The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
A fact from Zionism as settler colonialism appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 August 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
@PrimaPrime I'm uncertain about the reasoning behind your decision to completely alter the lede, as it appears to lack neutrality. Your deletion of a crucial and well-supported statement, which is integral to the article's notability Many of the fathers of Zionism themselves described it as colonialism, such as Vladimir Jabotinsky who said "Zionism is a colonization adventure." and the addition of an excessive amount of WP:UNDUE criticism by associating the topic with a one-state solution in the second sentence indicate a potential POV issue. I suggest familiarizing yourself with WP:NPOV and reconsidering your edit, as I am unable to revert it again due to the one-revert rule. Skitash (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I completely altered it at all...I moved Jabotinsky up to that second sentence. And the sources are pretty clear that the analogy is today near inherently associated with 1SS proponents. Not sure how that's a "criticism" from a POV standpoint. PrimaPrime (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the complication with the exact wording you mention is the academic settler colonialism framing posits that "settler colonization" is almost the inverse of simple "colonization", a point which has previously been stressed in discussions on this page, but I've put the relevant quote in the reference for now. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I understand the sentence "Although notable early Zionists employed this characterization like Ze'ev Jabotinsky in "The Iron Wall", today it is associated with anti-zionist activists and academics who support a one-state solution to the conflict". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's unclear? The zionism-as-colonialism analogy was indeed notable among early zionists, but now that colonialism is seen as a bad thing in most circles, it's anti-zionist one-staters who promote the idea. From Tawil-Souri (2016) for instance:
"Calling Israel a settler colonial regime is an argument increasingly gaining purchase in activist and, to a lesser extent, academic circles. The work of Elia Zureik, who has been making this argument since at least 1979, has been formative therein...
Implicitly there are a number of political conclusions that are of importance in Zureik's book: thinking of 'Israel proper' and the Palestinian Territories as separate entities, and separating Israel’s policies according to a pre- and post-1967 time frame hide what is a long-lasting and pervasive structure of control. The reality on the ground is a striated and segregated hierarchy imposed ultimately by one regime across the entirety of Israel/Palestine. By implication, the two-state solution is long dead."
the last two edits were reverted by @CFA under the pretext of WP:copyvio. But he made no elaboration about where exactly was this copyvio, i was careful in avoiding the usage of the same words the source do, beside that, you reverted two edits not just one, one of which (the first one) had literally just two words in common word with the source which was “colonization department”, which also had nothing to do with the source you claimed the copyvio from. Can you elaborate where exactly was the violation ? Also why didn’t you correct it rather than deleting it entirely and restoring a content that i made clear was not just WP:OR, but contradicting the source it is citing ?
@Stephan rostie: you keep claiming You removed crucial summarizing content as well as misrepresented a source (displaying a half information without mentioning the other half)., can you please detail exactly what you think has removed crucial summarizing content and what misrepresented a source are in reference to, as neither of these claims is in line with the edits made. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A crucial content you removed was the part which mentioned that early zionists and zionism founders themselves described zionism as colonialism or used colonial terminology, and that major zionist organizations themselves held colonial identity in their names and departments. That should without a doubt be stated clearly in the lead.
As for the part where you clearly misrepresent the cited source and even adding your own claim is in sabbagh khoury cited content, the source states that the settler colonial paradigm on the zionist project emerged in the 1960s, whereas not just you omit and ignore that, but say it emerged in the 1990s. The source state that it emerged in 1960s then reemerged again in the 1990s among Palestinian scholars in israel. The source also attribute that to the shift among israeli palestinians in the 1990s from promoting a two state solution to a one state solution equal for all as a result of what author called “political processes” among the israeli Palestinian society in that period. On the other hand, you completely make your own WP:OR saying that the it is because of “failure of israeli Palestinian peace process” Stephan rostie (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephan rostie: regarding Sabbagh-Khoury, if you look back at the edit history (which you should be aware of since you first reverted this before the correction was added to the article), the correction of the dates from the Sabbagh-Khoury source were added after the first reduction, so the summation was correct per the article body. If you then look, I am in fact the editor who corrected the body to agree with what Sabbagh-Khoury says in the source. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making me note that you did changes, but still you didn’t solve several issues:
1. you didn’t solve the WP:OR about the shift in israeli-Palestinian society in 1990s which you write that it was “in response to the perceived failures of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process”, thats your own OR and has nothing with what the source is saying.
2. You even added another OR saying that it “gained traction in the 1960s among Palestinian scholars”, the source never said that it emerged among Palestinian scholars or made it exclusive to them or to any group, thats another OR, what it does is saying that it reemerged among israeli Palestinian scholars in 1990s
3. You gave a very low due weight to the idenfication of zionism founders to the zionist project as a colonial project by mentioning it briefly , and you completely removed the mention of the colonial identity of names and departments of the major zionist organizations.
4. i totally oppose your removal of citations and cited sources from the lead
I do agree with you that the lead has to be more summarized, but i don’t think totally rewriting and reformatting the article lead is necessary at all, i believe the problem lies in the quotations of individual scholars and specific views of individual scholars, removing them from the lead would solve the issue and make it perfectly summarized. What do you think ? Stephan rostie (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. it is not my OR it is a summation of the article body, if you have an issue with this statement, correct the article, AND the statement EXISTED in the lede prior to my edits.
2. Again, correct the article body.
3. The lede is a summary of the article body, not a repeat of every statement in the body.
1. Regardless, you kept re-including it even after i showed that this is totally not what the source says
5. my pardon, i didn’t mean to
3. okay you get a point here, the thing is I didn’t notice that you had included it in details in the body as i clarified in (5)
as for the rest, its okay and i am willing to compromise if you insist and find it very necessary, nevertheless I still (in my opinion) don’t see it necessary to rewrite and reformat the lead rather than just removing the quotations of individual scholars. Anyway, i will restore your lead and fix the minor errors above. Stephan rostie (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2024
Not done: this is not an uncontroversial edit request. Please see WP:EDITXY for more info. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)