Talk:Zionism

NPOV balance issue in lead

The lead has WP:UNDUE weight on a particular interpretation of Zionism as a specific form, namely the 19th century through 1930s versions of Zionism which were radical political movements (Political Zionism) or the Jabotinsky types (Revisionist Zionism) and yes, verged into ethnonationalism not so subtly when describing their aims and goals, and of course, there is religious Zionism, the opposite of which would be secular Zionism. One must remember that the history of Zionism includes cultural Zionism, labor Zionism, Progressive Zionism, and much more mainstream versions of Zionism. For more see Category:Types of Zionism. Most Zionists in America, while not all Christian Zionists, largely, according to the recent Harris-Harvard polls, believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish national homeland, and that's probably the common meaning that many people refer to as Zionism. The lead, while impressively sourced, needs to be doing a better job of WP:BALASP of Zionism to explain that Zionism is not one movement but a set of movements, and also has become used as a slur to refer to Jews and Jewish groups according to recent institutional changes such as that at NYU. The groups such as J Street in the United States shouldn't be lumped in with some 1930s research that yes, is indeed a part of the history of Zionism, but is taking undue center stage in the lead as written. Andre🚐 03:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The thing in itself as described by the best academic sources is the way to go.Dan Murphy (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. But the current lead is cherry-picked to tell a very specific and narrow story about Zionism that isn't NPOV. Consider the following sources from Cambridge.

• Formulated by Theodor Herzl, Political Zionism affirmed the supra-national nature of Jews, holding that all Jews shared a common legacy and tradition... over the course of the late nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century, several varieties of Jewish nationalism emerged. They included Cultural Zionism, which called for a group of Hebrew-speakers to develop a spiritual center in the Land of Israel, Socialist Zionism, which sought to blend Jewish nationalism with utopian socialism, Marxist Zionism, which united class struggle and nationalism, and Mizraḥi, which hoped to stem the secularism of other established varieties of Jewish nationalism.
• Zionism, the Jewish national territorial movement, sought to create a modern Jewish society and polity that would ensure a high cultural standard and a cultural market that would meet all the needs of that society – in Hebrew.
• Zionism is a variety of Jewish nationalism. It claims that Jews constitute a nation whose survival, both physical and cultural, requires its return to the Jews’ ancestral home in the land of Israel. Throughout most of its history, however, Zionism was far more than a nationalist movement: it was a revolutionary project to remake the Jews and their society. It was part of the great political convulsion that wracked the western world during the first half of the twentieth century. Despite the vast differences between them, social democracy, communism and fascism in Europe, anti-colonial nationalist movements in Asia and Africa, and Zionism all strove for a radical transformation of existing political realities, and they espoused utopian visions of social engineering. This was true primarily for Labor Zionism, which arose out of the European leftist tradition, but also characterized bourgeois varieties of Zionism and right-wing Revisionism.
• A complex ideological form, Zionism historically reflected and responded to all early twentieth-century political currents (liberalism, nationalism, socialism, colonialism, and fascism) and cultural styles (art nouveau, expressionism, modernism, Bauhaus).
• Zionism was born out of the drive to find a response to the problems Jews faced as a distinct collective, and its solution was based on defining the Jewish people as a nation with distinctive cultural characteristics entitled to self-determination realized in a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. While Zionism was fundamentally a modernist, dynamic, revolutionary, and secular movement, it recognized the Jewish faith and Jewish history as the source of its formative stories and national cultural symbols. Zionism never entirely suppressed the cultural issue; it rather adopted a moderate stance that manifested itself in several ways. First, the Zionist movement kept the cultural Zionists on a low burner. Second, Zionism spoke in a collective national language and saw itself as speaking for and representing the entire Jewish people, and voicing all its problems and needs. Third, Zionism translated its ethos of unity into democratic procedure. Fourth, the Zionist movement took upon itself to operate in a way that would facilitate civil cooperation and good neighborliness. Fifth, the Zionist movement made a point of stressing the cultural symbols common to and accepted by most Jews.
• anti-Zionism is understood as an opposition not to the policies of the Jewish state but to the existence of the Jewish state. The chapter explains how notions of Holy Land and sacred history are tied to anti-Zionism, how anti-Zionism is tied to a contempt for Judaism, and what this has to do with the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish state. Andre🚐 04:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I dont really understand what you're saying. Are you just saying that the lead should describe how the term "Zionism" is used today? DMH223344 (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the overview topic of Zionism, the first page, which will have many links to all the various aspects of Zionism, so it should give a balanced and neutral overview of Zionism, the main aspects of Zionism, and a brief summary of its history and impact. Maybe less maybe more. Yes? Right now, the lead is not balancing the aspects neutrally. Andre🚐 05:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, do you have specifing changes in mind? Could you provide an example? Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a good question, but I think we're too bogged down with the discussion of editors questioning these apparently reliable sources. I'd love to come back around to something constructive though if we can get past it. Andre🚐 16:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Only two of those sources are specifically about Zionism, 4 and 5 (as in part of the title). As was pointed out in earlier discussions, we should focus our attention only on such sources and there are plenty of them. Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That is an arbitrary criterion. What's the policy justification for only using sources with Zionism in the title? Andre🚐 09:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:BESTSOURCES are going to be scholarly material about the topic? Not about other topics, even if indirectly related. As I said, there are plenty of them, why would we need others? Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not a valid argument for excluding scholarly RS about related topics such as the history of Judaism. It's cherrypicking, and there's no policy justification for excluding based on the title of a reliable source that discusses the material in the body, not the title. The many volume Cambridge History of Judaism is eminently reliable and you've not given any valid rational basis for exclusion. Andre🚐 10:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have, sources that discuss the topic are obviously preferable. Unless there is some specific reason to use less focused sources? What would be in them that are not in the principal sources? Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

History of Israel and History of Judaism are directly related to Zionism, and there are many reasons to use these sources, they are reliable general reference sources which provide a balanced view of the topic, and are in no way novel or polemical. One should expect that in a broad historical topic you will use many sources about the history of the key aspects of the topic. One key aspect of Zionism is that it's Jewish nationalism, so history of Judaism is directly related, which should be obvious. You've offered nothing wrong with the sources, other than a title test which appears nowhere in any policy or guideline. BESTSOURCES says nothing at all about your title test, it is not policy-abiding whatsoever. A much more important policy here is WP:BALASP of WP:NPOV. Andre🚐 10:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We used the same principle already when reviewing colonialism in earlier discussions up the page. Also you didn't answer my question. That's my 2 cents, not getting dragged into another interminable discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You've not fulfilled the burden of proof for the principle, it appears to fly in the face of any established principle and is arbitrary, and there's no reason to follow it other than justifying what are probably going to be more critical and therefore less balanced usage. Andre🚐 15:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree those aren't the WP:BESTSOURCES (eg, encyclopedia articles are tertiary). Better sources would be secondary sources, academic books focused on Zionism. There is a list at Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict § Zionism. I'd support choosing a few good ones from there and looking at how they frame the typology of Zionism. Levivich (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to take one example, I'm not sure why we'd use, as a source for the Wikipedia article Zionism, Penslar's 2017 article about Israel in a book about Judaism, instead of using Penslar's 2022 book about Zionism. This is what "best sources" means to me: the best source for Penslar's views on Zionism is going to be his 2022 book about Zionism, not his 2017 article about Israel. Levivich (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not what BESTSOURCES mean. Those sources are equally good. See the list here [1] which cites Cambridge History of Judaism as a secondary history. Andre🚐 15:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

These aren't encyclopedia articles; they're quite usable here and nobody has furnished an argument that cites anything mentioned in BESTSOURCES. A cherrypicked list is probably how we got these non-NPOV articles. Penslar is one of the authors in the Cambridge sources and also one of the sources you have in that bibliography, also. [WRITING THE LIST ISN't CHERRYPICKING, but demanding REQUESTING WITH INVALID POLICY ARGUMENTS that I use it is [16:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)~]🚐]Andre🚐 15:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)]Andre🚐 15:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, it's literally cherrypicking to say we can't use Cambridge because the BESTSOURCES are a pre-vetted list by a specific editor. There needs to be a policy-based reason not to use Cambridge, not "Zionism isn't in the title." That is clearly cherrypicking. Andre🚐 15:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This is missing the point made above multiple times which is that the source should be about Zionism. The history of Zionism is of course NOT the history of Judaism. Is there some overlap? of course, but they are not the same, and anything you choose to include that isnt already discussed as part of a history of Zionism from an RS is OR or SYNTH. DMH223344 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not OR or SYNTH at all. That is completely not in the policy. Obviously the sources above are ABOUT Zionism, they just don't have Zionism IN THE TITLE. Zionism is a crucial part of the history of Judaism. Andre🚐 15:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Zionism is a crucial part of the history of Judaism sure! I probably agree with this. But is it true that The details of the history of Judaism is a crucial part of the history of Zionisim? Most RS on Zionism would probably not agree since basically every text about Zionism starts in the late 19th century. DMH223344 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at the quotes from the sources above. They are all about the development of Zionism, not the broader history of Judaism. This is the balance we need. Andre🚐 16:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's look at the second quote you listed above. It emphasizes the cultural aspect of Zionism. The source is "Jewish Cultures, National and Transnational". Of course this source will emphasize the cultural aspect of Zionism, that is the point of the source. Does that mean we should emphasize that same aspect in the lead? Only if it is also emphasized in RS about Zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a chapter of the larger work. It's RS, there's no bounds in policy that RS are not "about" Zionism if the do not have Zionism in the title. That chapter is obviously "about" Zionism. Its exclusion is arbitrary. It is RS as well. Do we have to use that in the lead? Not necessarily. That depends on the discussion and consensus of editors. But is it RS? Yes. Is it usable on the article in general? It should be. Andre🚐 16:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure you can use it in the article in general. But we cant include that same emphasis in the lead if RS about Zionism dont also give the cultural aspect that same weight. DMH223344 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

For your reference, this is how a book about Zionism describes a cultural aspect of Zionism (from The Zionist Bible, Masalha):

The Zionist movement has appropriated the Jewish religion and regional cultures and traditions of Palestine for its own use. In The Founding Myths of Israel Israeli scholar Zeev Sternhell called the Zionist uses of Judaism “a religion without God” a secular-nationalist religion which has preserved only Judaism’s outward symbols (Sternhell, 1998: 56). Israeli biblical archaeology is a secular-nationalist “civil religion” in Israel. Its nationalist founding godfathers are all secular Ashkenazis and European immigrants to Palestine, who often relied on the Scripture and Written Torah but were unfamiliar with rabbinic Judaism or the anti-literalist interpretation of the Oral Torah, Midrash, Mishna, Talmud and Responsa and thus ignored the rich and complex interpretative traditions of the Midrash – interpretative traditions that encouraged infinite interpretations of the Word of God and eschewed limitations on or definitive interpretations of the Written Torah (Armstrong, 2007: 79–101). As a state-driven “civil religion” designed to create a “scientific high culture” to stand above Talmudic and rabbinical Judaism and supersede two millennia of actual Jewish history and long traditions of rabbinical (Midrash) interpretations.

and from Shimoni: The aspiration towarda renaissance of Jewish culture that was to be accomplished byZionism was predicated on the secularized understanding of Jewishidentity as an outcome of immanent processes in the history of thenation. Religion was neither wholly coextensive with Jewishculture nor its original source; it was merely one of the ingredientsof Jewish national culture.

and Goldberg (A history of zionist thought): A distinctively Jewish culture has yet to emerge in Israel. National art, music, literature and dance are derivative, their several distinguished-practitioners firmly in the tradition of the European or eastern cultures from which they and their parents emerged. Israelis are a well-informed, literate, politic­ally aware, book-buying, theatre-going, music-loving public, whose emphasis on higher education is testimony to the abiding Jewish stress on learning. But such is the all-pervasive influence of cultural imperial­ism in the modern world of mass communication that a small country like Israel can only imitate the tone set by London, Paris or Hollywood. As everywhere else, English is the language of diplomacy, commerce, science, technology and ideas.Significantly, the only specifically Jewish features that distinguish Israeli culture from that of most western societies are atavistic: biblical archaeology; the revival of spoken Hebrew; a proliferation of yeshivot, the traditional Talmudic academies. DMH223344 (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Stanislawski: Crucial, too, is the absence in the Basel program ofany mention of the renaissance of Jewish culture or the Hebrewlanguage, as opposed to “the strengthening and fostering of Jewishnational sentiment and national consciousness”: the former wouldbe objectionable not only to Herzl, Nordau, and the other strictly“political Zionists” but also to the very small minority of delegateswho were traditional Jews or rabbis who rejected any connectionbetween Zionism and any secular, cultural, renaissance DMH223344 (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"A distinctively Jewish culture has yet to emerge in Israel" surely you must know that other RS will contradict that conclusion, and we must balance that? Andre🚐 20:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should say that in the lead (or even in the article body). I'm just showing you that RS on zionism will emphasize different points than RS on judaism. We should base the lead on what RS about zionism are saying about zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, and I'd like to understand your policy basis for this, which I would characterize as cherrypicking. Many sources that are specifically about Zionism are more critical. But WP:UNDUE actually says we need to balance the proportion of views in all reliable sources, period, not those which match an arbitrary set of criteria. To continue the discussion though, for the sake of argument, I will go do some research of "Books about Zionism" because I'm sure there are some about what I'm saying, too. Andre🚐 20:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I can see very clearly that it's not in all reliable sources "period", it's:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

where "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" is a key aspect.

Second, the BESTSOURCES to use for a summary of what zionism is are RS about Zionism. That is not controversial. DMH223344 (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

All reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. BESTSOURCES reads: n principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk. It in no way supports the principle of only using books with Zionism in the title. Andre🚐 20:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You think a book about Judaism counts as a better (or even equally good) source for a summary about Zionism as a book about Zionism? DMH223344 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

How good the source is, is determined by its reliability, how much it is cited, the credentials and reputation of the author and so on. Not the title. So yes, it can be, it depends. Andre🚐 21:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We are interested in the number of citations by others re Zionism, not something else? We absolutely do want books about Zionism and if those do not contain the material you are trying to rely on from books not about Zionism, that's a big red flag. Selfstudier (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

A lot of great sources seem to have been discovered in 2024. A remarkable coincidence, no doubt. Out of curiosity, what was wrong with the sources prior to October 7 2023? The lede looked a lot different a year ago.

Minor point of clarification, but I am not "requesting ... that [you] use" anything. I do, however, believe this Wikipedia article should be "basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources" (WP:BESTSOURCES) about the topic, which would be books focused entirely about Zionism (as opposed to books about something other than Zionism that mention Zionism). (And, as always, the books should be recent, academic, and written by a recognized subject matter expert.) Levivich (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Lede is fine, RS is used throughout, and NPOV standards are met.

Important also to note that there is an orchestrated campaign on social media by prominent Zionists to change it, unsure if editors arguing for that here are involved in that, but it's important to keep in mind as the page gets flooded with attention. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated. Andre🚐 20:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron it seems reasonable to consider adding temporary restrictions on the article. What do you think? DMH223344 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

+1, whole string of disruptive edits lately. Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this, it's being vandalized by those not interested in seeking consensus for any changes and instead driven by the social media coordinated campaign.

Needs a cooldown period for that to blow over, and we can discuss specific change requests in Talk and then move ahead based on consensus. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

All zionism sub-ideologies agree on the core principles of zionism itself, such as the colonization of a land that is inhabited by other pre-dominantly non-jewish population to establish a jewish majority. This is the essence of the zionist project regardless of which kind of zionism sub-ideology you are talking about as stated in reliable sources. the article lead is talking about the core principle of zionism as a whole regardless of the minor differences as between political zionism vs socialist zionism, such differences is to be detailed in the article body, not the lead. Stephan rostie (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Books about Zionism

Although as I explained, the article should reflect the proportion of views relative to their reliability and prominence in all reliable sources, not just "Books about Zionism," and we shouldn't be cherrypicking sources (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources: biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view.) Here we will search for acceptable "books about Zionism."

• The Zionist idea, recognizing the Jews as a people with rights to establish a state in their homeland,

Thoughts? Andre🚐 20:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are asking. DMH223344 (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a book source with detailed explanations of all the types of Zionism, take a look at the table of contents. It's a reliable, university press book about Zionism specifically which defines Zionism and its various strains in a more comprehensive and neutral way, to balance with our other existing critical sources. It's by Gil Troy a blue-linked historian. Andre🚐 20:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Add it to The bibliography so that we don't have to constantly repeat what was already previously discussed. Selfstudier (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I just did. So the parts that I think need more fleshing out in this article are stuff like, Jewish renewal revived the national spirit with Israel at the center radiating toward the other Jewish communities. Cultural Zionism not only survived; it became the defining ideology for many Diaspora Jews, especially Americans Andre🚐 20:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Here's my next item. "Anne Perez is an historian of modern Jewish and Israeli history. She earned a PhD in History at the University of California, Davis, and an MA in Theological Studies at Bethel Seminary San Diego" This book is a more Christian perspective rather than a Jewish one. Thoughts? the word “Zionism” initially described a movement to invigorate Jewish cultural, linguistic, and national identity. Zionism has since evolved into a movement with many streams, brought about the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 Andre🚐 21:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Fortress Press is the official publishing house of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, so I would expect this to be a christian zionist perspective. This doesn't mean we shouldnt use the source. DMH223344 (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't disagree. But you haven't told me your opinion of the Gil Troy book. Andre🚐 04:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well Gil Troy is not an expert on the topic. But he is of course a Zionist activist. DMH223344 (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Gil Troy, while not the most prolific scholar in this area, certainly is an expert on the topic of Zionism. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  A historian of US presidents is considered an expert and a BESTSOURCE on Zionism? DMH223344 (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Most historians' work spans multiple areas, and a huge chunk of Troy's work is explicitly about Zionism. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't cite his book. DMH223344 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, is he or isn't he reliable? Or do you believe any Zionist historian is not an expert on Zionism? Andre🚐 05:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'll leave one more to chew on before I tear myself away to do something else. Mark Raider, from 1998, I guess it's getting a little old but still seems pretty useful, no? Andre🚐 21:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In pursuit of a more balanced slate, I've added a number of sources and removed one to the aforementioned bibliography page. Let me know if editors have familiarity with or concerns with these sources.[2] Andre🚐 00:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, fine, how about this one? [3] Zionism is an international political movement that was originally dedicated to the resettlement of Jewish people in the Promised Land, and is now synonymous with support for the modern state of Israel. in the blurb. Andre🚐 05:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

In lieu of discussing individual sources, add them to bibliography, when we're done doing that, I suggest we agree on a subset that we are going to use to settle the various debates, we can't keep on having separate discussions everywhere (some repeated from earlier). Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This source was already listed in the bibliography in several editions. So, you would agree, it is the BESTSOURCE, right? Andre🚐 11:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I would rather wait until we agree on a list and then agree on a representative subset (by vote if necessary). Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

How about we (anyone) pick our top 5 to start with and see if there's any agreement at all? If there is, we could just keep going like that, see where we end up. If there's obviously no agreement, then I guess we will have to vote the list. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What's the goal here? We havent even identified a specific npov issue, just general concerns raised by an editor and a bunch of new accounts. DMH223344 (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Same old, same old..."The" definition, colonization/settler colonialism (maybe), the land without Palestinians thing, etcetera...go to the best sources and settle these issues once for all (or for a while at least). Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Only other option is some sort of RFC (or more than one) and we'll end up debating the sources anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

At least improve the citations in the lead. Ideally, the entire lead should be sourced or source-able to five (or however many) best sources. As the saying goes, "write what the sources agree on," and I'm confident that five (or however many) best sources will agree on, eg, what Zionism is, what the key aspects of it are, what the current debates about it are, etc. Improve the citations to where everything is sourced to five (or however many) good sources, and that'll answer the perennial NPOV objections (eg, "that's just what the Arabs/Jews say!"). Levivich (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

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 [4] 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 primareily 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)

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)

Language in the lead - Consensus??

There's a note claiming that there's consensus about this language, but I don't see that consensus anywhere. I just see an unresolved dispute:

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

This language is very confusing and misleading though technically correct. Yes, at some point in history more than one Zionist had this goal. But early Zionists hadn't even agreed upon Palestine let alone having few Palestinians there. So, It needs clarifying language.

Which Zionists wanted this, and at what point in history?

I suggest this change:

"By 1948, mainstream Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."

-- ~~ Bob drobbs (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Refer to Talk:Zionism#Revert. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ps, the note was added by @ScottishFinnishRadish at Special:Diff/1246182977 after a discussion I had on their user talk at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Full protection at Zionism. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs: see Biltmore Conference. Wellington Bay (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

While it may be true today that "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" it was not until the Biltmore Conference that there was a broad consensus among Zionists for the creation of a separate Jewish state as opposed to a Jewish homeland which isn't necessarily a state with a Jewish majority. The statement " Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" is too absolute and needs to be modified either by indicating a time (ie "by the end of World War II") or by indicting that this was not a unanimous position, or even initially the dominant position. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) was published in 1896. Uganda Scheme was 1903. Decades before Biltmore. Levivich (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you're making my and Wellington's Bay's Point.

If in 1903, Zionists leaders were calling for a state in Uganda, then why does is this sentence at the top of the lead imply that Zionists through history sought to usurp land in Palestine and cleanse Arabs? Uganda isn't in Palestine, and Ugandans aren't Palestinian Arabs.

If this sentence is going to remain at all it does need to be qualified with a timeframe and a clarification of which Zionists had this goal at that particular time.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The answer to "why is it there?" is "because that's what the sources say."

To your substantive point: how many leaders called for a state in Uganda, and how did the Zionism movement respond to those calls? Did they agree, or did they reject it overwhelmingly in favor of Palestine? And if it's the latter, what does that say about whether Palestine was the goal in 1903 or not?

More to the point, we are, right now on this page, in the middle of working on rewriting the first sentence (or confirming it's fine the way it is, if that's how the sources shake out). Check out the thread right above this one, where we're gathering sources for this endeavor.

By the way: the Basel Program was adopted in 1897 and remained in effect through the founding of Israel 50 years later. "In Palestine" was an official goal of Zionism from the beginning, and when one leader (Herzl) suggested otherwise, he was damn near thrown out. Levivich (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The Uganda Scheme was for a Jewish homeland, not a Jewish state per se (and as Bob drobbs points out, Uganda isn't Palestine). While Der Judenstaat called for a state, Herzl was not fixed on a location - the book suggested Argentina or Palestine and in any case, regardless of the name of Herzl's tract, the (World) Zionist Organization's original stated goal was for the creation of a Jewish homeland, not necessarily a state. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: The Basel Program states: "Zionism seeks to establish a home in Palestine for the Jewish people" - note the use of the term "home" rather than "state". Wellington Bay (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Shlaim: The Basel Program stated, “The aim of Zionism is to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.” By adopting this program the congress endorsed Herzl’s political conception of Zionism. 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.”3

RS in general describe zionism as aiming for a jewish state from the outset.

To be clear, even the biltmore program didnt use the phrase "jewish state" (it said "commonwealth") but it was understood at the time and is understood by historians now as being the first public and official declaration of the aim of a Jewish state. DMH223344 (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Der Judenstaat is literally called "The Jewish State." Also, if you read about Zionism, you'll learn that early Zionists intentionally hid their true intentions to create a state as a political maneuver; there's a reason Basel said "home" and Balfour said "homeland," that was calculated, and there was a particular point where the Zionist leaders decided to publicly start saying "state" instead of "homeland," and reasons why they chose to do so when they did. But their private correspondence, their diaries, letters, etc. -- which we all have access to now, and which secondary sources summarize and analyze -- make it clear that it was always a state. Those sources by the way are the same ones that are cited in the article for the sentence you're questioning.

Interpreting primary source documents is not what editors are supposed to do. We summarize secondary sources, particularly for this reason: so that we don't read and believe that what the primary sources say is true, when there are other primary sources that contradict it. Leave the historical interpretation to the experts. Stick to discussing what secondary sources say. That sentence is cited to 10 sources. If you think it's wrong, please support your argument with some secondary sources. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

"even the biltmore program didnt use the phrase "jewish state" (it said "commonwealth")" - A commonwealth is a term for a state. From Wikipedia's article: In the 17th century, the definition of "commonwealth" expanded from its original sense of "public welfare" or "commonweal" to mean "a state in which the supreme power is vested in the people; a republic or democratic state". Conversely a "homeland" or "home" is not synonymous with "state" but is a much vaguer term and within the Zionist movement prior to the Biltmore program (and even after) there were Cultural Zionists who did not advocate for statehood and also binationalists such as Hashomer Hatzair who advocated a joint Jewish-Arab state. The reason the British used the term "home" in the Balfour Declaration and successfully advocated for that term to be used instead of state at the San Remo Conference is because the British did not want to be committed to a Jewish state rather than a homeland. Indeed British Foreign Minister Lord Curzon wrote "[W]hile Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home—an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification"[5] and French Prime Minister Millerand wrote after San Remo that France “had never admitted that Palestine could become a Zionist state or that a Zionist regime could be established in Palestine.” To the contrary, it had always made clear, "in the most explicit way, that Jewish groups would not enjoy any degree of political, civil, or religious rights superior to those of other populations or Christians or Muslims. . . . At the San Remo conference, the explanations exchanged between Lord Curzon and myself left me in no doubt on these points." So "national home" is not the same thing as "state". Wellington Bay (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That can be your interpretation, on wikipedia we argue with sources, not be providing our interpretation of primary sources. DMH223344 (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not the article, and I am responding to Levivich's interpretation of primary sources such as Herzl's Judenstaat, the Biltmore Program, and the Basel Program. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting primary sources, I'm telling you what secondary sources say about them (if you read about Zionism, you'll learn...). Read about Zionism. If you have questions or concerns about that sentence and its accuracy, the place to start is with the sources cited. That's what the reference are there for. That's what the quotes are there for. Levivich (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

So your misunderstanding of the term "Commonwealth" as not meaning a state and misreading of the Basel Program as advocating a state is based on secondary sources and not your own misinterpretation? Um ok, sure. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You are confusing me with DMH, I didn't say anything about "commonwealth." That "Der Judenstaat" means "The Jewish State," and what I said about the Basel Program and the Uganda Scheme, is all from secondary sources, yes. (DMH quoted one.) Levivich (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't say much for the quality of your secondary sources if they interpolated the term "state" into the Basel Program when it used no such term. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That was Theodor Herzl who interpolated the term "state" into the Basel Program when it used no such term. DMH quoted Avi Shlaim above: 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.' (Herzl was right: in 50 years, everyone knew it, though after 100 years, some conveniently forgot it.)

This is a great example of why Wikipedia uses secondary sources. High-quality scholars like Avi Shlaim, they know that, even though the text of the Basel Program said "home" and not "state," Herzl admitted in his diary that he meant "state" but had to use "home" instead. Shlaim, due to his subject matter expertise, is able to combine multiple primary sources and interpret them together. Shlaim doesn't make the mistakes that many Wikipedia editors make of reading one primary source and being ignorant of other relevant primary sources. That's why Wikipedia publishes summaries of high-quality secondary sources, rather than the analysis of editors. Levivich (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what the top listed source says:

" 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"

Do you have objections to adding the appropriate context given by the reference source - "In the 1948 war..."?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's great that after a two year break from editing Wikipedia, you've returned to discuss this particular sentence. Welcome back!

Of course I object. How many quotes are there for that first source in that bundled citation? 3. And how many sources are cited? 10. So yes, I'd object to picking one quote out of three from one source out of then and then changing the sentence to match just that one chosen quote. I object even more to your describing this as "appropriate context." I think you know that one quotation is just one of many cited there. Levivich (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich Yeah, this sentence just seemed egregiously bad.

There are indeed a bunch of sources. None of them individually, nor do they collectively imply that every Zionist throughout history wanted to create a state in the Levant and ethnically cleanse as many Palestinian Arabs as possible. So do you have any suggestions to fix it either so that it accurately represents at least one of the sources or correctly summarizes them in their totality?

A simple clarification of which Zionists, wanted which of these things, when, shouldn't be too much of an ask.

Here's one idea: "Various Zionists at various points in history had goals including..."

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a common mistake in these discussions to think that when we say "zionists" (or "zionism") we mean "every zionist ever". That's not what that means. It reflects the usage of the terminology in RS. That's why we use the terms this way. DMH223344 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is bad and misleading. Early modern Zionists wanted a Jewish-majority state, that's a better way to explain what they wanted. It also ignores that Zionism is more than just early modern Zionism. Andre🚐 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

"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." - Avi Shlaim Levivich (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, but presumably there are some other equally reliable historians like Morris who would criticize his contemporary commentary, I'm guessing. To state something like that flatly in the lead should have a consensus of academics beyond reproach or impeachability, that is my view of what a lead is. A lead is supposed to be pretty boring and uncontroversial. The fact that you read that sentence and raise your eyebrows, despite perhaps being literally true of many Zionist leaders such as Jabotinsky, is a sign that it's not a good sentence for paragraph 1. It might be more defensible in the body, and attributed, and balanced and contextualized. Andre🚐 05:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

"As was suggested by Masalha (1992), Morris (1987), and other scholars, many preferred a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible, and plans for population transfers were considered by Zionist leaders and activists for years." - Hillel Cohen. The fact that the sentence makes you raise your eyebrows says nothing about the whether the sentence is correct. I'd suggest that it means the sentence is educating you. Levivich (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said, many preferred a state with a large Jewish majority and therefore small Arab minority, but the wording of the current phrase in the article, is worded in such a way that makes it sound like they knew about Arab individuals and personally wanted to remove them, which is a stretch. Andre🚐 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not a stretch. They did know about the Arabs, they called it "the Arab Question," and they knew that they were displacing the Arabs.

This is neither surprising nor controversial. Of course Zionists wanted as much land as possible. Obviously!

And of course they wanted the largest Jewish majority possible in that land. Obviously.

And of course that means the smallest Arab minority possible. That's the only way to get the largest Jewish majority possible. It's a zero-sum game.

What people don't like about the sentence is that it says it plainly: the Zionists wanted as much land, as many Jews, and as few Arabs as possible.

People don't like reading that because it makes it sound like the Zionists wanted to take land from Arabs and kick them out of the land.

Well, guess what, that's what Zionism always was. It was always about taking land in Palestine from the Arabs so that it can be used for a Jewish state, and that means a state with as many Jews as possible, which means removing Arabs from the land. That's Zionism. I know it makes it sound like Zionism is a bad thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What can I say? That's what the damn ideology is: it's about taking land from other people and giving it to themselves. The scholars are extremely clear about this, even Zionist scholars like Morris are extremely clear about this. The fact that people find it surprising or uncomfortable just means they're ignorant about what Zionism is. Fixing that ignorance is the purpose of this article.

BTW, I don't have a problem with making changes to that sentence. In my opinion, it doesn't have to say "state". And it doesn't have to say "Zionists wanted," it could say something more like what Morris says, like "Inherent in Zionism is the desire for as much land with as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible," or something like that.

But there is no need to be euphemistic about, as Masalha put it, "maximum land and minimum Arabs." That's a key part of Zionism, as Morris says, inherent in the ideology, from the beginning, and it's the whole thrust of the enterprise. The whole point is to take land from Arabs (by purchase, by grant of imperial powers, by force, however it had to happen) and give it to Jews. There is no avoiding this uncomfortable truth. Levivich (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a euphemism, but Zionism isn't a monolith. It's true that the harder liners and many Zionist leaders had no trouble with violent displacement if that were to be an option, as it became so. I'm not looking to hide that fact from readers at all. But the current phrasing ignores the fact that many people in the Zionist movement were simply buying up junk, poor quality land, land that was only even allowed to be sold to Jews by the Ottoman authorities because it was junk land and the Arabs were selling that land willingly. Those people were also Zionists, just a different strain. Andre🚐 05:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Those people still wanted as much land as possible with as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible. That sentence doesn't say or imply anything about violence or the use of force, it just states what the goal was. Levivich (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That fact is not in evidence AFAIK; while many or most Zionist leaders wanted that, it's not at all clear that all Zionists rank and file wanted that. Many were refugees or religious pilgrims or the poor and they didn't know or have an opinion on the majority but wanted a place to go. I'll certainly stand corrected if you have a source for the rank and file and the poor Zionist refugees' ideologies being Arab-exclusionist. I know that is true of some prominent Zionists, but it doesn't say that AFAIK about every last stinkin random Zionist moving to small agricultural colonies for decades, some of whom weren't up on any kind of intellectual current of thought. Andre🚐 05:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I think (and suggested at #Revert) that it be changed from "Zionists wanted" to something like "Zionism wanted" or "inherent in Zionism" -- I agree this goal should be ascribed to the ideology or the movement, and not to individual Zionists.

Although Adel Manna does say explicitly "The Zionists," and, by '48, "unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations". Cohen says "many," Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury say "most" and "the mainstream". The others (quoted in the citation) ascribe it to leaders, policies, the ideology, or the movement.

But I still think a more faithful summary is to ascribe it to the ideology/movement rather than to individuals, or at least not suggest all Zionists.

I'm curious to see how the "best sources" frame it. Levivich (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

"But the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise. The piecemeal eviction of tenant farmers, albeit in relatively small numbers, during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement naturally stemmed from, and in a sense hinted at, the underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority." - Benny Morris himself. Note, and I've pointed this out on the page before, that he says it's inherent in Zionist ideology, and that it's "in Zionist praxis From the start of the enterprise," that it's the "underlying thrust of the ideology." This is, as Shlaim said, not open to question. There's a lot that Nur Masalha and Morris disagree about, but not about this. Levivich (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Although, in our discussion below, I do not think Shlaim nor Morris has become part of the BESTSOURCES list, have they. When we get to the source survey I think we would be writing something like this sentiment, just phrased better and more neutrally. The facts are facts and I'm not disputing facts, but the wording is not worded to explain the complexities, which it oversimplifies and glosses over. Andre🚐 05:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

We agreed that we weren't going to limit this article to just the BESTSOURCES list, but, I do agree this sentence should be revisited as part of the BESTSOURCES source survey to see if they say the same thing or something different. Levivich (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutral is what the balance of sources say, not what we think is "neutral". Ditto complexities, if there are any, they will be in the sources and not merely opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich Please keep your personal views out of this. We should be looking at the RS. And there are lots of RS which say that groups of early Zionists were opposed to statehood and other Zionists looked at a state in Africa, not Palestine. So, your claims here just are not true:

"...that's what Zionism always was. It was always about taking land in Palestine from the Arabs so that it can be used for a Jewish state, and that means a state with as many Jews as possible, which means removing Arabs from the land. That's Zionism. I know it makes it sound like Zionism is a bad thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What can I say? That's what the damn ideology is:"

Above you referred to this from a RS:

"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"

So, are you okay with updating the text to reflect that source?

"Most Zionist leaders wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land..."

I read the lead again and I think the timeframe is clear enough based on the context. So I think the one change would be sufficient.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Once we have the sources we will decide this as well as the other issues, this back and forth is not useful at present. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That's fair.

But it seems clear there isn't consensus around the current text. Are you okay with it being removed from the article until after all of these issues are addressed?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus, it says so right in the text, an admin recorded that here so there is presently no consensus to remove it at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Note - I edited my own comment. I read through the Revert section in here again. It seems there was consensus, but there was consensus on the text proposed by Levivich. Not really consensus about the text currently on the page.

I don't think that Levivich's is perfect, but I think it's certainly better than what's their current. Are there any objections to making the change to the text which had agreement below swapping "Zionists" with "Zionism"? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Levivich mentioned the following as a possible alternative to "Zionists", that the article should convey that this was an inherent part of Zionist ideology, of Zionism itself and then in this section they said But I still think a more faithful summary is to ascribe it to the ideology/movement rather than to individuals, or at least not suggest all Zionists. So that's not quite the same as just swapping out to "Zionism". Levivich also said that I'm curious to see how the "best sources" frame it, I am equally curious and why I said above Once we have the sources we will decide this as well as the other issues, this back and forth is not useful at present. Is there some desperate hurry to address this now? Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier As I said up top, I think the current version is very misleading. That's why that's why I think we should move forward on an interim fix rather than letting this version sit as-is until some future version is (hopefully) agreed upon. I think by swapping just a couple of words ("Zionism" vs" Zionists") it would be both less misleading and closer to what there was previous consensus on.

@Valereee As I said, above I don't love Levivich's version but I think it's an improvement. I'll keep following along and probably contributing. I'm curious what people can collectively come up with to accurately pack a bunch of sources viewpoints on an ideology that a bunch of shifting views over time and a bunch of dissenting voices into a sentence or two. I could be mistaken, but this seems like a difficult, if not impossible task, which highlights the need for an interim fix while waiting.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, to respond directly to your question, yes, I object per my reasoning above. In addition, the difference between Zionists and Zionism is not that much to get excited about tbh, I see no need for an interim fix. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs, there is no urgency to polish the language. Editors here could spend hours getting language polished that may end up being completely revised in the end, which means they'd have been wasting their time making your interim fix. And multiple people coming in here and demanding such interim fixes can quickly become disruptive to the process of creating the update. There's a reason this talk page is semi'd. It's because we know editors with fewer than 500 edits may not understand the process of working in the most contentious areas. You're going to need to respect that process. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, this page is currently under a consensus required restriction, but there doesn't really seem to be a consensus for the current text. Andre🚐 20:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to figure out what there's consensus for or against here. If you think there is consensus for something and other editors here are refusing to follow it, show what that consensus is. Preferably in as few diffs as possible.

The entire community is hyper aware of the problems in this CTOP, and some of the accusations of cherrypicking I'm seeing from you over the past week or so are making me wonder if you're going to be a net positive here. You've been making these accusations of cherrypicking over your argument that a list of BESTSOURCES about Zionism shouldn't be limited to a list of books primarily about Zionism when (as far as I can tell from this behemoth of a discussion) no one else seems to be arguing that books on the BESTSOURCES list are the only sources that can be used, period. Let's ignore the question of how that actually falls under the definition of cherrypicking: your basic argument feels like nitpicking, and nitpicking here -- especially at a point when people are trying to develop a vision and an overall plan -- is probably not productive. Valereee (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, the current leading sentence was added in July and has been maintained through edit warring, despite strong opposition on this talk page. There was never consensus on the new framing of 'colonization of a land outside Europe.' A quick look at the edit history will show what I mean. The ongoing opposition stems from controversial changes made without consensus, not from any other issue. I have yet to see a source that defines Zionism as we do on Wikipedia after this forced controversial change. Previous discussions (now archived) with quoted sources have clearly shown that the earlier description was more in line with the majority of sources, while the 'colonization'. WP:ONUS suggests that those seeking to change an article should achieve consensus (possibly through an RfC at this point), yet in this case, and only in this case, it seems to be working the opposite way. ABHammad (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Lots of things have happened since July, no need to go looking in archives, see #RFC Workshop: WP:DUE definition of Zionism in the lead for example, being the final round of 5 on this subject before we started to look at best sources in an effort to address recurrent issues. Of course, no-one is preventing an RFC if anyone thinks that's the way forward. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

ABHammad, I've found that a quick look is seldom really a quick look. :) What may seem obvious to you after having contributed here for six months is not likely to be obvious to me at this point. I'm not here to take a side on content or decide who's right. I'd really prefer not even to close RfCs but leave it for someone else to come in and do that. I'm really only here to deal with behavioral issues. If you believe there is consensus for something that other editors are refusing to follow, show that, preferably with as few diffs as possible. Something like diff where consensus was found to change X to Y, diff of me making that change, diff of editor Z reverting is the kind of thing we need to see. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Valereee, I'm engaging in the discussion of BESTSOURCES below, and I agree that only BESTSOURCES are not the only ones should or can be used. I believe there are more issues with the current article than just nitpicking and it seems I'm not the only one that feels that way. It would be unintentional cherrypicking to write a lead section about Zionism that seems to exclude any mainstream Zionist historian's perspective for mostly critical work. A balanced article would include both. That's a legitimate perspective. I continue to believe the current article has a NPOV balance issue. Andre🚐 13:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee the semi has expired on this talk page. TarnishedPath^talk 03:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

TP (or anyone), if disruption starts up from non-EC editors, ping me. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, see Special:Diff/1247597286. Not a lot at the moment but it's started. TarnishedPath^talk 01:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, TP. Hm, I shouldn't probably do anything about it right this minute, as whether I'm involved is being discussed. Since it's just the one so far, maybe not worth pinging another admin quite yet? Valereee (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

FFS, this is only going to get worse if some of the motions at WP:ARCA get up. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Just revert them out and if it gets too bad request protection, not that big of a problem. Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My last comment was in regards to claims of "involved" only getting worse if some of the motions at ARCA get up. TarnishedPath^talk 03:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs, if you'll familiarize yourself with the discussions on this talk page, you'll see that editors here are preparing to do a rewrite. If you are primarily interested in changes like "change Zionist to Zionism in paragraph X", it might be better to give them a chance to do their rewrite, then circle back in a few weeks to help tweak. Valereee (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

And there are Christians who are atheists, etc.Zionists endorsed consensually the idea of making a homeland/state for Jews in a land that was 90-95% Arab. They all knew what that implied or would entail. That is what Zionism meant. One cannot talk one's way around sources, and history.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Looking for feedback on history section

If you have time, please read my draft rewrite of the history section. Specific suggestions and feedback are welcome on the associated talk page in bulleted form. Thank you. DMH223344 (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"Traditionalist Jews strongly opposed collective Jewish settlement in Palestine," - that's overstating what the source claims and misleading. I would strongly oppose using a new draft. Please propose and make changes incrementally to the existing article, word by word sentence by sentence (since this article is under the consensus required restriction) so we can see everything that will added, removed, or changed, that is the Wiki way. Andre🚐 20:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"The Talmud does take up the right of individuals to settle in Israel, but there is a con­sensus against collective settlement." ?

There's plenty of quotes from Rabkin that also support it Traditional Jewish culture discourages political and military activism of any variety, particularly in the Land of Israel... In the traditional view, settlement in the Land of Israel will be brought, about by the universal effect of good deeds rather than by m ilitary force or diplomacy... The Talmud (BT Ketubot, 111a) relates the three oaths sworn on the eve of the dispersal of what remained of the people of Israel to the fourcorners of the earth: not to return en masse and in an organized fashion to the Land of Israel; not to rebel against the nations; and that the nations do not subjugate Israel exceedingly... The idea of return to the Land of Israel achieved by political means is alien to the idea of salvation in Jewish tradition.

and from shapira (also cited on that line): To ultra-Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, the idea of Jews returning to their homeland flew in the face of the fate decreed for them. To them such an act ran counter to the three oaths the Jewish people swore to the Almighty: not to storm the wall, not to rush the End, and not to rebel against the nations of the world, while the Almighty adjured the nations of the world not to destroy the Jewish people.4 They saw an attempt to bring about redemption by natural, man-made means as rebelling against divine decrees, as Jews taking their fate into their own hands and not waiting for the coming of the Messiah. Consequently ultra-Orthodox Jews vehemently opposed this perilous heresy. DMH223344 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

But please take these comments to the corresponding talk page. We can bring in the commentary into an archive here when the discussion is done DMH223344 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

So, no, this is the talk page where changes to this article need to gain consensus; I'm not going to participate on your user draft page. And as the fuller quote you pasted shows, it does not contain the sentence or a substantially similar paraphrase to "Traditionalist Jews strongly opposed collective Jewish settlement." Traditionalist Jews means more than simply ultra-Orthodox Jews, so "ultra-Orthodox" would be the wording you want for Shapira, and I don't see "strongly oppose" but "discourage" in Rabkin. There were indeed anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews and there still are today. But you need to contextualize that with other context and other sources. Rabkin is not one of the BESTSOURCES we agreed on; while reliable in general, he represents an anti-Zionist view and should be balanced. You should contrast this material with how it's presented in more mainstream sources. Andre🚐 21:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've swapped out "traditionalist" for "ultra-orthodox" so it reflects shapira more closely. It is quite mainstream to introduce zionism as a revolt against tradition, as I've done in that opening paragraph. DMH223344 (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There are many issues to object to in this draft. For example, simple errors in naming, you've written Hebrewization of Names, which is commonly referred to as Hebraization of surnames, Leo Pinsker, instead of Leon Pinsker. Your draft removes all the content in the current version under "Historical and religious background" and "Pre-Zionist initiatives," it doesn't mention Moses Montefiore, Judah Touro, or much at all about the First Aliyah. I continue to believe that the way to improve the article is not in forking a brand new draft with some significant issues, but to edit incrementally and gain consensus for each change. Andre🚐 00:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Morris and Avineri also use "Leo"
2. Yes, I've followed RS to determine where I start discussing the history of zionism. You can confirm that most secondary sources on Zionism will start with the same period I did.
3. I do discuss "forerunners to zionism." Interestingly, the section titled "pre-zionist initiatives" in the currently published article totally misses the thinkers and movements usually referred to as prezionist. I have not checked every source cited in that section, but it seems pretty clear to me that it is not the mainstream narrative to include these as prezionist efforts.
4. As for individual prezionists, we have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm happy to have a discussion about inclusion of additional thinkers.
5. Discussion of the first aliyah was pointed out by another editor to be lacking as well.

Really, thanks, this was good feedback. If you have the time, read the rest of the article too, I think you will find that it tracks the mainstream narrative quite closely. DMH223344 (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

(I have multiple old and new sources for both Leo and Leon Pinsker.) Back on topic, there is a problem with the backwards projection of modern ideology onto the past. Essentially all ideologies create a myth that their forerunners thought the same way, and this is true also of Zionism. Claims that Zionism was a predominant ideology in the past often fall apart on close examination. For example, rabbis who wrote about the mitzvah of settling in Eretz Israel were often referring to the time after the arrival of the messiah, but this detail is frequently elided in Zionist literature as also is the fact that those rabbis were not proposing a secular state and would probably have been horrified by the idea. Uncomfortable facts about secular forerunners, such as the fact that Pinsker argued literally until the day he died that Palestine was not the destination Zionists should aspire to, also tend to be omitted. We should look for sources that tell a more factual and transparent story. The fact that Zionism in its early modern stages was vehemently opposed by the religious community in Europe has to be included. Zero^talk 04:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, while I see that you are both correct that many sources use Leo, the point is to wikilink the entry using the WP:COMMONNAME. That is maybe a small nitpick, but a good example of how articles are built by the wisdom of many people using a collective process, and not one person taking a draft and saying how's this to replace the article with. It's a hard no no matter what the draft says, in my humble opinion. Andre🚐 04:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Until about 10 years ago, Leo was more common than Leon. However I wasn't able to find a source that investigates the disagreement. The correct thing is to link directly to our article on the person and leave commonname discussions for over there. I think this is far too petty to indicate anything at all about the value of DMH223344's work. Zero^talk 05:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

My point was in the draft attached, he used the name without a link at all, and it wasn't the name that we use in the article. This would pose a major problem if we were to import this text. Overall, the text as is is not an improvement. Andre🚐 05:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If that's a "major problem", the minor problems must need an electron microscope. Zero^talk 05:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand why you say that, because it seems small in the scheme of things. What I mean is that constructing an article is a complex process of creating a multifarious semantic graph over time. That's why it's a collaborative project done over time by many people, and not monopolized by an individual or a small group, or a small group of sources. So a blind spot could be in forgetting to link Leon Pinsker or in not knowing that Hebraization of surnames is already an article. The proposed draft has significantly fewer blue links and significantly less information on certain aspects of Zionism. This is the overview article of Zionism and includes a smaller history section, but we also have History of Zionism as a main article for that, this article also summarizes Types of Zionism and links to the main article. So I think the proposed draft suffers from a narrowed scope and a paucity of informational breadth. Andre🚐 06:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As long it is not affecting a recently agreed consensus no reason why someone can't do a rewrite in summary style if they want to and also no reason why it can't be reverted or edited with good reason either. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

We can of course add additional wikilinks. That's not challenging or time consuming. DMH223344 (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is able to access this source, can we add a few sentences about malaria in Mandatory Palestine and how it was tied to the Zionist movement?[6] The malaria and both Zionist and Palestinian contributions to combatting malaria helped make the region a safer place to live. Israel Jacob Kligler was the pioneer in malaria eradication, and there was also Tawfiq Canaan. DMH223344’s draft looked mostly ok to me until it got to the part about land purchases and Jews getting 40% of the fertile land. Early settlers were initially sold land that had high malaria levels which turned out to be fertile lands and help map the current state of Israel.

Here’s another source about Jewish colonization and malaria https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11186-020-09402-4

Wafflefrites (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think that this article should focus on Zionism as an ideology, and not get into too much detail about the historical development of Palestine. We have plenty of other articles for that. In the 19th century, pretty much everywhere in the world with the right climatic conditions had malaria. See this map of the United States in 1882 for example. Some of the land purchased by Zionists was malarious and some wasn't. Some of the land not purchased by Zionists was malarious and some wasn't. Zero^talk 06:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In any case this discussion should take place on the draft page. Andrevan is wrong is asserting that all wiki pages are done by piecemeal line by line consensual edits. With complex articles numerous editors have been given leeway to rework them into shape and this indeed is how GA/FA articles are mostly done, with one or two editors at the helm in a redraft. Slim Virgin and myself, to name but a few, have done this without objections and the resulting texts have proved to be stable, without the endless bickering over minutiae which is characteristic of too many areas of wikipedia. The main editor here has consistently worked on this article and workpage collaboratively, and hisseveral editors have followed the work on his draft page. So go there, and, rather than make TLDR arguments, bullet points one thinks need further examination.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Which RS about the history of Zionism cover this detail? DMH223344 (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

“ Sufian bases her title on the traditional Zionist slogan of "healing the land" as a means of "healing the nation." This ideological axiom of the Jewish national movement held that transforming the land and transforming the Jewish people who moved to Palestine were inseparable objectives.” [7]

Maybe one sentence about malaria is enough. Eradicating malaria was one part of the “healing the land” Zionist ideology. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds very niche. Land "redemption" is often discussed in RS about Zionism and Zionist ideology. But "healing" the land (whatever that means) does not sound like a key component of zionist ideology or praxis according to RS which give an overview of Zionism.

I'm not necessarily opposed to its inclusion. But a single sentence on this would really come out of nowhere. In the middle of the description of the Peel commission you want to include a sentence about how some zionists saw themselves as "healing the land" which had high rates of malaria?

If this omission is your main issue with the draft, then it sounds like the draft is in pretty good shape. (also there's no mention of malaria anywhere on the currently published article) DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

it’s how the Zionists argued for their land policies to the British. The slogan is “havra’at hakara” which means healing the land or also “havra’at Haaretz “. Redemption of land is Geulat Haaretz.[8] Wafflefrites (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

havra’at hakara should be havra’at hakarka. One could note this but it is rather complex since those early Zionists saw 'healing the land' as a technique of 'healing the Jewish people', so the physical effort of cultivation the land was conceived of as a mode to redeem the physically (in the racial terminology opf that period in which much of this argumentation is embedded) degenerated Jews of the diaspora. That is one reason some 60,000 were deselected for aliyah by 1914, because they were deemed unfit to become good material for the kind of new muscular Jew being imagined by Zionists. Touch one minor point and one must draw in contexts that demand broader treatment. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Penslar on colonialism/settler colonialism

Assuming we all agree that Penslar's latest missive qualifies as a best source, at Part II Zionism as Colonialism (p 67-96), I lifted out some pertinent quotes

"There is a deep divide, however, between scholars who do and do not conceive of Zionism as a variety of colonialism. Debates about virtually every aspect of the history of Zionism and Israel boil down to clashing conceptions of the essence of the Zionist project—whether it has been one of homecoming and seeking asylum or one of colonial settlement and expropriation."

"Two key questions run through the debate over Zionism and colonialism. First, is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self- determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land? And second, has Israel been willing to integrate into the Arab Middle East, or is it determined to dwell in isolation, buttressed by alliances and cultural ties with Western powers?"

"In many ways, the debate about Zionism and colonialism still operates within the terms that Said established." [1979 Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims]

"One final introductory point: Zionism and Israel are not identical. Zionism is a nationalist project that originated almost 150 years ago and whose relationship with colonialism is as variegated as the subforms that we examined in the last chapter. Linkages between policies of the Israeli state and colonialism are more clear-cut, but we need to determine, rather than merely assert, that these policies were formulated in the name of Zionism and what Zionism has meant to Israelis in positions of power."

"Of all the varieties of Zionism discussed in the first chapter, Statist Zionism is most clearly linked with colonialism because of the alliances its leaders sought with the West’s Great Powers"

"Zionism’s strongest links with colonialism lie in attitudes and practices toward Palestine and the Palestinians."

"There are, in fact, good reasons to place Israel within a settler-colonial framework, but that framework requires considerable expansion, both geographic and conceptual, beyond what is commonly found."

In the Conclusions

"Our comparative examination of colonial indigenization places Zionism within a settler-colonial matrix while allowing for its particularities, like a celestial body with an eccentric orbit around its sun." "The questions underlying this chapter, like its predecessor, are about Zionism’s most essential and salient qualities."

Also worth looking at Penslar's earlier thoughts on the matter and Cole's analysis of it in Colonialism and the Jews Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Those are very pertinent and germane quotes. In particular, Penslar points out in this excerpt you've helpfully highlighted that Zionism's relationship to colonialism is very much a matter of scholarly debate. When there's a debate amongst sources Wikipedia should highlight it as well. Andre🚐 14:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Statist Zionism?

It says in the article "Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the prominent architect of early statist Zionism" but in Types of Zionism it says that Jabotinsky is associated with Revisionist Zionism. Penslar, p47 "Statist Zionism’s distinguishing characteristic is a focus on Jewish self-determination as the keystone supporting all other forms of Zionism......"Initially, Statist Zionism did not necessarily demand a sovereign state for Jews in Palestine." Is this a "Type" of its own or a convenience terminology? Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a great question. I'd say it's not a separate altogether distinct type. Statism itself is a political tendency which in this case describes Political and Revisionist Zionism. Andre🚐 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to describe it as it's own type. In Penslar's discussion he describes it as one of the eight "ingredients" which "blend" to various degrees. DMH223344 (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

True, he refers to the "types" as a "heuristic", but does call them "The eight types of Zionism laid out here all correspond with varieties of nationalism throughout the modern world". It seems though that the Statist type is the currently predominant type? "Well into the twenty-first century, the word “Zionism” signified the Israeli state’s paradoxical blend of vulnerability and strength, achievement and unfulfilled purpose. The same dual definition of contemporary Statist Zionism as a celebration of the state’s very existence and a belief in its permanent impermanence has had currency in the Jewish diaspora." Selfstudier (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Statism is not its own type, but it's contrasted with socialist and labor Zionism where they were basically kibbutzim, ie self-organizing collectives. Political and revisionist Zionism, which became the predominant type, are also statist because of the role of the centralized authority. Andre🚐 01:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Where to start this article

Our article spends an inordinate amount of space discussing the period between 600 BCE and 1882 CE. I recently swapped out a portion of this period (14th century - 19th century) to focus on the prezionist initiatives which emerged in the second part of the 19th century. Most RS on Zionism will either start there, or give a brief overview of the time before. It's great that we compiled a list of best sources to use as an overview for this article. @Andrevan, can you show me which sources emphasize the 600BCE-1882CE period in this list? DMH223344 (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

There are already sources for the statements that you removed in the article. I suggest we start by taking a closer look at those and see what the broader context is in those sources, and if they belong here, or not. As discussed, the BESTSOURCES survey, which as I understand it is still in progress, is for determining the weight of sentences summarizing the article in lead, and other sources not in that list are available for use in the article; WP:PRESERVE tells us to try to fix the problems with the content already there. Most of your edits have added, and not removed material, but I reverted this one because it was a significant cut to the preexisting content. Andre🚐 01:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia entry does not mention zionism.

I dont read hebrew.

I can't find where to access "Aliya and Pilgrimage in the Early Arab Period (634–1009)" (not at my library) but will try harder to find it.

"Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman Europe" doesnt mention Zionism

"The Sultan's Renegades: Christian-European Converts to Islam and the Making of the Ottoman Elite: 1575–1610" also does not mention Zionism.

That's all the sources.

The discussion from 600BCE-Mid19thcent is so obviously a mess of sources having nothing to do with Zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The prehistory is not only inordinate, it is a pathetic pastiche of 'stuff', much pasted from other articles, that have nothing to do with modern Zionism. There are really funny patches of WP:OR all over the place.

The number of Jews migrating to the land of Israel rose significantly between the 13th and 19th centuries, mainly due to a general decline in the status of Jews across Europe and an increase in religious persecution, including the expulsion of Jews from England (1290), France (1391), Austria (1421), and Spain (the Alhambra decree of 1492).

Oh really? There is far too much poor sourcing, and, it would seem that the strict requirement on reference relevance Zionism has been totally neglected here. Every article about Israel cannot be prefaced by carry-over 'stuff' more or less from various other articles dumped in to makes the same points. The article is about Zionism, and precursors can be handled in a paragraph. A history of Jewish immigration to Palestine is irrelevant to Zionism, since it was traditionally unrelated to nationalism.etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

My Hebrew isn't fluent, but you can usually get pretty far with Google Translate, see WP:NONENG, but we shouldn't remove stuff indiscriminately without verifying. I'm sure we can find better sources than the JE, which is quite old, but it's commonly used on Wikipedia because the licensing is friendly. I agree that there are problems with the current text, and I agree that modern Zionism generally starts in 1882, but I would say that the 1840 and 1850 activities by Touro and Montefiore do belong in the context of pre- or proto-Zionism, such as Yehuda Bibas. Hess, who you mentioned, is 1862. I'd suggest Conforti would be helpful here. I don't agree that mention of pre-modern aliyah as Wikipedia terms is off-limits here, for example in terms of connecting Sabbateanism, see Charvit. This seems like a good article about "heralds of Zionism," for example Dinur included Judah HeHasid in 1700. In general, some overview of pre-modern Zionism is merited here, and we need to balance or contrast the anti-Zionist authors such as Rabkin to show the shades of scholarly debate on these matters, which consist of multiple narratives. Per [9], traditionalist Judaism and Hasidism didn't have one unified view on Zionism. It was a controversial thing. Andre🚐 02:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason to think this stuff was removed indiscriminately. I think, just based on the improvement in the quality of sources alone, DMH's edit should be restored. We don't need to be citing tertiary sources, deadlinks to websites, books that aren't about Zionism, WP:MDPI, etc. Start the history wherever the "best sources" start the history (I haven't looked yet). Levivich (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty effectively indiscriminate if he admits there were several sources he didn't look at or check, that is what I meant. Anyway, I added a better source to the Sabbateanism, so that should stay in. I also added Yehuda Bibas (1789-1852), Tzvi Kalischer (1795-1874), and Judah Alkalai (1798-1878), as well as the aforementioned info on HeHasid. All sourced reliably, to the sources I posted in my previous message, and the Hillel Cohen 1929 book (though, better sources could always be added) Also, we should check out Stanislavski, one of the best sources, pp.11-13 Andre🚐 03:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting use of the page needed template btw. DMH223344 (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Levivich, WP:MDPI, really? It's the Religions journal, "Religions is an international, interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, open access journal." You really think Amir Mashiach wouldn't be reliable even if he had self-published? Andre🚐 03:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the source selection criteria you're applying? Levivich (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking for reliable sources to fix the problems with the citations needed in this section, per WP:PRESERVE. I really don't understand your MDPI concern here. The source is reliable and anyway it's citing another historian whom I attributed. I'm sure another source can be found, but the objection feels misplaced. Only 5% of MDPI journals are mentioned in that RSP post, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Andre🚐 03:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

How about Messianism, Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism By Aviezer Ravitzky · 1996 University of Chicago Press, p. 228, or even Sand p. 140Andre🚐 04:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. You say you're "looking for" reliable sources... there are 16 listed at #Best sources, so you don't have to look very far. Why not look at those? Levivich (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

We should use those sources to guide weight for the lead and to guide authoritative questions when there are disputes within sources or how to structure things, but many details can and should be sourced to sources other than those. The edits in question and the recent additions made to the article do not exclusively use those either, nor should they be required to. The existence of HeHasid's 1700 proto-Zionist endeavor is something referred to in enough reliable sources that it deserves mention here even if it doesn't find itself mentioned in the top 15. There are hundreds of books and articles that are reliable about these topics. Andre🚐 04:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

How many sources about Zionism refer to HeHasid's 1700 proto-Zionist endeavor, or call it proto-Zionist? There are hundreds of thousands of books and articles that are reliable about these topics. That's why we need a source selection criteria that's better than "is a reliable source." No, it doesn't have to be limited to the 16 best sources, but (a) that's a good place to start on any question, and "where to start this article" is definitely a "how to structure things" question, and (b) even as we move beyond them, we should have some source selection criteria that's tighter than "is a reliable source," because while we don't need to limit ourselves to the 10 or 20 "best" sources, we don't need to go alllll the way down to MDPI, or all the back to the 1990s, either. We both know very well that there are dozens of full-length books about Zionism by top scholars from the last 20 years, and we've put together a pretty good list. If we want to know "where to start this article," there are 16 top sources listed on this page, and another 50 great sources listed on the bibliography page. I see no reason to skip over all of those and start throwing in obscure articles. One thing I liked about DMH's edit is the quality of the sources. Levivich (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

His edit introduced Shimoni 95, which is from the year before the UChicago book above. Andre🚐 04:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

OK so yeah I'd replace that one with something newer :-) But speaking of editing incrementally, I think that edit was an incremental improvement. Levivich (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

At the very least it looks like no one is arguing that we should start the discussion before 1700. DMH223344 (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. We may only have sufficient weight in reliable sourcing that describes Zionism going back to 1700, but for example, read the beginning of Edelheit. Similarly, Sabbateanism happened in the 1600s if I'm not mistaken, which should also be included. Andre🚐 06:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If you think Sabbateanism is a significant WP:ASPECT of Zionism, make the case: how many books about Zionism cover Sabbateanism, and how much coverage of it do they give? Levivich (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I will, but not right now, because I should step away for a bit, and others may want to opine too. But, I want to again opine, that it's not "books about Zionism" but "any sufficiently reliable source," which includes reliable and cited books and journal articles about Zionism or Jewish messianism that mention Zionism, books or articles about the history of Judaism that mention Zionism or cover it etc. If they talk about Zionism, they are RS that count for weight, and it doesn't exclusively need to be a book about Zionism. Nor does it need to be in the majority of RS to have weight. Andre🚐 06:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:BESTSOURCES: "When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Yup, which includes reliable journal articles, and books that aren't exclusively general histories of Zionism. Andre🚐 15:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Journal articles aren't "the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources" on Zionism. 100,000 sources can't be the best and most authoritative, it's too large of a pile. Neither are books. Some journal articles are. Some books are. But not every journal article or book is going to be a "best source." Levivich (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok so at the very least no one is arguing that we should cover anything before 1600. I'll delete everything covering the period before that tomorrow. DMH223344 (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't checked those sources out enough, but if they do not mention Zionism explicitly or only mention it in passing for something unrelated, you should remove them as WP:SYNTH, but please check them to make sure. Andre🚐 06:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

"My Hebrew isn't fluent, but you can usually get pretty far with Google Translate." :picard Dan Murphy (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As in Star Trek? Sorry, I'm more of a Wars guy, but I was watching some Babylon 5 recently. Anyway, this snippy rejoinder to me in another thread [10] put it more succinctly, which I rather enjoyed even tho it was at my expense, "Google Translate exists." But more seriously, it's a legitimate point. A better source may exist but we should totally expect some sourcing to be in Hebrew since that's what they speak in Israel, the country where Zionism is most relevant, so we can't just remove sources that are in Hebrew. It also wouldn't be completely out of the question that we consider what sources in the French, German, Russian, and Hebrew sphere. Andre🚐 04:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe for niche and specific points, but not for historical background. Any relevant historical background would be covered by many english sources. DMH223344 (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at where the #Best sources start (I couldn't access Conforti 2024, and couldn't figure out where Gans 2016 started):

• Amar-Dahl: mid-19th c.
• Engel: timeline's first entries are 721 BCE, 586 BCE, 135 CE, 632 CE, 1517, 1700, 1850s...; from the intro: "if you want to know where the Zionist movement came from, you'll need some rudimentary information about what Jews experienced as a group before the movement first appeared on the scene. That's where Chapter 1 begins." Ch. 1 spends about 4 pages on Biblical Israel through French Revolution.
• Forriol: late 18th c.
• Halperin: 1882/1st Aliyah
• Masalha: 19th c. but 19th c. biblical studies
• Penslar: 19th c., with a section about "forerunners" covering 18th c./Haskalah
• Dieckhoff: 18th c./Haskala (also refers to "forerunners")
• Wagner & Davis: early 19th c./post-French Revolution
• Brenner: 19th c.
• Black: 19th c.
• Stanislawski: 19th c.; brief mention of "forerunners" (which are mid-19th c. figures); about one page on pre-19th c. stuff
• Sachar: late 18th c./French Revolution
• Alam: late 19th c.
• Gans 2008: late 19th c.

One thing I noticed going through those is that Penslar, Dieckhoff, and Stanislawski, when they talked about forerunners, talked about how they weren't really important, and questioned the concept of forerunners. This argument seems supported by the fact that so many of these books pay little or no attention to the forerunners, and instead provide a general backdrop of life for Jews in Europe post-French Revolution, and then it's on to Herzl. Levivich (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if only 3 or 4 of the "best sources" start before the mid-19th century, that isn't an argument that the article should not. Andre🚐 04:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I think it is actually an argument, and a pretty good one, that if only 3 or 4 sources out of 14 cover something, that thing might not be a significant WP:ASPECT or WP:DUE for inclusion. But in this case, I think half of the sources cover pre-19th century stuff, so the Wikipedia article should, too, but pre-19th century stuff should be short (compared to 19th c. and 20th c.), and IMO we should include the aspects that are included in these sources (and other sources of similar quality). For example, when I was skimming these sources, I saw multiple sources mentioned Haskalah, the French Revolution, and when they talked about forerunners, they all seemed to mention Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, Judah Alkalai, and Moses Hess. I didn't do a thorough search, but I didn't notice Bibas or HeHasid mentioned, and I noticed one mention of Sabbateanism, and all they said was that it was a "little known" Jewish messianic movement (it said the other pre-Zionist Jewish messianic movement was better known: Christianity). Levivich (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

HeHasid is mentioned in the Edelheit that we just added. Ravietzky isn't categorized in the criteria of a general book, because it's more specialized, but it's still reliable. Similarly, there's Morgenstern. Just because we defined the criteria as "general histories," doesn't mean that if something appears in other reliable specialized sources, be they books or journal articles, that it can't be mentioned here. If so, please make that argument using Wikipedia policy, as I'm not aware of it. Andre🚐 05:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:V § Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: just because something appears in an RS doesn't mean it should appear in this article. WP:ASPECT (for facts) and WP:DUE (for viewpoints) expressly say we include content in proportion to its coverage in RS. The article should cover what appears in most sources, not what appears in any or just a few sources. Remember, there are other articles for more in-depth information. Details of pre-Zionism history can go in articles like History of Zionism and Proto-Zionism. Levivich (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

True, but WP:BESTSOURCES clearly includes journal articles. So how do we justify excluding all journal articles in favor of only books? Andre🚐 05:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said that. But one reason not to include just any journal article is that "Zionism" has like 179,000 hits on Google Scholar. Journal articles are fine, but we should "skim from the top," meaning limit it to the best authors and the best journals, however we define that. Keep in mind, this article is an overview of Zionism, it's a high-level general overview of a very broad topic, and a main purpose is to guide readers to the right sub-article. There really isn't anything in an encyclopedia article about Zionism that we wouldn't find in a book about Zionism. If you have to go to journal articles for a particular fact that isn't in the book, it's probably not an important aspect of Zionism. Now, there are probably some journal articles that are excellent sources for particular aspects of Zionism, and sure we can cite those. But in that case, we're talking about an article being a better source for particular content, which could still be sourced to any given book about Zionism. As an example: there are no doubt books about Herzl that are better sources for Herzl than any of the #Best sources. And there are no doubt articles about the Uganda Scheme that are probably better sources for the Uganda scheme than any book about Zionism or any book about Herzl. So we might cite the HErzl biography when we talk about Herzl, and the article when we talk about the Uganda Scheme, but we're still talking about aspects (Herzl and Uganda Scheme) that we could source to any of the general Zionism overview books. As opposed to using an article for a fact or aspect that isn't in any, or many, or most, of the books. Levivich (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the overview article of Zionism yes, but we should take the Timeline of Zionism as far back as there are reliable sources. Not hitting on every single point, but if an event appears in a sufficient number of RS, WP:DUE doesn't justify excluding that except in cases of extreme length. I didn't say to include any journal article, but when we look at weight, there are many reliable journals and journal articles to include. Similarly, specialized books. I don't agree that any fact not in the books but in journal articles doesn't belong in the overview article. I think that's an overzealous skimming of the cream. We need a bit of half and half too. Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources If it's not 0, I don't see how 0 is a fair proportion for a significant fact. Andre🚐 06:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The weight of various aspects should reflect that in RS. +1 to the explanation Levivich has given many many times on this page. DMH223344 (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Andrevan. You participated intensely in our discussion on (b)restricting composition of this page to the very best latest academic sources, and approved of the high bar Levivich and others set forth. In this thread, you are taking the diametrically opposed view for the pre-history of Zionism, with (b) an open Sesame policy to a huge source base that is not primarily about Zionism. Why the double standard, when the general consensus that emerged was in favour of one restrictive criterion, in a short range of best recent research, consensually drawn up?Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Eh? I certainly did not argue that this page should be restricted to the best sources. In fact, I've been regularly pushing back on unduly cherrypicking. As I've said, the best sources should be used to guide weight for the lead. Please don't mischaracterize my statements without diffs, thanks. Andre🚐 08:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan, please stop making accusations of cherrypicking without evidence. Your argument seems to be that any source that is primarily about Zionism is likely to be biased, and that's what you're basing these accusations on. Unless you can provide some evidence that this is true, please just stop making this accusation. Accusing others of cherrypicking also implies they'd be doing so intentionally, which is a violation of AGF.

I explained to you at your talk the problem with including general sources: that increases the number of sources by such a large number that the BESTSOURCES list inevitably becomes unmanageable, and other editors tend to throw up their hands and walk away. Unless you have evidence that general sources are somehow necessary to avoiding bias -- which when you assert without proof is simply your opinion -- please stop bludgeoning about this. No one else here seems to be objecting to a BESTSOURCES list, and has also been explained to you, not being on the BESTSOURCES list doesn't mean a source cannot be used at all. Valereee (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Cherrypicking, as I've said a few times, is not always intentional, but an unintentional blind spot. Andre🚐 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Just stop using the term. It's an accusation, and you have not presented evidence. Valereee (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not an accusation, and when I used it in the last comment, I was referring to what I was previously doing, to refute Nishidani's misquote and mischaracterization of my statements, and not making a fresh claim. Andre🚐 16:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

'I do think we should have objective criteria that applies to the whole list.'

That is what you asserted as a principle earlier. Using the criteria Levivich laid down, you accepted Gans but excluded Alam, in a strict exclusionary view of relevance. In this thread you are all over the place with no 'objective criteria' in sight. The effect is the impression that youy're fine with restrictive rules on Zionism, rules which give little weight to the past or old precedents, but not so with writing up stuff about pre-Zionism. That is a recipé for the kind of mess many of those prehistorical passages create. If histories of Zionism do not cover pre-Zionism back to BCE or the medieval period, then to only mention messianic movements en passant, then coherence requires editors to stick to that scholarly choice. Not to do so is to open the floodgates for the WP:OR violations we have throughoput these sections, with past editors just chucking in stuff about immigration, exile, persecutions etc., from sources that do not specialize in Zionism but the Jewish people, background that modern histories of Zionism give small account of.Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not a quote from me. That is a quote from Levivich. Andre🚐 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies to both you and Levivich. But you were fine with a cut-off date at 2000, and ventured to include or exclude (Alam/Gans) on restrictive lines, after earlier pressing to expand the range of acceptable sources. I'll drop it.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said, there is a legitimate use for a shortlist of the best-best sources, but it's not to restrict the page or exclude any other source from being used; nor do the recent additions exclusively draw from that list. Andre🚐 16:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've seen anyone arguing a BESTSOURCES list excludes other sources from being used? Long TP, maybe I missed it? Valereee (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Nishidani argued the page should be restricted to the best sources in this same thread. Andre🚐 16:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I have never argued for that, I argued for the opposite in fact, that subsidiary detail would likely require other sources but that doesn't mean I agree that any and all sources are acceptable. High citation journal articles might be OK whereas one would have to examine, for example, low citation recent journal articles. Quite happy to try and work out the best journal sources just as for the books. Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I didn't say you? Andre🚐 16:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I know you didn't, let's not make this a two editor thing tho, realistically there is no real dispute about multi sourcing, for me this whole sourcing exercise is a means to an end, avoid the edit/revert cycle in the future, as much as is possible anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to this, where Nishidani said the general consensus that emerged was in favour of one restrictive criterion, in a short range of best recent research, consensually drawn up? Nishidani, were you intending to argue that no other sources could be used at all, even if there was separate consensus to use them for some bit of content but not to add them to BESTSOURCES? Valereee (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to Andrevan. You participated intensely in our discussion on (b)restricting composition of this page to the very best latest academic sources, and approved of the high bar Levivich and others set forth. Andre🚐 16:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, same question to Nishidani: Were you arguing that no other sources could be used at all, even with consensus to do so, or that it was the BESTSOURCES list that was being restricted to the very best latest academic sources? Valereee (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

We have articles like Aliyah and History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel that are appropriate for the pre-modern stuff. There are already more than enough things from the middle of the 19th century onwards to make for a fat article and we don't need a catalogue of earlier things. That's especially true when those earlier things were almost all quite different from the Zionism that later emerged. Zero^talk 12:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps go with 19th century and to the extent earlier times are considered they should be discussed only with how the post 19th century has viewed/used them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed that large patchwork about the Jewish people, which is a very familiar narrative repeated over multiple pages, and very much a modern construction. There is general agreement here that we write that background according to how the best sources on Zionism represent precursors. It is a very bad practice to copy and paste material across articles, and if one rewrites an article, nothing should be assumed as a given from other wiki pages. I left in the bit about next year in Jerusalem. But that apparently arose among a number of Ashkenazi communities in the late medieval period and to selectively take historical innovations in one group (in the medieval period Ashkenazi were a very small community compared to Mizrachi) as typical of all Jewish communities worldwide is a common approach in popular history, but misleading. Likewise on immigration. For 2500 years Palestine was a net supplier to the diaspora of emigrants - and in almost any period down to modern times, any Jew with the means could emigrate from the diaspora back to Palestine without hindrance. They didn't. Maimonides made a visit to the desolation, and quickly returned 'home'.. They no more did this than the massive Mediterranean Jewish populations around BCE-CE entertained the idea of returning to Palestine. Emigrating outwards offered better prospects, but the narrative we have, which derives from rabbinical meditations on galut, and does not reflect historical realities. The expulsion from Spain under modern history's first fascist, Isabella, led to some notable movements towards the Levant, but the small, perhaps 2,000 strong Jewish community in Palestine, after an initial boost, collapsed against until the 1800s, and the stabilization after 1830s allowed renewed interest. The text I removed, furthermore,was Ashkenazocentric. Any account of Jewish attachment to Israel should, but rarely does, cite this theme as it emerges in all Jewish communities, from Kaifeng to Morocco, from Ethiopia to Russia. Etc etc.15:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)

Christian Zionism

Provocative question: "Is it only a "Jewish thing"?

I'm putting this down here because it is part of "what do we cover". There are strains of Zionism that run beyond perhaps more narrow forms of ethnonationalism per se, including Christian Zionism. (See eg. "The phenomenon of Christian Zionism is complex and takes many forms, both distinct from and overlapping with the numerous Jewish forms . . .has been promoted especially by Christians operating within a premillennial dispensationalist frame of reference and that this particular form of Zionism has had significant public impact and influence." Moberly RWL. GENESIS 12:3A: A BIBLICAL BASIS FOR CHRISTIAN ZIONISM? In: The Theology of the Book of Genesis. Old Testament Theology. Cambridge University Press; 2009:162-178. Chapter 9) (For some reason with Cambridge I am having trouble beyond pasting beyond https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-theology-of-the-book-of-genesis at FD8D9B82E904E55D1424583B423B68F1 but you can search in your browser)

Covering such here more has at least two effects, which I think might benefit understanding and editing the subject (and also make it less perhaps Jew/non-Jew, and more ideas/critique): reception/support in "the [Christain influenced] West", so to speak, in modern times, and that criticisms are not always or even principally concerned with ethnic makeup of adherents. That's my suggestions, and I really don't have more to add but I thought I would suggest these thoughts for you all to consider. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an article covering Christian Zionism. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That's what I said, but my point was its part of understanding modern Zionism, particularly in its modern effects ("significant public impact and influence"). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not one of the Types of Zionism tho, so they are essentially supporters of (religious) Zionism? Second coming and so on plus political support (for Israel), US in particular in more recent times. Earlier, it was associated with imperial (British) colonialism and there was also quite a bit of support in England in the run up to the Balfour Declaration altho Idk how much attention the British government actually paid to it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If a society is raised on the stories of the Christian Old Testament, it stands to reason it might have some significant effect or impact beyond the stories or theology to world view. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with that, and it's always nice to have support for a cause, I just don't quite see the effect on Zionism per se. Selfstudier (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw mention of it when I was flipping through the opening chapters of the best sources list yesterday, but I don't remember exactly what they said or how much time they spent on it. I'll check again later. My vague recollection is that it was included in discussion of forerunners of Zionism. Levivich (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The perennial danger is reading the past in terms of contemporary perceptions or interests. Religions and ideologies generally make immense claims on the past: the use it is a warrant for their contemporary positions. But if you want to know about, say, the origins of Christianity, doing that, from any modern Christian viewpoint, won't get you far. Scholarship tries to suspend or brackets retroactive reinterpretations by restricting analysis to all relevant documentation specific to the period of its emergence. Likewise with Zionism, we want to know as far as possible what the documentary record for its formative period tells us about what Zionists, their thinking, perceptions and organizing principle - here, for rexample, to what degree its central European principles were influenced by the evangelical proponents of a Jewish homeland who had some currency from the 1840s onwards. We connect the two if the literature on the history of early Zionism does, according it the weight those works do generally.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)