre🚐 23:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the GS cites Levivich added, Gans has roughly twice as many cites in the same period of time. and some of the cites to Alam are themselves not terribly reliable, or ones that are, are critical of him or at least a non-endorsement, such as this reference in Brenner: , Northeastern University economist M. Shahid Alam, who denies Israel’s right of existence, suggests: “A deeper irony surrounded the Zionist project. It proposed to end Jewish ‘abnormalcy’ in Europe by creating an ‘abnormal’ Jewish state in Palestine. . . . Clearly, the Zionists were proposing to trade one ‘abnormalcy’ for a greater, more ominous one.” Zionists and anti-Zionists, Israelis, and opponents of the Jewish state seem to agree on one thing: Israel is different from other state Andre🚐 00:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

First sentence of Alam's preface: Why is an economist writing a book on the geopolitics of Zionism? This is easily explained. Whether the explanation convinces anybody is another story, but I added GS cites to the list, and Alam's cite count seems in the same range as everyone else on the list. Qualitatively, Alam's cites includes people like Pappe, and the Brenner 2020 book that's on our list. Gans has more cites, including Penslar 2023 that's on our list, and people like Bashir and Sa'di. In the end, I'm fine with either/both being included or excluded, but I do think we should have objective criteria that applies to the whole list. For example, compare Dieckhoff, Wagner, Engel, or Gans 2016. Economist, sociologist, philosopher, lawyer... none of these are historians, but I'm pretty ambivalent about whether we limit the list to historians or not, and whether we have some sort of minimum citation cut-off or not. (And it's true, being cited doesn't mean being cited with approval, but I haven't looked into any of these deeply enough to form an opinion on the favorability of citations for any of these works.) Levivich (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

What about including someone like Dershowitz, then? Andre🚐 00:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh hell no. Levivich (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Completely understand the reaction, but I don't see Alam as different, equally polarizing, and problematic. Andre🚐 00:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Dershowitz's work is in no sense an RS. DMH223344 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure it is, in his area of his expertise, which I believe is American constitutional law and criminal defense law. I generally wouldn't cite him for Mideast, and I wouldn't cite economists. Some sociologists, but I'd prefer to cite reputable historians and political scientists. I think political philosophers are OK. But if we agree Dershowitz should be out, we should not include Alam as a BESTSOURCE either. Andre🚐 04:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Did Alam also write a book which is now widely recognized to be a fraud? DMH223344 (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

How about adding Walter Lacquer? Andre🚐 04:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a 1970s book; AFAICT the new edition is just a new preface, otherwise the rest is the same 1970s book. I could be wrong about that but I couldn't see any differences (and it's not labeled a 2nd edition, which I think is the usual mark of a full update as opposed to a reprint-with-new-preface). Levivich (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, withdrawn. How about History Of Zionism, A Handbook And Dictionary, Hershel Edelheit, Routledge, 2019. Andre🚐 05:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

LGTM. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Added per our discussion. Andre🚐 21:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, it looks like someone else added Lacquer, just noting that wasn't me. Andre🚐 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh i added Laqueur and Shapira. Laqueur 2003 breaks Zionist historiography fully away from ideology and hagiography in what is in many ways still the finest overview of the Zionist movement to 1948. Penslar, Derek; Kaye, Alexander. "Zionism from Its Inception to 1948". Oxford Bibliographies. I think it is important to pay attention when authors do some of the work of pointing out the best sources for us. That bibliographic narrative is obviously incomplete in it's considerations for a WP article (and i was going to ask it anyone was aware of any other important bibliographies or reviews) but if Penslar and Kaye say this in an important work to pay attention to who are we to say otherwise? fiveby(zero) 13:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

History of Zionism is not the subject of this article, Zionism didn't stop in 1948. Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

No shit, really? Would have never guessed. fiveby(zero) 14:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

See Post-Zionism. Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"In many ways the finest" doesn't mean "the finest." Levivich (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Go ahead and remove all the sources from the list that are not "the finest" in all respects. I fail to see a purpose in your or Selfstudier's comments other than disagreement for its own sake. This selection of best sources is a pretty facile exercise if you are willing to go to so much trouble to ignore those writers who are qualified and who tell us what the best sources are. fiveby(zero) 14:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

They are best sources for a different article, the History of Zionism and then they will make it into this one via summary (of them and others) as is usual in all our articles, not just this one. This is the troubling part of many of these sources, they are historical, few are looking all the way to the present day. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

From the same entry: "Sachar 2007 is mainly about the post-1948 period but provides a useful narrative of pre-1948 events. Shapira 2012 is less comprehensive but more engaging." Sachar was already on the list, but i added Shapira under the assumption (tho not clear and i haven't looked yet) that she is also useful for post-1948. I would have thought that when i said the entry ...is obviously incomplete in it's considerations for a WP article and asked if others were aware of other bibliographies that i was being clear enough. fiveby(zero) 15:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with fiveby(zero). I prefer the longer list and I disagree with the arguments to remove sources which are quite usable. I'd actually like to add more. Andre🚐 22:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

How about Cohn-Sherbok 2011? Andre🚐 20:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

One of my private beefs with the literature is the relative neglect of the King-Crane Commission Report, though this may reflect a poor memory or careless reading over the decades. I am reminded of this by the recent discussions on Zionist intentions, awareness of dispossession etc. To me it is important because King and Crane actually did groundwork on Balfour's proposal, travelling the land, interviewing major Zionist figures about their intentions, the contradiction between Zionism and Wilsonian self-determination, and they also consulting the local population. Their report was finalised in 1919 but under pressure from both the British government and Zionist agencies it was suppressed, and was not made public until the Versailles and Mandate policies had been formalized for implementation, too late. The actual text is as follows:-

• King–Crane Commission Report 1919 (see in particular pp.35ff.

And if the criterion for bibliographic inclusion is work published in recent decades, then the story is recounted in

• Donald E. Wagner, ‘The Mainline Protestant Churches and the Holy Land,’ in Donald E. Wagner, ‎Walter T. Davis (eds.),Zionism and the Quest for Justice in the Holy Land Wipf and Stock Publishers 2014 ISBN 978-1-630-87205-2 pp.139-174Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Added as #10, thanks. Levivich (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ian Black, Enemies and Neighbours: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917-2017, Penguin UK. ISBN 978-0-241-00443-2 is worth considering, despite not a perfect formal fit with the four criteria. Thouigh professionally defined as a journalist, Black had a PhD based also on doctoral work in Israeli archives. He was also bilingual in both Hebrew and Arabic, something few specialists we cite can boast of. It may not have Zionism in the title but it is a history of that movement from its Balfour inception.

While noting that Peter Beinart announced today he'd finished his forthcoming (January 28 2025) Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning, PenguinRandom House 2025 ISBN 978-0-593-80389-9, I thought that his

Peter Beinart, The Crisis of Zionism, Melbourne University Press 2012 ISBN 978-0-522-86176-1 should find a place, if not in the primary bibliography. Beinart has the right academic background and is indeed a professor of journalism.

These are only suggestions and, given the extraordinary proliferation of books of quality, there is good writerly reason to select a restricted base or core for a complete redraft. But that done, supplementary works which finesse the details can be culled from works like the above.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Black's book hits the criteria, and despite its title, it actually starts at 1882; I'll add it as #12.

I look forward to reading Beinart's new book -- as I look forward to reading the rest of your sentence there :-) ("I thought that his...", what a cliffhanger!)

As for The Crisis of Zionism, it strikes me as too modern-focused to be an "overview of Zionism". Also, no footnotes, I always think of books without footnotes as being "not academic" even if they're published by a publisher that publishes academic works like Henry Holt. Maybe I'm wrong about the no-footnotes thing? Levivich (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I just want to say that although I've been adding to the list and disagreeing with some suggestions, I am volunteering as clerk, not as gatekeeper, so everyone else should please feel free to add/strike items on the list, nothing needs my personal approval, and nobody needs to accept the particular criteria I've suggested. Levivich (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ça va sans dire, Lev, as they would say in my present surroundings. I agree with your exclusion of Beinart's Crisis, and thanks for adding Ian Black's book. A fine scholar and wonderful man by all accounts, apart from being scrupulously neutral and even-handed and I should make a mental note to improve his wikibio when I get back to my study, if the gorgonzola doesn't get the better of my arteries in the meantime.:)Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

We've occasionally used the following

• Gudrun Krämer, A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest until the Creation of the State of Israel, Princeton University Press, 2008 ISBN 9780691150079

It lacks Zionism in the title but basically covers in a broad brush survey the historical background to the creation of Israel. It's 22 years old, coming out in the original German edition of 2002, i.e., written essentially before the Al-Aqsa Intifada, and reflects her particular specialization in Islamic thinking. If you compare it to the magisterial, in my view (so far) definitive, account of the history of the rise of Zionism and the subsequent conflict, in gritty balanced detail using all of the contemporary Western/Israeli scholarship together with abundant Arabic sources, namely the 5 volume work by Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine Fayard 1999-2015 then Krämer and so many other excellent sources begin to look thin in their selective syntheses. It is so good the Western publishing world has exercised great sedulous alacrity in not undertaking an English version. So it remains there, in 3000 pages of French, with a zillion footnotes, unusable for us because we cannot give as a keynote reference something most readers and editors probably cannot access and check for verification. For those who can but haven't the time to read the original masterpiece, he has just come out (a week ago) with a 700 page synthesis, Question juive, problème arabe (1798-2001), Fayard 2024 ISBN 2213725985, which I have on order.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I have a general concern about including books about Palestinian history, Israeli history, and the history of the I-P (or A-I) conflict. I personally have a hard time differentiating between "history of Zionism" and "history of [modern] Israel," and there is no doubt that histories of Palestine and of the conflict would cover the history of Zionism as well. But my fear is "opening the floodgates" in terms of... well, if we include Kramer's history of Palestine, then what about Pappe's, Khalidi's, etc. etc.? Same goes for histories of Israel: there's Morris, Shapira, and many others. I feel like we should make a categorical decision one way or the other? (Brenner 2020, currently on the list, is titled as a history of Israel, but it's clearly the history of "the idea of Israel," a.k.a. Zionism; still, I have a hard time telling the difference between Brenner 2020 and Shapira 2012, to take one example. Check out their table of contents, it seems almost the same.)

As for Laurens book -- I have no objection to including it... as long as someone here has it, and can read it, and has the time/interest in reporting on what it says :-) Levivich (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I can access the book(s) through my libraries if people want stuff from them. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Removing sources? After looking more closely at these sources, I think we should remove some. As this Wikipedia article is an overview of Zionism, I think it should be modeled based on sources that are also overviews of Zionism -- and not sources that focus on something else, like on Israel, Palestine, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sources that focus on those three topics will all include some coverage of Zionism, but their focus will be somewhere else. Looking at sources about Israel won't tell us what's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT when it comes to an overview of Zionism. Subtopics that are significant aspects of Israel may not be significant aspects of Zionism, and vice versa.

So, I would suggest removing the following sources because they're focused on something other than Zionism: Amar-Dahl, Brenner, Sachar, and Shapira (all focused on Israel), and Black (focused on I-P conflict).

I also think we should remove sources that aren't overviews of Zionism, but rather focus on one particular aspect of Zionism. Again, I think it knocks the DUE/ASPECT analysis out of whack to look at sources that have a focus that is narrower than "all of Zionism" since this Wikipedia article is an overview of all of Zionism. So I'd suggest removing both Gans 2008 and 2016, which don't provide an overview of Zionism but rather are Gans's explorations of particular aspects of Zionism (2008 is about morality; 2016 sets out a new Zionist political theory). I would similarly exclude Masalha, as that book specifically focuses on the connection between Zionism and the Bible.

I know I've said it before, but I still think Laqueur shouldn't be on the list because it's a 1972 book; the 2003 version is just a new preface, not a new edition.

If we removed these from the list, that would leave 10 books: #2 Conforti 2024, #3 Engel 2013, #4 Forriol 2023, #6 Halperin 2021, #8 Penslar 2023, #9 Dieckhoff 2003, #10 Wagner & Davis 2014, #13 Stanislawski 2017, #15 Alam 2009, and #19 Edelheit 2000.

Of course that doesn't mean the other books can't be used in the article, but it means when we're looking at things like how to structure the TOC, how much space to spend on X, Y, or Z, or how to introduce or frame the topic (the "Zionism is..." lead sentence), we'd look at these 10 overviews of Zionism first. I also think it makes things a bit more manageable if the list were shorter. Levivich (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally prefer the longer list, others can opine, and I think a case was made and already agreed to about Sachar, Brenner, and Amar-Dahl belonging on the list. It's natural that a history of Israel that focuses on ideas and origins would also be a history of Zionism, and I think this is borne out by the content. I agree with removing Masalha, Black, Gans, for the reason you stated. Since you're reopening a previously agreed dispute on a number of items on the list, I renew my suggestion to include Laqueur - it was added by fiveby(zero) along with Shapira. He has tons of citations and reprinted in 2003, while the same old text, WP:RECENTISM. We can ignore him for anything recent in the article, but he's useful for stuff from 1940s and earlier. We should pay some heed to the citation ratios you added. Andre🚐 03:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It's natural that a history of Israel that focuses on ideas and origins would also be a history of Zionism, and I think this is borne out by the content We have History of Zionism article for that material and all that needs to be here is summary of that article and then summary of that summary in the lead here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an unfair attempt to narrow the article scope that isn't well-taken. History of Zionism is a more detailed article, yes, and this one should be shorter and more of an overview. However, that isn't an argument to exclude a source that is about the overlap between History of Zionism and History of Israel from the Zionism article. Andre🚐 22:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

As an alternative to Brenner 2018/2020, the latest one, there is Zionism: A Brief History: Brenner, Michael, from 2003. I do think the newer one, In Search of Israel: The History of an Idea, is probably kind of a similar book outline, I mean just read this blurb, for the latter: Many Zionists who advocated for the creation of a Jewish state envisioned a nation like any other. Yet for Israel's founders, the nation that emerged against all odds in 1948 was anything but ordinary. Born from the ashes of genocide and a long history of suffering, Israel was conceived to be unique, a model society and the heart of a prosperous new Middle East. It is this paradox, says historian Michael Brenner―the Jewish people's wish for a homeland both normal and exceptional―that shapes Israel's ongoing struggle to define itself and secure a place among nations. In Search of Israel is a major new history of this struggle from the late nineteenth century to our time. "Michael Brenner is one of the leading authorities on the history of Zionism in the twentieth century, and this book is a must-read for everyone who is interested in the subject."―Walter Laqueur, author of A History of Zionism and blurbs by Avineri and Penslar as well. Andre🚐 05:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Zionism is a departure from Judaism, not a fulfillment of it

In looking through the best sources, I noticed statements like these:

Penslar 2023, p. 23:

Jewish connections with the Land of Israel are ancient and deep, but they should not be equated with Zionist goals to settle Jews in the land and configure it as a Jewish homeland. ... [p. 25] Although nationalist movements routinely assert continuity of the collective across time, Zionism’s attempts to construct a liminal space between past and present—a metaphorical foyer to the nationalist movement—are unusual.

Stanislawski 2017, p. 2:

Many, if not most, Zionists today regard Zionism as a natural continuation of two millennia of Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel and aspiration to return there in the End of Days ... What this common point of view misunderstands is that the Zionist movement, founded in the late nineteenth century under highly specific and contingent circumstances, was in fact a rejection of that age-old desire for the Jews to return to the Land of Israel, and not its linear fulfillment.

Engel 2013, ch. 1:

These facts suggest that, prayers for restoration notwithstanding, Zionism might be better understood as a departure from traditional Jewish ways of looking at the world than as an extension of ancient Jewish religious values.

I'm not sure where/how this view should be in the article body and lead, but I think it should be there, and it doesn't seem to be there right now. Levivich (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a discussion of the paradox of Zionism in Edelheit p.3 and beyond that may help inform and balance this. The text in the beginning of Engel also goes in to further depth as does Penslar. I think a larger look at the context would be helpful. Also, as in the other case, Stanislawski's "this is a common, but" type logic is a sign that Wikipedia shouldn't flatly take his side, but portray him in a range of historical views from the most maximalist to the most minimalist, or from conservative to revisionist. Andre🚐 00:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Kindly explain exactly and in detail what the NPOV problems are for the tag. Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

We have had a (to me) hallucinatingly long and confusing number of remarks in the threads above, talking around NPOV apparently related to book and article selection. I challenge anyone to make headway figuring their way round the headaching reading of those exchanges. More 'exact' 'explanations' only promise to repeat those thread longueurs. So I invite Andrevan in particular to limit his remarks to one or two brief lines with specifics in the thread below, so editors can address the claims.Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I just added the tag. A bunch of editors have expressed the idea that this article and in particular it's lead has POV issues. Per Nishidani's request, I bullet pointed some of the problems.

Of particular concern to me, there is the claim that "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state with ... as few Palestinian Arabs as possible".

There is only a single source which makes this specific claim. But relying on that source for this has some very serious problems.

1) The source is outwardly hostile toward Zionists with the author saying in the intro that he hopes his book makes Zionists feel uncomfortable.

"This author hopes that the discomfort that this book causes to Zionist and pro-Zionist readers will..."

2) The source is very poorly referenced. In one cherry picked quote it does make that claim but elsewhere the book says that there are many actions by Zionists which refute this claim and provides counter-examples This source also puts a timeframe on the claim where it was not true until 1948.

"in the 1948 war, when it became clear ... to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians ...

"...the existence of a high-level policy of ethnic cleansing at times and refutes that policy at other times. Those cases which are not consistent with the general policy ... These and other examples demonstrate that cases of “non-expulsion”.

So taken in it's entirety this source does not make this claim, nor do any of the other sources. To claim "Zionists" wanted this when sources say things like "Zionist leadership" is SYNTH. And to completely leave out the timeframe is incredibly misleading. Dan Murphy says that all of the authors who have expressed issues with POV are wrong, but hasn't explained that opinion at all. Nishidani made the request below, but he also hasn't responded.

So, I'd like to ask to hear from you guys a point-by-point explanation why there aren't any POV issues here both based on the issues expressed right here and elsewhere in the threads.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. I showed two non antizionist sources above that state explicitly the claim which you take issue with. DMH223344 (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide precise references with page numbers? Here's what I see from one of these two sources, as referenced in the article:

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

Going from "most Zionists leaders" to "Zionists" is SYNTH. Bob drobbs (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

slater (mythologies without end): From the outset of the Zionist movement all the major leaders wanted as few Arabs as possible in a Jewish state; if all other means failed, they were to be “transferred” by one means or another, including, if necessary, by force.

shlaim (three worlds): For the Zionists the top priority all along was to bring as many Jews as possible from all over the world to build up a state of their own. Their goal was an independent Jewish state spreading over as large a part of Palestine as possible, with as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible within its borders.

I have the ebooks, so I dont have page numbers. In any case it shouldnt be too hard to find if you also have the ebooks.

'Going from "most Zionists leaders" to "Zionists" is SYNTH' I disagree, since "zionsts" refers to the individuals guiding the political movement, it does not mean "every single zionist". This is a very specific point which should be easy to resolve without slapping a pov tag over the whole article. DMH223344 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

> ' I disagree, since "zionsts" refers to the individuals guiding the political movement, it does not mean "every single zionist".

This is the very definition of SYNTH as it's your interpretation of what's said instead of what the sources actually say.

Slater says "all of the major leaders". In the part that's referenced in the article Shlaim also says" most Zionist leaders". And throughout the rest of the article referenced Shlaim's views are given as an opinion rather than a fact. Here's an example:

"According to historian Avi Shlaim, throughout its history up to present day, Zionism..."

Can you explain why in the lead we should state Shlaim's opinions as fact where else in the body it's treated as an opinion?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"Can you explain why in the lead we should state Shlaim's opinions as fact where else in the body it's treated as an opinion?"

Because this is the mainstream interpretation of the goals of zionism DMH223344 (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

> Because this is the mainstream interpretation of the goals of zionism

What are you basing this claim on? Is this solely your opinion?

And again, can you explain why he's quoted in the article as an opinion but you wish to use his opinions as if they were fact in the lead? Bob drobbs (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs please don't re-add the POV tag. Consensus is required for that tag to be added and you don't have it. TarnishedPath^talk 03:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPathPlease correct me if you have a different take on things. But IMO it seems we have a number of people who are complaining that there a bunch of POV bias has been added to this article recently.

As just one example, we have an author who is admittedly hostile to Zionists who is currently being relied on in the lead as-if his opinion is fact and beyond that his views are being misattributed. How is that not a POV problem?

On the other side, we have people who won't engage and seem happy to just leave the recently added bias in place. Nishidani put a request for a bullet list of issues then never responded. DMH2223344 did respond, but his views seem to be an unsupportable argument that an author's whose opinions are listed in the article should be treated in the lead as fact. And DanMurphy just said everyone who is pointing out POV issues is wrong without any explanation at all.

Isn't there any obligation from those who are opposed to the POV tag to be engaged and explain why there aren't any POV issues? Bob drobbs (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Bob, I already addressed your concern about the authors "opinion" which is supported by multiple other sources which make the same characterization of zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs, "a number of people" doesn't mean "consensus". TarnishedPath^talk 04:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Bulleted list of NPOV problems

Please list your objections (succinctly) with reference to specific passages, Below Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

1. The sentence about Zionists goals is incredibly misleading, falsely implying that all Zionists wanted these things at all points in history.

2. Any consensus that there was, was rushed through with only a limited number of voices. It's very clear that consensus no longer exists.

3. The text which is now given does not seem to match any of the referenced sources nor does it seem to accurately summarize them as a whole. Some of the sources speak about "Zionist leaders" or "many Zionists". Not a single source says "Zionists wanted as few Palestinians Arabs as possible."

4. There's an section of the article which speaks in detail about which Zionists at which points in time supported a demographic majority in Palestine. Demographic majority is not synonymous with "as few as possible". This would appear to be the view held by the majority of sources and may also match the views given from the "best sources" now in progress. Instead what was used here was a few sources that seem to be outliers which been chosen specifically to promote the view "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." I don't know if a single one of the sources used here will make the list of best sources.

A rushed through, cherry picked negative summary of Zionist ideology which doesn't match the rest of the article and falsely implies that all Zionists through all points in history believed that list of things is IMO a POV violation. The POV tag should be added and should remain until this is re-written based upon best sources.

Here's text which from that demographics section which would accurately reflect the text in the rest of the article: "By the time of the 1936 Arab Revolt ...every group in the Zionist mainstream was wedded to the idea of establishing a Jewish demographic majority there"

And let me ask this question again -- How many people do we need to add a POV tag?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Bob: Not a single source says "Zionists wanted as few Palestinians Arabs as possible."

Manna 2022, p. 33: The Zionists had two cherished objectives: fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers.

Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2014, p. 6: It was obvious to most approaches within the Zionist movement – certainly to the mainstream ... that a Jewish state would entail getting rid of as many of the Palestinian inhabitants of the land as possible ... the logic of demographic elimination is an inherent component of the Zionist project as a settler-colonial project ...

Masalha 2012, p. 38: ... the Zionist Yishuv['s] ... demographic and land battles with the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine were always a battle for 'maximum land and minimum Arabs' ...

Pappe 2006, p. 250: ... the core of Zionism in a slightly different garb: to take over as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible.

Those are four of the sources cited for that sentence. Levivich (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich "The core of Zionism", "Most approaches within the Zionist movement", "the Zionist Yishuv", and "the core of Zionism" are not synonymous with "Zionists".

You are right that a single source, which is an book about the Nakba which one can download for free does say, in the context of the Nakba that "Zionist wanted as few Palestinian Arabs as possible. This was written by someone who is an expert in Palestinian history _not_ an expert on Zionism. In no way should this source be used to define Zionism in the lead of the article, especially when this viewpoint isn't supported anywhere else in the article.

All of the other points stand.

--Bob drobbs (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Also... did you see this from the forward of Manna's book?

"This author hopes that the dis-comfort that this book causes to Zionist and pro-Zionist readers will drive them to seek out the truth ..."

This is not the best source to provide an unbiased and factual definition of "Zionism".

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

To sum up:

1. Just because something is the core of Zionism, the Zionist movement mainstream, and fought for by the Zionist Yishuv, doesn't mean it's what Zionists wanted
2. Ilan Pappe's book about The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by the aforementioned Zionist Yishuv is not an RS for Zionism
3. Manna is out because he's a WP:BIASEDSOURCE

Did I get that right? Levivich (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes. All of those things refer to mainstream Zionism or a majority of Zionists at a given moment in time. There were without question Zionists who were opposed to some or all of these ideas as late as the 1940s, so the text as-is is very misleading.

Yet again this text in the article is far more correct and seems better supported by the majority of sources. Note that it set a time-frame for when these things were happening, and speaks specifically about which Zionists at this time wanted them:

"the time of the 1936 Arab Revolt ...every group in the Zionist mainstream was wedded to the idea of establishing a Jewish demographic majority there"

3. Yes! From the intro to the book Manna seems absolutely hostile to Zionists, with a clearly stated goal of making Zionists uncomfortable. So maybe he could be included as an opinion, but he seems far too biased to be included as a source of any factual non-biased description of Zionism.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

"the time of the 1936 Arab Revolt ...every group in the Zionist mainstream was wedded to the idea of establishing a Jewish demographic majority there" How tho? Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the best sources will speak about mainstream Zionist groups after the 1900s wanting Jews to move to the Palestine mandate, and by the 1940s wanting to push out significant numbers of Palestinians. But as you've said elsewhere let's not word tweak until after we have the list of best sources.

Let me add, if one was to read the Manna book in it's entirety, even it does not support the cherry picked claim "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible". First he sets a time frame for these claims, and then he lists exceptions:

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

"...the history of the Palestinians who remained in the Galilee both attests to the existence of a high-level policy of ethnic cleansing at times and refutes that policy at other times. Those cases which are not consistent with the general policy are due to causes connected to geography and the differential treatment of non-Muslims. The Druze were treated in a different way from the general Arab population. Christians were generally treated more leniently and with some sensitivity, out of fear of the reaction of Western states and churches. This unequal treatment of Palestinians in Haifa and the Galilee emerged during the months of war and several years after. These and other examples demonstrate that cases of “non-expulsion”...

So.... as the primary source for this claim actually refutes the cherry picked quote, will you get on board with the POV tag until after we finish up the process of reviewing the best sources?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this specific issue further, we can do that. But just because we are discussing a specific line does not mean a POV tag is justified. DMH223344 (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This specific line in the lead completely misrepresents the nature of Zionism by cherry picking a quote out of a source which if it was taken in it's entirety refutes the claim and also puts a time frame on it.

How does that not justify a POV tag?

--Bob drobbs (talk) Bob drobbs (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

So you want sources which are not antizionist? Here you go:

slater: From the outset of the Zionist movement all the major leaders wanted as few Arabs as possible in a Jewish state; if all other means failed, they were to be “transferred” by one means or another, including, if necessary, by force.

shlaim: For the Zionists the top priority all along was to bring as many Jews as possible from all over the world to build up a state of their own. Their goal was an independent Jewish state spreading over as large a part of Palestine as possible, with as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible within its borders.

When the literature speaks about "Zionism" or "Zionists", they mean the mainstream movement or ideology. They are not making claims about every single self-identified zionist to ever exist. DMH223344 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No it's not clear that consensus no longer exists. You disagreeing with something doesn't make it no longer the case. TarnishedPath^talk 02:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath At minimum, Andre and I see issues with this text. How many people do we need disagreeing here before we can agree that there isn't consensus any longer?

Also, with my other question. Currently at minimum, Andre, CoreTheApple, and I all see POV issues. What will it take to get the POV tag added?

--Bob drobbs (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is required to add a POV tag. Three editors does not make a consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 07:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear no-one is preventing the adding of a tag of any description but if the reasons for placing it don't hold up in discussion, it will likely get reverted. Just repeating nocon is insufficient. Anyone is at liberty to conduct an RFC, no-one is preventing that either. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The Andrevan, Drobbs, and Apple accounts are wrong, as has been ably and patiently explained by others above.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I've bullet pointed reasons, and I've expanded on those thoughts above.

The claim made about Zionism is taken from a source which is outwardly hostile toward Zionism with the author saying he hopes his book makes Zionists uncomfortable. Beyond that, the source is badly referenced as if you look at the source in it's entirety it refutes the cherry picked claim and also puts a time frame on it "1948".

So instead of handwaving that we're wrong, please share point-by-point where you disagree.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) Bob drobbs (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit suggestion- remove a line in the opening paragraph

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

---

The line "and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" should be removed, it does not represent the general ideas of Zionism and is based on an impartial and mostly irrelevant source.

If not removed, then it should be moved somewhere else, this sentence is what appears in the google summery below the link, and that sentence alone is highly misleading. Eylon Shachmon (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done It is based on 10 sources. Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and under discussion anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

But there are many sources that state otherwise.

This sentence is very biased and also there is no consonance in the source about this claim. הויקיפדון (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Someday, somebody claiming that there are many sources that state otherwise, will actually list those sources. Levivich (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request

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

---

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

Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible <- the "and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" sould be removed

• Why it should be changed:

zionism's goal is to have and support an isreali country in the land isreal is on today, but there is no reason palestinian arabs can't be in that country. while zionists can be racist, that's not something included in zionism itself - some poeple are just racist

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

85.250.181.238 (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: the statement about the removal of Arabs is sourced. (moved this accidentally archived request back to main talk page) Danski454 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2024

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

---

What should be changed: Replace the first line with "Zionism is a movement to establish a Jewish homeland in what is now Israel, and the ideology that Israel has a right to self-determination." Why it should be changed: The current wording is very antisemetic and inaccurate. Colonisation may have had a different meaning back then but today it has a negative connotation so using the term implies a lack of understanding about the subject. This violates WP:NPOV.2600:8802:3A0E:4300:B402:6C3B:179B:9B63 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. --AntiDionysius (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, @AntiDionysius, at this CT, non-ECR editors can only make edit requests and cannot try to gain consensus. Better advice for them would be that edit requests should be for noncontroversial changes, like typos. Valereee (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Hebrew only for religious purposes??

The article states that "The revival of the Hebrew language in Eastern Europe as a secular literary medium marked a significant cultural shift among Jews, who per Judaic tradition used Hebrew only for religious purposes." Firstly, this statement is categorically false: Hebrew was used through the ages as a means of communication between disparate Jewish communities (travel logs, hundreds of them), and as a language for writing books that were accessible by all Jews (rambam, rashi, yehuda ha levi etc). Thus the Hebrew language continued to evolve over the centuries, updating the grammar and adding new words (not a dead language). Secondly, there are zero citations to back up this statement. This is an edit request - to add citations which back up the statement or change the entry to include information about Hebrew being used also for non religious purposes. Jacker1968 (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

cn tag added, archiving this. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Use of "best sources" list

I had thought we had decided on a list of "best sources" on which to base the outline of the article and how much weight to give to each aspect. Somehow it seems we're also restricting the lead to be based on that same source list? I dont think we agreed on that. DMH223344 (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it quite as categorically as that. We first decided to compile a list and see where we got to and whether there was even any agreement on that. Atm, we have restricted the best sources list to after 2000 (originally it was academic presses but that seems to have been dispensed with). There have not been any restrictions on sources for the article body, to the contrary, we decided that such sources would be necessary for detail. Ultimately the lead should be a summary of the body and without any citations, the idea being that summary statements in the lead should reflect the article body (as usual) but that issues of weight should be resolved by reference to the best sources.

Idk if that makes sense? Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes it makes sense. But above the editors have done the exercise of looking at the first chapter of these books and are proposing to rewrite the first paragraph of the lead based only on those. I disagree with that approach. The lead summarizes the body. For a definition of zionism, we should first agree on body content, then summarize that for the lead. DMH223344 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that's right usually, these are slightly peculiar circumstances tho, maybe we can do it in tandem. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with either lead-first, body-first, or tandem. In theory there shouldn't be a conflict. For example, if the sources suggest the body should have sections X, Y, and Z, then the lead should also summarize X, Y, and Z. Levivich (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Why all this concentration on the lead when the body of the article is in such rough shape? Following the antisemitism discussion for the lead above we might take for instance Laqueur's first thesis: "Zionism is a response to antisemitism." and argue about that as a source and a conclusion in the lead, but that would be a pretty useless effort as far as actually informing the reader goes. More productive might be to look at what else he says on the matter and seek agreement across multiple "best sources" to improve the text and citations for the next to last paragraph of the "Overview" section. I don't wish to reignite any "colonization" debates or on specific wording in the lead, but for many of these hotly debated issues there seems to often be a lack of article content giving tools to the reader to understand the conclusions argued over. For instance the article introduces to the reader that there was another people living on the ground as "Zionists wanted...as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." Greater understanding for the reader might come from something like presenting the counter-example of Yishaq Epstein's "The Hidden Question" within the body. fiveby(zero) 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

In principle, I don't disagree, except that I still think an effort ought to be made at the History of Zionism page in addition, which is what the antisemitism thing relates to but there is no mention of it in the lead there, which should then be summarized in this article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree we should first focus on the body, and the lead should summarize it. My attention to the lead comes from the recent discussion about whether it has npov issues. DMH223344 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Part of the issue with the lead is that many readers read it and get no further. Their entire opinion is formed by the lead. And somehow the lead of this article has become a mess that contradicts itself, with rushed through "consensus" using misrepresented sources. Did Zionists want:

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

B) The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions is support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine

We currently claim both things within differing parts of the lead.

I'd like to make sure that if we have any instances especially in the lead, but also the rest of the article where the best sources say one thing ("demographic majority") and a list of other sources claim something else ("as few Palestinian Arabs as possible") that we have a clear understanding of how we're going to handle it.

P.S. Sorry for duplicating this topic below. I didn't see this one before making my comment.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) Bob drobbs (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

How do these contradict each other? They are not mutually exclusive. DMH223344 (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

They are clearly different goals. "As few Palestinian as possible" is one one of achieving a demographic majority, but seeking a demographic majority does not in any way imply "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible".

If the best sources say one thing and a set of some other sources say something different, we should give little weight to the sources which differ from the best sources (particularly in the lead), right?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a contradiction between:

A) they wanted it to be as much a square as possible

B) they all want it to be a rectangle Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Journal articles are an example of sourcing that we may wish to include, though not all such articles are necessarily good, need to weigh author, number of citation, citations by best sources, etcetera. This is usual anyway, the only thing we might be doing differently is using the best sources for a sanity check on other sources. Selfstudier (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The rest of Line 1?

The first part of sentence one is cleared up (I hope) so what about the rest of it? that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside Europe I suppose the contested part is the last bit..."through the colonization of a land outside Europe"? Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I found "a land outside Europe" to be a weird phrasing. Is "outside Europe" an essential part of Zionism? Could someone substantiate this? I don't clearly see that in the quotes in the refs. A few possible different wordings:

1) Establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a specific land.

2) Establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of land.

3) Establishment of a Jewish state through colonization.

I like (1) and (3). Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose behind this avoidance of Palestine, what source is this based upon when so many list as a central idea? Is there a need to collect sources here for this and reworking the "Territories considered" section? fiveby(zero) 14:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The next line is: "With the rejection of alternate proposals for a Jewish state, it eventually focused on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine". I'm okay with "establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of Palestine" so as long as the rest of the paragraph accommodates. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 "establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of Palestine". Levivich (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

(Heb. tsiyyonut) denotes the modern movement of the return of Jews to Erets Yisra’el (shivat tsiyyon, the return to Zion)

— Berlin, Adele, ed. (2011). "Zionism". The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (2nd ed.).

International, political, and ideological movement dedicated to restoring Erez Israel to the Jewish people.

— Bowker, John, ed. (2000). "Zionism". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions.

The movement that arose at the end of the nineteenth century with the aim of establishing a homeland for Jews in Palestine, as it then was.

— Jacobs, Louis, ed. (1999). "Zionism". A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion. Oxford University Press.

(ec, re Bitspectator)Got a source for confusing the reader with such a departure from the norm. Territorialism is often discussed alongside Zionism, and certainly after 1903 in opposition to Zionism. fiveby(zero) 15:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not against "of Palestine". Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Penslar p 37 has "In 1890, a young Viennese Jewish activist named Nathan Birnbaum coined both the word “Zionism,” by which he meant a Palestine-centered Jewish nationalism, and the term "political Zionism," which meant a public political campaign on behalf of the attainment of Zionist goals.38 Theodor Herzl had never heard of either term when he underwent a conversion to Jewish nationalism in the spring of 1895..." Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I lean "of Palestine" now. I'm just thinking of the phrasing of the next lines. Should contain [initially contemplating other locations] and [Palestine corresponds to the Biblical Land of Israel]? Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Not in the first sentence. I'm not sure that the "some briefly considered other places" is even worthy of including in the lead at all (it's worth including in the body of course), it seems like trivia to me in the context of an overview of Zionism. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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

This is a pretty cozy first sentence to me. I would change the first "and" to "that" though. Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it, in the sense that I don't think it's misleading or anything, but I would shorten the first sentence and let the rest of the first paragraph do some of the work:

Zionism is an ethnic nationalist movement for the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, the ancient Jewish homeland in Palestine. Emerging in Europe in the late 19th century and led by the World Zionist Organization, Zionists launched a program of colonization of Palestine that culminated in the establishment of the state of Israel following the 1948 Palestine war. Zionism continues to be the official state ideology of Israel, although its platform has been redefined several times since inception.

Something like that is what I'd write for first paragraph. (Sorry to stray beyond 1st sentence, but it's hard to divorce the 1st sentence from the rest of the 1st paragraph.) Levivich (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I dislike this for putting "Land of Israel" and "ancient Jewish homeland" before "Palestine". I think the Zionist (or even Jewish) understanding of the territory should come after the most impartial description of what the territory is ("the Levant" would also be okay). Is your point that "Land of Israel"/"ancient Jewish homeland" is not exactly synonymous with "Palestine"?

I also find it objectionable that Wikivoice definitively describes "the ancient Jewish homeland" as "in Palestine". Previously it just acknowledged a correspondence between "Palestine" and "Land of Israel", I think for obvious NPOV reasons. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Shlomo has a lot to say about "Land of Israel" and post 48, it is an anachronism (Israel is not equal to Land of Israel). At the very least we need to set the usage in its time period (initially sought or something like that and then dispense with it, maybe should be some sort of efn). Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to saying, somewhere in the lead, that Israel has expanded its borders beyond the borders of the Land of Israel. I'm not sure if that should be in the first paragraph or elsewhere in the lead. But I don't think that fact contradicts that Zionists wanted to establish a Jewish state in the place where the historic Land of Israel was located. Levivich (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Over at History of Zionism, LoI is not directly mentioned in the lead, we have instead "At the core of the Zionist ideology was the traditional aspiration for a Jewish national home through the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine" with the last mouthful wikilinked to History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "Land of Israel" or "ancient Jewish homeland" is the Zionist/Jewish understanding, that's everybody's understanding. Like, nobody disputes that Jews originated in the Levant, or that they call that place "the Land of Israel." Judaism didn't come from Africa or Antarctica or something, everybody knows where it came from. And I think whether one term for the place ("Land of Israel") or another ("Palestine") is first in the sentence, is a petty consideration.

I would say this: "the Land of Israel was in Palestine" is not a sentence that, in my view, any reasonable person would ever question. Only die-hard partisans would be like, "You can't call it that! It's [Israel/Palestine] only!!" IMO we get really tripped up on this, what I'd call silliness, across many articles.

"ancient Jewish homeland" might be a little on the nose, in that it may imply a historic right to the land, which is of course a hotly contested issue.

That said, I'd be fine with all sorts of variations, like: in Palestine, where Judaism originated, and which Jews called the Land of Israel or in the Land of Israel (modern Palestine) or in the place where Judaism originated or in the birthplace of Judaism, etc. etc. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "Land of Israel" or "ancient Jewish homeland" is the Zionist/Jewish understanding, that's everybody's understanding. Like, nobody disputes that Jews originated in the Levant, or that they call that place "the Land of Israel."

It's no more disputed that Palestinians originate from the Levant... Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

100% agree, and I'd say the same exact thing about people who say "It's not called 'Palestine'!" Levivich (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

But Land of Israel has never been a common English name for the region. Thats why it shouldnt be used in place of Palestine in an English language encyclopedia article. nableezy - 21:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history."? Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

How about we hold up for a bit and wait for some oppositional buy-in? Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense :-) Levivich (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Corresponding to" strikes me as wordy. What's wrong with, "the Land of Israel, in modern-day Palestine"?

"of central importance" is vague, why not just say what that central importance was: where Judaism originated, something like "birthplace of Judaism"?

Again, I don't really oppose your language, I'm just saying I think we can be clearer and more direct. My opposition is to dancing around basic facts in order to satisfy extreme partisans on either side (and I don't mean you or anybody else here, I mean those who deny that Israel is in Palestine, or that this region is the origin of both Jews and Palestinians). Levivich (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What additional information does "Land of Israel" add? I think if anything it just confuses since it doesnt have well defined borders. DMH223344 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It explains why Zionists wanted to form a Jewish state in Palestine, and not somewhere else. I'd be fine with "a Jewish state in Palestine, where Judaism originated," or "a Jewish state in the Land of Israel in Palestine," or "a Jewish state in the Land of Israel (in modern Palestine)" or "a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, where Judaism originated, then known as Palestine." Levivich (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

But i dont think its widely accepted that that's why Palestine was chosen, no? It also encourages misunderstanding it as a religiously motivated movement, which it was certainly not, with many traditionalist authorities opposing collective settlement in Palestine. DMH223344 (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's definitely widely accepted. Even undisputed. Why would they have sent people to Palestine if not because that's where the Land of Israel was? I mean, what is the alternative explanation for why Palestine was the destination? I don't think it's complicated or controversial to say that Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine because that's where Judaism comes from. Levivich (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok I think there's something subtle here which is the distinction between "Judaism" and "the Jewish people". I agree one of the motivations of Zionism choosing palestine was they claimed a historic title to the land, but the movement was not motivated by religion (although that would have of course played a factor). DMH223344 (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

See the paragraph in Shimoni talking about the zionist organization's claim to palestine specifically: https://archive.org/details/zionistideology0000shim/page/353/mode/1up?view=theater

Which includes a justification based on the utility to western powers DMH223344 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

All that is to say that I think we should be careful to make it very clear that zionism developed as a secular movement, not one driven by religion or tradition. As many authors emphasize, it was a radical break from tradition. DMH223344 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich in this case. "ancient homeland" comes verbatim out of several BESTSOURCES. I agree that it's an important motivation and that it's hard to mount a reasonable argument to question the fact that Zionism went to Palestine because that's where the Land of Israel is in Judaism. I like Bitspectator's frame, "Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history."? Andre🚐 20:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with "Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history." DMH223344 (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this formulation has consensus? Levivich (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Judaism originated in Palestine" is a historical statement, not a religious one. Just like "Islam originated in Mecca" or "Christianity originated near Jerusalem". To me, saying that, or saying that Zionism wanted to establish a Jewish state in Palestine because that's where Judaism originated, does not say to me that it was religiously motivated. But in any event, I think distinguishing Political Zionism from Religious Zionism, and the fact that the former was secular, and that the former became the mainstream, is worth saying somewhere in the lead. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is a historical statement, I just dont think an emphasis on "judaism" (rather than the "jewish people") is warranted here. Im pretty confident most sources focus on the origins of the people, not the religion in this context.

I agree about mentioning the distinction. The body is currently lacking a real discussion of this distinction or of the nature of religious zionism as a melding of religious conservatism and secular nationalism following the efforts of kook. DMH223344 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with not mentioning the Judaism/Jewish people thing explicitly. That's why I'd be fine with something like "a Jewish state in the Land of Israel in Palestine" or "a Jewish state in the Land of Israel (in modern Palestine)". You asked what does "Land of Israel" add; well, that's what it adds: in Palestine because that's where the Land of Israel was. We can leave it up to the reader to click on the link (or read the body of this article) and learn about the nuances of what and where the Land of Israel was, exactly, and what it means for Judaism and for the "Jewish people" (whoever they are, as we know, a complicated question in itself). (I think saying that the Land of Israel was the origin of the Jewish people is problematic given research about the disapora and the whole "who exactly are the Jewish people?" question). I think the lead needn't go into any detail further than "in Palestine because that's where the Land of Israel was," or alternatively, "in the Land of Israel, which is in Palestine", or something like that. Levivich (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that 'Judaism' originated in Palestine, anymore than I concur with the view that Christianity originated near Jerusalem. For in both cases the question is what Judaism/what Christianity? Like most statements that are eminently reasonable for being commonsensical, they begin to crumble if you analyse the terms that constitute them. Sorry for being a spoilsport.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I could elaborate, but I see the article Origins of Judaism does indeed give some of the reasoning behind my elliptical obiter dictum. The formation of Judaism, as we understand it today, was a very long historical process, which took a decisive inchoate turn in Babylon during the exile, was distilled by Ezra and Nehemiah on their return to Judea, and achieved something like a defining value with the rabbinical Judaism of the Mishnah, meaning a span of several centuries extending over the work of Jewish religious figures, not only in Palestine (the Palestinian Talmud) but also throughout the 'diaspora'. It was a product ante litteram of the galut as much as it was the outcome of Jewish religious thought and practice in Palestine itself in the formative nationalist periods. The essential thing about all this is the symbolic order constituted by the Biblical narratives (which were themselves not a product just of 'Palestinian' Jews) with its figuring of that region as the core of Yahweh's promised land and the site where the people coalesced into Israelites. This obvious point is often ignored in even excellent RS. As always, our problem in assessing RS is to see what parts of them conserve standard narratives, and what part show genuine advances in our historical understanding (something I think ignored above in these endless threads over what to pick from an ever expanding source base - also perhaps because there are no wiki guidelines to tell us how to undertake those assessments, other than articles and books which review the ongoing works in the field).Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the discussion could be more rigorous if we look at all the bestsource quotes rather than simply off-the-cuff opining on the arcane particulars. Most of them talk about Judaism and also the secularization. Stanislawski, as was pointed out, contrasts this view, but in doing so also fleshes it out. Penslar: Zionism’s goal was to create a Jewish homeland in a territory with which Jewish civilization was intimately linked: the ancient Land of Israel. Zion is a biblical word that refers to a hill in Jerusalem and, by extension, to the city of Jerusalem and thence to the entirety of the ancient Land of Israel. Edelheit: Zionism is, at its root, a secular nationalist movement framed as a modern revolution against elements of the Jewish past, from its inception Zionism also harked back to a two-millennia! tradition of hope for the restoration of Jewry to its ancestral homeland. Therefore, examining the Jewish understanding of concepts of land, statehood, nationalism, and national sovereignty will, therefore, provide key data for understanding Zionism's appeal and its meaning. ... First, the Jewish religious tradition does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities. Second, nonetheless, a strong sense of bondedness exists throughout the Jewish tradition and is expressed in terms of peoplehood or, in modern terminology, as a concept of nationality. Third, that from the very beginning this sense of peoplehood was identified with the Land of Israel, or (to use the traditional Jewish term) Eretz Israel. The fact that Eretz Israel was not seen as just a homeland, but also as a land of destiny, was intimately related to this sense of peoplehood and meant that Eretz Israel was always seen as central to Jewish life, in theory if not in practice. Finally, throughout the long years of exile Jews always hoped for some form of redemption and return to their ancestral homeland, with a small settlement existing almost continuously. Forriol: Zionism as a political movement is an ethnic and organic nationalism. One has to start from the idea contrary to what Jewish nationalism maintains, the nation is a relatively recent historical construct, not having existed since biblical times. But the rabbinic vision of their religion reinforced their ethnic consciousness. Persecution in Europe due to anti-Semitism and the longing for Zion (the belief in a homeland to which they were destined to return when their exile ended), both of which were religious in nature, facilitated the development of Zionism. This ideology emerged in the late 19th century in a context of nationalist effervescence in Europe, influenced by it, and because its promoters instrumentalised the biblical paradigm of 'the promised land - the chosen people' as a mobilising slogan for the Jewish community abroad Andre🚐 21:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

simply off-the-cuff opining on the arcane particulars

Thanks for the sneer contextually thrown my way but, aside from the fact that there is nothing off-the-cuff there - it's in the scholarship, der Teufel steckt im Detail (the devil is in the details) or more aptly, we can get virtually any number of mutually conflicting formulations from dozens of good solid RS, and use them to whatever purpose we like. To allude once more to that gentleman I mentioned above:'The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose'. The particulars I mentioned are not 'arcane' - they pertain to the essence of any discussion or use of the term Judaism. The point I hinted at is that most good scholarly books of this kind of genre (and I have in mind several kinds of nations in descriptive works) hover between recycled ideas and fresh thinking. Several of the phrases above are questionable ('from its inception'; 'the Jewish religious tradition does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities'; (A) 'Eretz Israel was always seen as central to Jewish life; 'Persecution in Europe due to anti-Semitism and the longing for Zion' (that unfortunate phrasing grammatically, by the way, suggests that (b) 'longing for Zion' was due to persecution in Europe, whereas 'longing for Zion' in numerous RS is said to be a bilmillennial part of Jewish identity, (compare a and b) etc.) Of course, other things there are unobjectionable. Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Not intended as a sneer, but do you want to cite a source for your opinions? So far in this thread I can't see what source you are citing. Andre🚐 21:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You often ask me whether I have a source for 'opinions' you contest. I write things like the above with the assumption that editors here do know their stuff, namely on things like the history of early Judaism. If one is not familiar with that scholarship, then it's not my job to mentor, but editors to read broadly in that topic area as well. Nothing I said was in the least controversial, or unfamiliar to anyone who studies that past.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Your job is to cite sources for WP:WEIGHT and per WP:V and WP:RS Andre🚐 22:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Instead of rushing to reply, could you every now and then withhold snippy immediate reactions (4 minutes above) and reflect a little about what your interlocutors are saying? It is again none of your business to suggest paternalistically you know what my job is, for my editing history has established that. This is a talk page, not an article where editors must contribute sources with WP:Due and WP:RS in mind. If you were surprised to see my reply to Levivich clarifying an implicit ambiguity in associating the birth of Judaism within just one territory, that means you were not familiar with the history of Judaism. If you ask me for sources when I made a second comment, it means you want me to refer you to the immediately accessible results of any google search, which would, if you had downloaded a dozen papers fromn Zeitlin and Neusner onwards, underwritten that generalization. Not broadening one's background knowledge leads to far too much ephemeral backchat. Reply if you like, but methodological cautions and familiarity with a culture are a lesson all should take on board. And consensus is better secured if we adopt the principle that we should spend more time in the study than on wikipedia as a talkback venue if articles are eventually to be written with encyclopedic stability and precision. Finis Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages indeed expect a constructive approach to editing pages, some amount of generalization permitted, but if you're contradicting stuff from the most reliable sources, one would expect you are going to bring an equally reliable source (which, as you know, is not the Origins of Judaism). Uncharitable to suggest I don't understand, just focus on the fact that you don't agree. I'm well aware of Judaism's relationship to Babylon, Persia, and Egypt; still, you need to cite sources, not just say stuff. I quoted several of the BESTSOURCES, and you are still just stating stuff without a link in sight. You need evidence for claims. Yes, the exile was critical to the development of Judaism, but most Jewish people trace their culture and religion to the Second Temple period, not the rabbinic period. Andre🚐 07:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not contradicting reliable sources. And I am not making 'claims'. It appears to you to be a claim simply because you seem to be unfamiliar with the obvious, which normally on wikipedia does not require RS documentation. You are referring to RS on Zionism as reliable on 'Judaism', I'm referring to works on the history of Judaism which make the assumption about 'Judaism' in the former look superficial. Since you won't follow my advice, or don't appear to grasp my point by a careful reading, I'll give you a leg-up. Read Steve Mason's 'Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,' August 2007 Journal for the Study of Judaism, vol. 38, issue 4-5 pp.457-512 and then Daniel Boyarin's Judaism: The Genealogy of a Modern Notion, Rutgers University Press 2018 ISBN 978-0-813-57161-4. Please don't come back on this. It would take several hours of concentrated study to get through just those two excellent references, but the time spent would be in your worthwhile.Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this formulation makes some basic errors, Zionism's goal was to establish a Jewish state. Zionists later coalesced on creating that Jewish state in Palestine. nableezy - 21:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

But by that argument, "outside of Europe" is also not accurate. Zionism wanted a Jewish state and considered alternatives, like Uganda. But is there a bestsource that they needed to be "outside of Europe"? During the phase where they would have taken anything, why not Europe? Also, what is the source, because the sources above clearly attribute that goal to Zionism, not Zionists, (see above) Andre🚐 21:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What are the dates you'd put on that? What's the date that Zionism began or that Zionism set a goal of establishing a Jewish state (if those two dates are different), and what's the date that it coalesced around Palestine? Levivich (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We can of course put a date on both. Herzl's Jewish state in Palestine was proposed in February 1896, and the Basel Program's formal acceptance of Palestine dates to late August 1897. The Uganda 'alternative' was not a Zionist proposal, but one made by an outsider, Joseph Chamberlain, 4 years later. None of the vaunted 'alternatives' that from time to time arose -Angola, Argentina, Brasil, Canada, Cuba, Cyrenaica, El Arish, Kenya, Kimberley, Manchuria, Madagasgar, Mesopotamia, Nevada, Paraguay, Siberia inflected seriously the early decision to go for Palestine. Any other alternative created deep rifts within Zionism, esp among the majority Eastern Jews. The irony of the Uganda plan is that the British colonialists already established there were interviewed and voiced strenuous opposition which was taken into account for its political risks, something avoided later with the Balfour Declaration, which never considered indigenous Palestinian opinion or opposition. They were Arabs. Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to put a date on that, and I'm not happy about presenting the history as if it was "anywhere" first and "only Palestine" later. It wasn't as simple as that. Palestine was the emotional favorite from the beginning, but some saw it as unavailable or unsuitable for some other reason. Some Zionists wanted to hold out for Palestine, others were prepared to consider anywhere that was available. The latter stream became fringe when the ITO split off and faded. I would drop "outside Europe" even though it is true, because the answer to "why not Europe?" is that nobody ever suggested a location in Europe that was available and suitable. Zero^talk 06:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree it was the favored destination, but my understanding is that Zionism at its core was Jewish nationalism and the goal to establish a Jewish state. The where mattered, and while Palestine was the emotional favorite the initial goal was much less dependent on the where than on the what (the what being a Jewish state). nableezy - 16:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "Palestine" versus "Eretz Israel", I think we should follow the terminology used by the Zionists themselves. This was overwhelmingly "Palestine" until well into the mandate period. Without evidence, I suspect this reflects the secular nature of the project. Zero^talk 06:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Palestine is indisputably the most common name used by Zionists and many others for the region in the premodern period, Eretz Yisrael is more of a concept than a geographic place name. However, the most common name for the place in the premodern period, largely due to Christian usage, was (ngram) "Holy Land" (or even more common, but sometimes not used geographically, "Promised Land") One exception would be Zvi Hirsch Kalischer who refers to the area as both "Eretz Yisrael" and "Zion." Also, it's worth noting that in the pre-modern period, Israel generally referred to the people, ie the Children of Israel, or as Pinsker says in Auto-Emancipation the "people of Israel." Personally I think we should mostly consider how commonly sources in the modern-day describe things, with an eye to clarification and everyday usage. Andre🚐 06:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If I am following the above, we more or less agree "a land outside Europe" can go

"...that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of Palestine, a region corresponding to (known as?) the Land of Israel in Judaism, [and of central importance in Jewish history.]"

and we are currently at something like the above? Or not? Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

That's where I'm at 🙂 Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

+1. I like your tweaks, too, "known as" and I think the "importance" bit is unnecessary if Land of Israel is linked--that already communicates importance, but I'm good with it either way. One other tweak I'd suggest: "pursued" instead of "aimed for." Levivich (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm perplexed since this is both unpolemic, innocuous and historically accurate, and I don't see any cogency in taking an exception to what is a very standard phrase in accounts of Zionism. This is a palmary example of spending a lot of chat to rid text of a phrase which lacks any reason to be expunged. Most recently, in a gloss the translation of the fundamental document of early Zionism, we have

• Judenstaat offers a plan to make a Jewish Palestine into an outpost of European “civilization” amid the “barbarism” of the orient, and recognizes that such a colony would remain dependent on Europe to guarantee its security. Herzl argues that Europeans should held the Zionists achieve their goals because a Jewish state outside Europe was a solution to the Jewish problem inside Europe, but would also function as a pan-European colony. Michael J.Reimer, The First Zionist Congress:An Annotated Translation of the Proceedings, State University of New York Press 2019 ISBN 978-1-438-47314-7 p.29
• 'His concern was with the anti-Semitism of which Jews were victims. Its solution was the establishment of a state outside Europe's boundaries.' Milton Viorst, Zionism: The Birth and Transformation of an Ideal, St. Martin's Publishing Group 2016 i978-1-466-89032-9 p.30
• 'Herzl used the case of Dreyfus to stress that European nationalism was steeped in racism against Jews, and as such, argued for the need for a national Jewish state outside Europe.’ Amneh Badran, Zionist Israel and Apartheid South Africa:Civil Society and Peace Building in Ethnic-national States, Taylor & Francis 2009 ISBN 978-1-1352-7582-2 p.71
• ‘certain anti-Semitic movements and governments applied the very same concept to justify a sympathetic handling of Zionism, insofar as the project of setting up a Jewish state outside Europe would solve the local ‘Jewish Question’ through a voluntary withdrawal of all these undesirable “aliens.” Victor Karady, The Jews of Europe in the Modern Era: A Socio-Historical Outline, Central European University Press 2004 ISBN 978-9-639-24152-7 p.337
• 'Zionism can thus be defined as an attempt to solve the Jewish question’ (a term used preominently by Theodor Herzl and other Zionist leaders) not through assimilation but through the creation of a Jewish state outside Europe. Oliver Zimmer, Nationalism in Europe, 1890-1940, Palgrave Macmillan 2003 ISBN 978-1-403-94388-0 p.74
• 'Even before the appearance of definitive proof that emancipation was reversible, however, a sober minority among the "modernists" confronted the logic of ethnic nationalism and set out on the sole possible path to survival in the modern world: the creation of a Jewish nation-state outside Europe Benjamin Nathans, Review: A People Apart: The Jews in Europe, 1789-1939 by David Vital, The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 96, No. 2 Spring 2006, pp. 288-295 p.289

That 'outside Europe' is a scholarly commonplace, but very important because it links not only to the specific European antisemitism that generated in part a Zionist consensus, but also to wider themes in Zionism: the repudiation of Europe, yet the need for tutelary arrangements with the Great powers, and the witting self-image of the projected state as a forward frontierpost of European civilization against Asiatic barbarism. Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's accurate. But those paragraphs are mostly talking about anti-Semitism in Europe. It makes sense to mention that the Zionist designs were for outside Europe in that context. I previously encouraged mentioning anti-Semitism in the first paragraph. The question is whether to use "outside Europe" in the first sentence of an article describing Zionism. I don't see that (or similar) in the source survey introductions. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

"known as" and "corresponding to" seem dont seem accurate enough, considering some definitions include land up to the litani river (and also cyprus). DMH223344 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

How would you phrase it? Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I personally would not in the opening. Later when discussing why Palestine was chosen would be a place to include due to the historical connections between Judaism and the region of Palestine, roughly corresponding with the area referred to by the traditional Jewish name of Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael in Hebrew). nableezy - 16:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I would just say "Palestine" like so many sources do, and like the early zionists did DMH223344 (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

So just move it to Line 2 as it is now? Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Nableezy used "roughly" above, which I think should be included. And I agree that presenting this info in the second sentence as the lead currently does is the right way to do it. Zionism was a modern secular movement, and our first sentence should be very clear, and not imply in any way that it was motivated by religion. DMH223344 (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Religious Zionism was a minority position then? Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Also, I'm less familiar with the literature on religious zionism, but I think we can also say that religious zionism is an attempt to bridge secular nationalism with religious conservatism. Religious zionism did not necessarily oppose it's secular counterpart. DMH223344 (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Something like:

Zionism is an ethno-nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside Europe. By the turn of the century, the mainstream Zionist movement was focused on the establishment of a Jewish state specifically in Palestine. Zionism developed as a secular movement and was in many ways a rejection of Jewish tradition; the movement's selection of Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history, was made on the basis of practical and strategic considerations.

DMH223344 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to say I am with those that are not keen on the "outside Europe" phrasing. Mainly because it sounds a bit odd out of context and the putative best sources don't tackle it like that, I prefer just saying Palestine in line 1. I think they settled on Palestine before the turn of the century, right? 1896/7 per Nishidani. I would like to settle line 1 before moving on to Line 2/3 altho they are obviously connected. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Not keen either, but i think enough objection from Nishidani and nableezy and i think DMH223344 for more work towards a real consensus.

• Alroey, Gur (2011). ""Zionism without Zion"? Territorialist Ideology and the Zionist Movement, 1882–1956". Jewish Social Studies. 18 (1). Indiana University Press: 1–32. doi:10.2979/jewisocistud.18.1.1. JSTOR 10.2979/jewisocistud.18.1.1. (wplibrary)
• and his book Alroey, Gur (2016). Zionism without Zion : the Jewish Territorial Organization and its conflict with the Zionist Organization. Wayne State University Press. OCLC 921867796. (wplibrary)
• maybe Rovner, Adam (2014). In the shadow of Zion : promised lands before Israel. NYU Press. OCLC 896188426.

Don't know if they feel that needs done now or can be deferred, or just worked on within the body? fiveby(zero) 18:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Worked on in the body opens up to more sources and it might throw up the answer we are looking for. Jewish Territorial Organization has in its lead "first arose in 1903 in response to the British Uganda Scheme, but only institutionalized in 1905. Its main goal was to find an alternative territory to that of Palestine, which was preferred by the Zionist movement, for the creation of a Jewish homeland." Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, what the lead "used to say":-

"Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת Tsiyyonut [tsijoˈnut] after Zion) is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to espouse support for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition." Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

And fwiw, Britannica updated to "Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement with the goal of the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”)." Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You removed cultural after I had replied, I thought we already resolved that above and the refs (both best source authors) are to suit. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

ah yeah sorry about that, im fine with it's inclusion, i just think it sounds kind of silly. DMH223344 (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It's linked to ethnic nationalism for the curious (fwiw, WP articles on the various branches are not that great, see Cultural nationalism "It is contrasted with "political" nationalism, which refers to specific movements for national self-determination through the establishment of a nation-state." Hum.). Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with keeping "cultural" and removing "outside Europe." I feel like we're making good progress. Andre🚐 04:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Took a swag at implementing the latest Selfstudier-Bitspectator special deluxe edition [2] Andre🚐 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted, there have been several objections to Land of Israel and your phrasing on establishing a state and a homeland makes close to no sense. nableezy - 10:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

[refactored to below section by Andre🚐 21:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)]

Again, an edit summary WP:SYNTH (ergo removal) is not enough. My practice is to show on the talk page what the synth you claim is there consists of. Inferences from sources, ergo WP:OR etc? Other editors simply do not know unless you spend some time explaining what is wrong with the text. Bulleted points are useful to this end. So please clarify.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"aimed for the creation of a Jewish state and establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people" is confusing, which is it? Or perhaps one could say something like "...a Jewish state by way of establishing a homeland..."? Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

We are back to trying to get agreement on Line 1, there appear to be three issues on which consensus is required, a) state or homeland and b) outside Europe or Palestine and c) Linking to the second sentence. For me, it's a) state (that's what was really wanted) and b ) Palestine (going by the dates above, that's what the mainstream wanted) and c) Sentence should stand on its own with no link to second sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If dates are a consideration for (b) then 1903 is probably better to call out: from Alroey's paper ..the resolutions of the Seventh Congress to reject the British proposal and to prevent discussion of similar proposals in the future was a formative event in the history of the Zionist movement, the territorialist movement, and the Jewish people in general. But ITO lived on till Balfour, and territorialism reemerged in the '30s and '40s Frayland-lige. fiveby(zero) 14:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"Home" is neutral (and incidentally matches both the Basel Program and the Balfour Declaration). "Homeland" carries the connotation of "native land" (look at a dictionary), so it is not neutral. Regarding Self's (a)-(c), there is a third alternative for (b) namely to not mention a destination at all. The destination issue can be better described in several sentences later than trying to nail it in a few words. Zero^talk 14:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree 'homeland' is prejudicial, and 'home' better, though I'm comfortable with 'state' because Herzl and his contemporaries were. re (b) saying 'outside Europe' is not specifying any 'destination', but rather defining it for what it was, i.e., an 'exit strategy' away from Europe where Jews could not exercise an imitation of the nationalisms that were consolidating themselves, and also a flight from, and putative cure for, antisemitism. Re Fiveby's note, I think being tied up by alluding to the Uganda/territorialism variants is unnecessary: as with 'cultural nationalism', which got some late wind from Chaim Gans' strange book (and reflects a very minority tradition associated with Ahad and the negligible if honourable Brit Shalom) Uganda was raised and dismissed virtually in one year, and was an English proposal, quickly trashed, while territorialism, notwithstanding its regional importance sometime later, was almost totally ignored over a century of Zionist historiography (per Astour and Alroey).

My impression is that most wiki disputes are inordinately focused on leads because editors tend to think that's about as far as most modern readers go. Which means the actual body of the article, which should take precedence because only when the sections are done can one accurately précis them in the lead, per policy. At the moment, User:DMH223344 is the only one trying to thoroughly revisit the whole text. Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The old lead and the current one are supposedly from the same body, good trick:) And all the complaints are about the lead, so needs must. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh i agree, many of the points raised in these discussions show fertile ground for content work, and sometimes a surprising lack of existing content. But that is a multi-day commitment of time and also involves the detestable task of, well, writing. Understand Selfstudier's "needs must" tho. fiveby(zero) 17:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

For (b), check out my comment here. Would you go with (3)? Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

personally I have 0 objection to "Jewish national home" if that is a compromise that helps. Andre🚐 23:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong thread? Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion of "home" versus "homeland" in the first message that starts this thread by Zero above. As far as the Jewish state, I think it should mention the Jewish state as well as the idea of a Jewish national home, those 2 are related, but not identical. Andre🚐 23:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Shlaim in particular "The Basel Program deliberately spoke of a home rather than a state for the Jewish people, but from the Basel Congress onward the clear and consistent aim of the Zionist movement was to create a state for the Jewish people in Palestine. In his diary Herzl confided, 'At Basel I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it."

Then it would seem that "home", "homeland" and the rest was mere posturing for political effect and a disguise for the real intention, a state. One can see this in the negotiations over the Balfour Declaration, the attempt to upgrade "home" to "commonwealth", for example, see https://cojs.org/quotes_by_lord_george_nathaniel_curzon-_british_foreign_secretary-_regarding_the_establishment_of_the_palestine_mandate-_march_1920/ Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe that is correct analysis. The immediate reason that the Basel Program said "home" and not "state" is that they were hoping for a concession from the Sublime Porte and they knew that the least hint of wanting sovereignty would kill the possibility. Zero^talk 10:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether the home or homeland was posturing, which obviously would be disputed. You can characterize what Zionist organizations or leaders said or thought, and then immediately provide the counter-critique. Andre🚐 23:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Some bibliographic work

I'd like to go through all the refs and notes in an attempt to standardize and clean up: full cites, find page numbers, etc. I can see there's been a lot of effort here towards a nice clean bibliography, but more could be done. Any preferences as to how to the mix of sfn and ref and notes which run 1-5 and a-t? Also like to standardize the cite template entries so the all look the same and have appropriate links where available. For instance place of publication for everything or nothing, which identifiers of ISBN, OCLC, DOI, ISSN, JSTOR, capitalization style in titles, etc. Links to archived versions for web cites or no or both? I hate Google Book and will remove all those URL's unless somebody says different.

There are some citations i would like to remove or tag in passing while doing this, but i think better to refrain right now? I will probably be guessing at the editor's intention for page numbers some so might end up adding some page needed tags. fiveby(zero) 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. I don't know where DMH223344 is with their rewrite/merger, but if DMH is planning to replace some of the current content with new content, it may not be worth gnoming the existing refs for content that's about to be replaced. IMO "notes" should be limited to explanatory notes not refs. I find Google URLs to be helpful because of the free previews; I don't think she should be removed unless they're replaced with something more helpful (like free versions of the source, if available). My personal pref is to exclude archive links except for dead URLs (there's a discussion at the pump or somewhere about this). I find place of publication to be useless and outdated; we have ISBNs now and we don't have to worry about two publishers with the same name in two locations like in the olden days. But if you're doing the gnoming work I'd defer to your decisions on these preference issues (except please leave the Google URLs for the free previews if there's nothing better to link to). Levivich (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I will pick up the merging next month. DMH223344 (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects i'm also going to do this, if all the footnote does is directly quote a source move it to {{sfn}} with a postscript parameter. If there is explanatory text added by an editor (such as 'fn 1') leave it in an {{efn}}. fiveby(zero) 20:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone have an idea of what is going on with #9? Wouldn't think there is a need for three reference for Palestine part of Ottoman empire at the end of the 19th century. Cohen is Russian emigration, Gevin is Herzl, and i only have an epub for Pappe so no page#'s. Probably got misplaced somehow but can't figure out what the three have in common. Also, said i wasn't going to remove any refs but have already started [3][4]. fiveby(zero) 03:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I support your work Andre🚐 03:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)