Talk:Zionism/Archive2

Current article is bad, proposed new one is bad
They're both just poorly written. Sorry, I know a lot of people have worked hard on them, but there's so much kludge in there. Almost unreadable. Very little interesting snark, and myths and other woo are discussed in such an obfuscatory manner that it's difficult to follow. I suggest starting with a clear and simple outline, and then filling it in with an eye towards a clean and streamlined article that stays relatively on mission. Stop riding your hobbyhorses. Here's a sample of a good way to begin. Just a suggestion, though... I guess if arguing about the article is your hobby, you might want to just keep going as y'all have been.-- 18:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, the current version not completed. Second, it is significantly improved over the almost entirely unsourced version it replaced -- six times more references are now there. Third, your objections to the current, newer are overbroad and vague, and for those reasons are not helpful.---Mona- (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While it's true there are a ton of references, that doesn't seem like a good metric. Probably the best metrics would be:
 * Is it readable?
 * Does it address our mission?
 * Is it interesting?
 * The current and proposed new versions are neither readable, interesting, nor particularly on-mission. If these criticisms seem broad, it's because the problems with the article sprawl widely, and if these criticisms seem vague, then I can be clearer: I cannot imagine a human being who would want to read either article, outside of extreme partisans and the editors involved.
 * But hey, everybody does need a hobby.-- 19:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * it does need much more snark though. Keep that in mind. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? I felt (and discussed this last nite in the coop) that snark on such a controversial article is BEGGING for trouble and would be gratuitously inflaming those who disagree. Do you actually think a lot of snark is something we should go for with such a sensitive and incindiary topic? I have it in two places (I can think of), but have just been waiting for someone to revert it.---Mona- (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Moar snark.-- 19:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so. I snarked up the introductory section a bit more. Let's see how well that is received before I unleash my Snark Beast further---Mona- (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at this sentence: "Of course, every country on the earth can be seen as a result of settler colonialism, but whereas the Western world has renounced or at least ended such conquests (though not non-Western nations such as China in Africa [5] [6], among others), and in some cases even attempted some things resembling reparations, Israel, being a bit of a latecomer to the party, is still engaging in stealing land forcible settlement outside its generally-recognized borders."
 * I count five qualifiers expressing uncertainty, three intensifiers, and four asides including one parenthetical thoughts. And the whole damn article looks like that.  In the entire six-paragraph (!!) klunky introduction, we find only a handful of clear declarative sentences.
 * This is bad writing: hard to understand and impossible to enjoy. It's the product of countless small hedges, changes, and asides.  Clear it all out, use what's here as a resource, and write a cohesive article composed of clear paragraphs that works together as a whole.
 * And moar snark.-- 20:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we can only be clear if we agree on the direction we want to take. As of know my humble self, Arisboch and others disagree with Mona's electronic Intifada. Unfortunately, some guy tends to side with Mona and has thus ensured that a factual discussion of Zionism on the merits cannot happen, as one side is barred from participation. Many of these asides are of course Mona's attempts to insert propaganda against Israel and justifications for its enemies to be disgusting excuses for human beings Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Intifada?" Epistemic rationality, dude.  Learn it.
 * The angle of the article is impossible to discern at the moment, so you and that other guy can rest easy. No one is reading it, either way, whose mind could ever be changed by what they read.
 * Trust me: a clear introduction and organization will cure what ails this article. If we don't allow anyone's terribly-written and densely-hedged crap into the article, then it doesn't matter whose terribly-written and densely-hedged crap wins.
 * I'm sure Mikal is doing his best with what he has to work with. And I'll also say that people try to take the fast solution way too often, sometimes, particularly when it involves discarding hours of hard work from another person.  But this article needs the Gordian treatment.  It could also do with being left alone by Mona, you, and the other guy.-- 20:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AD, you go write a draft version at your talk page. Write it the way you think it should be done. Then offer it for consideration. I promise not to edit one word of it.---Mona- (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also AD. That sentence you quoted? That came about because of mob editing and compromises. You should check the FR to see why certain things are there. (And you'd have that same issue in any draft you yourself might undertake unless you wrote it entirely alone and it had to remain unchanged after being placed on the main article page.) In any event, I cleaned it up some. But I really intend for a through meta-editing for elegance after all the sections are done and all compromises reached.---Mona- (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Citations needed
I've filled in a few, but wish to return to text writing on incomplete sections. If some others (hi User:ChrisAmiss) could look at sections where I am less proficient: "Secular Zionism," "Islamic Zionism" and especially "Historical Anti-Zionism," if you fill in some references I will make burnt offerings to FSM in your name.---Mona- (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whenever this is actually done (as much as a wiki ever is), can citations 64 and 65 have their links put through bitly or some link shortening or something? Those URLs are breaking my mobile screen and making it impossible to read the article (that's not just a problem with this one, by any means, but this isn't going to be the one I start playing with citations on!) Argenti Aertheri (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, that'd be great, but I don't know how to do that!---Mona- (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming I can Internet, this will take you to this section of this page -- http://bit.ly/1YJbMNt -- and this -- https://bitly.com/shorten/ -- is how I did it. I'd read their ToS and such before using it here, but it's a lifesaver for Twitter and the like. Argenti Aertheri (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I won't get to it tonite, but I will at some point soon.---Mona- (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you for the love of all that's unholy spell "night" right? There is a good etymological reason for the "gh" to be there (in other Germanic dialects there is a "ch" there). And as we all know the way it's pronounced does not matter for English spelling. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it matter Avenger?&#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * *replaces "night" with "favour", "gh" with "ou", "Germanic dialects" with "French", "ch" with "eu" and watches Avenger squirm in agony* :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:42, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

What in the name of Haruhi
Is a Jewish DNA presence? Another dumbass edit to accuse the Jews "Zionists" of racism (although, given, that Paravant have Mona the go-ahead to turn this article into even more of a hit piece than it already was by de-sysopping me (and Avenger), I'm not in the least surprised)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Who knows? Maybe we end up with the Khazar myth presented on this page once Mona is done... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put it past her.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I added that because AD and Paravant both said the thing needs more snark. I don't actually like it. I don't feel this article is conducive to a lot of snark and said so. They disagreed.---Mona- (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

One weekend away and all hell breaks lose...
Oh well, there I was away for not even the whole weekend and now this... I kind of like the suggestion above to only address Zionism where it directly relates to our mission and leave for Wikipedia what Wikipedia does best. Another suggestion (that would now probably be rejected by Mona out of hand) would be to have one skeleton article here that tries to stay neutral and on the issue and links from it to one or more opinion articles in essay-space where Mona and the other side may lay out their views for the benefit of those wishing to read on the "Israel is evil colonizer occupant kill them all free Palestine" versus the "Israel can do no wrong, Hamas are terrorists who deserve to be punished" interpretations of the issue. But given that- if I am not ill informed this page is currently locked in a peculiar way as to lock out both me and Arisboch, I fear that the Anti-Zionist bloc will be unlikely to even consider anything less thaen the total Endsieg of their side... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And by purging us, Paravant did ensure, that Mona and Chris can turn the article into exactly that (and not, that this kinda stuff is anything new here, the article on the USS Liberty incident look like something piratecopied from Alex Jones' pages).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the USS Liberty incident? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * During the Six-Day War, Israel attacked, by mistake, an US spy ship. According to a bunch of tin-foil hat wearers, Israel did it on purpose.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly a "purge". Exaggeration much? &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not enough people de-sysopped for Mona to turn the article into complete shit?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the usual response? Cock up before conspiracy? Let's face it... in 1967 intelligence and precision bombing where far from what they are now. It is extremely likely that Israel hit the ship by accident and extremely unlikely that they deliberately provoked one of the most powerful nations of its time and the first nuclear power to boot. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Vote
I propose a restart of the article along these lines. Please vote as to your preferred solution. Please keep individuals and vendettas out of it and take the time to read the actual article from the top. If this vote becomes a hyper-lawyered crapfest, I'll just delete the article and do this anyway. No headless chicken mode.

Keep it as is.
You have no idea how much work went into the current SOURCED version. And AD, your criticisms are utterly non-specific. Unless and until you offer many substantive reasons to jettison the version I and others worked very hard on: No. It is only about 2/3 done. Work on what is there and make it better -- if you know anything about this topic and can offer actual information and source it---Mona- (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with AD to some extent that the article has got bloated & incoherent with a lot of digressions, but I think it would be better to work from the article as is & trim out what is extraneous rather than nuking it & starting over. 23:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What you see on the main article page is a hybrid of a bit of the old, a lot of new but not finished, and the detritus of compromises worked out from disagreements, in both. When a piece is extremely controversial the editing WILL result in clunky prose, and that's hard to take care of until all the warring is done. For example, I just edited the specific paragraph AD cited as dense and too clunky. In doing so, I deleted compromise language from at least two users. That's going to be a problem for any version unless AD plans to write the draft all by himself and preclude others from editing once it should be proffered here. All of which is to say, the problems AD identifies are inherent in the topic and mob editing.---Mona- (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think those couple of paragraphs (about how the Western World used to be mean & nasty and now it's all touchy-feely) really belong here at all. The story they're telling is rather simplistic & also not really anything to do with Zionism at all.  00:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's totally not so. In multiple academic fields the Palestinians are covered right along with Native Americans, Australian Aborigines & etc. as colonized indigenous peoples.---Mona- (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me guess... The "very important" field of Salaitalogy being one example? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weaseloid, while I stand by the point being valid in its own right, it fell to my editor's pen while cleaning up and shaping the article into something fitting a coherent outline. At least in that intro it was extraneous and there wasn't another obvious spot for it. So, it's gone. Somebody pro-Israel had wanted the point that colonizing didn't start with Israel, Then Israel critics wanted "yeah, but Israel hasn't made amends (that was partly me) or stopped." The whole thing just went.---Mona- (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Restart it, along the lines of the linked outline.

 * 1) -- 21:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) - To clarify that - or alternatively having Zionism to be declared (partially) off mission and only the on-mission parts discussed on wiki was my proposal in the now closed coop case. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) The article was turned in a total train wreck by Mona, Chris and others. A restart is the only solution I see.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

===Restart it, but really I want an outline that pushes my preferred point of view rather than treating this as a complex and inflammatory topic that is nonetheless worthy of thought and mockery, because I am a jackass.===

===You are very much free to propose a new version for the article, but until that version is more than just a rough outline with empty sections, keep that *ahem* respectable ambition busy in userspace please.===
 * 1) Believe me, I can very much empathize with looking at an article and thinking "If I had my way with this article, I'd rewrite this completely." But until you have something more substantial to show than just an outline, well... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * 2) &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Yeah, no. People had an opportunity to do a different draft of their own as I and others were working on the current one -- nobody did. When asked why he didn't, Arisboch said he might be too lazy. So, I mean really!---Mona- (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is kind of separate from all that, Mona. AD only came back recently and isn't involved in the continuous conflict on any side. Once he does have an actual alternative version to propose, we should at least take it into consideration. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:08, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that. I'm saying not until such a fulsome, alternative draft exists. I'm doubting it will given that many knew mine was coming and were offered an opportunity to one of their own -- no one did. I don't even know if AD particularly knows a lot about the topic and is competent to write a draft. But if he is, hey, let him have a go.---Mona- (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Another country heard from. A list of headings ain't gonna start any kind of realistic difference. Now that the two main Zionists are off the case there can possibly be an improvement of the current version over the next few days. Scream!! (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So wait, you think that any competent RW coverage of Zionism is only possible if Zionists are barred from editing? I just want to have that clear and on the record... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No one's saying there can't be any reasonable Zionists out there who could contribute proper content, but you and Arisboch have kinda given Zionists a bad name on this wiki. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:09, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Personally I'd have let Arisboch continue editing but Avenger is so monomaniacal in his proIsraeli stance that I very much doubt he'll ever be allowed to edit anything even distantly related (see Dresden bombing right now). BTW that's how to do a footnote on a talk page) Scream!! (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, I wasn't entirely ready to offer this version, but Paravant had suggested that I do so a week ago, even unfinished. The prior thing was such unsourced shit I decided to go ahead this weekend. But it's not done -- just in much better shape than the dreck it replaced. SuperDude already made many edits from a pro-Zionist POV and we had to work out compromises (I don't think AD knoiws the FR). A lot of the language reflects compromises old and new (since I worked off of the last draft and did keep some of the wheat). It's hard to get an article wholly elegant while still working out edits of a contentious topic!---Mona- (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I definitely don't like how the current version is, but i'd rather see a better version proposed instead of the skeleton before saying "yes" or no, honestly. Though i'd still likely lean more towards no than yes as I think it's going to be easier to fix problems by going from how it is instead of making up a new version and somehow going from there. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The "skeleton" is a good idea, if expanded a bit and then fitting what we already have into it -- it's a good organization tool. I just have not yet had time to move pats around into the final organization; I pretty much tracked the order in thew article I worked off of -- just to get some altered, better, and sourced text on the page. But I'm fully competent to move text around into something along the lines of the skeleton AD offers, and will do that further along the process. And now, I am tired. Good nite.---Mona- (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) We're a wiki. We preserve histories and edit articles.  Any improvements from draft versions in userspace can be swapped into the existing article; there's no need to scrap anything. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat.

 * You are all twats. No soup of any of y'all. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ [[image:Star_of_David.png|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] ''Rollin' around at the speed of sound 02:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Long-eared jerboa! I mean… when this is unlocked, it needs copy editing. (Yes, that's an offer to do it.) Argenti Aertheri (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did quite a bit of copy- and line-editing today, but it will need much more when done. Glad for the help.---Mona- (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat!
Goat should be exclamated, darn it! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:09, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Major edits, work still needed
So. AD's threat to toss the whole thing had a salutary result: I saw that I'd been held back by fear of deleting text that reflected many old and newer compromises and thereby pissing people off. However, the text demanded some streamlining, so I took AD's disgust with the "clunkiness" as permission and removed whole chunks and rearranged others.

Nevertheless, some section still need some filling up and sourcing:
 * 1) The State of Israel is Founded, Nakba occurs
 * 2) Christian Zionism (needs some plumping)

These also need work and I do plan to give them my own attention:
 * 1) Secular [from Jews] opposition reemerges
 * 2) Modern anti-Zionism; Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement

It's getting there! Don't stop now!---Mona- (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine work on the Xtian Zionism bit, User:Smerdis of Tlön. I'm so old I read Hal Lindsey's initial edition of The Late Great Planet Earth as a young teen in, like, 1973. As I think can be seen, what I "learned" didn't take.---Mona- (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Boycott, Divestment, Sanction
Can we create separate article for this organization? I feel like there is a lot to write on the subject, and it deserves its own separate article. This could go more in depth on the topic. Kentuckyball (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound like a bad idea. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:55, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * I'd been planning on it, and have a draft in my email folder. But was waiting for things to die down.---Mona- (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which "things" do you want to "die down", Mona? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Labor Zionism
I am surprised we haven't mentioned this form of Zionism. It tends to be less religious and more focused on the working class. They are socialistic and concentrated on the construction of kibbutz throughout Israel. They attempted to create a Jewish state through settling the working class in Israel. Many of them were leaders during the early days of Israel's founding.--Owlman (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting area but my knowledge is a bit limited. I know the socialist Zionists did not place class above national identity as other socialists do. That is, they specifically did allow, and even require, Jewish-only labor policies. Maybe ChrisAmiss knows enough to comfortably spit out a cogent section on that.---Mona- (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Finkelstein has a good section dedicated to reviewing variations of Zionism such as Labor and Cultural. Though they differed in degrees, not all of them were opposed to using terrorism and a Israeli historian like Anita Shapira herself acknowledges that Labor Zionists actions of terrorism were equally as bad as other groups. I will add it after I include all the sections under historical woo. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Purging the Zionists from the valiant and brave Leftist movement ™, are we, comrade?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm recalling correctly, I think contemporaneous leftists were a bit troubled by Zionist Labor and socialists. But as I say, I'm more comfortable leaving this area to Chris.---Mona- (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether someone is a "terrorist" depends almost entirely on whether or not you support their motives... Also purging the Jews from the leftist movement was already done under Stalin. As you can read in the excellent book by Stephan Grigat "Der Mufti und die Stalinisten" about the Israeli left... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So Mona is continuing Uncle Joe's work (and is of course now saying, that she hated always Stalin, just how all the French and Germans became through some kinda wizardry Resistance fighters the second Hitler ventilated his skull with a gun), huh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And all the Nazis were little brown green men from planet Nuts who left in their Reichsflugscheiben when 1945 rolled around... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah right, how could I forget this... When is the second part coming out btw? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia, somewhere around 2016. Judging by the trailer 1 and trailer 2, it's gonna be really hilarious.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Terrorism and Freedom Fighting are more or less orthogonal. That is, it's not a contradiction to call someone both a freedom fight and a terrorist.  One is a method, the other is a goal.  But it's always important to never overlook the goals of an organization when trying to determine its morality. CorruptUser (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * cough Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)