Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that according to one study, settler colonialism has been successful inside Israel, but not in the territories occupied in 1967? Source: "Israeli/Zionist settler colonialism was remarkably successful before 1967, and was largely unsuccessful thereafter... When we think about settler colonialism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we need to direct our gaze both towards the West Bank, where it has manifestly failed, and towards Israel proper, where it succeeded." Veracini 2013
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Together We Live

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC).

• @Buidhe: Can we get other hook proposals? Reason: colonization (more recently; settler colonization in the past) is a valid frame to look at Zionism as, probably (?) the correct one, but the lead of the nominated article itself says that it is still not the dominant framing as of 2022. Thus, having a hook which states the view as fact is inaccurate to the subject. While the hook does credit itself to "one study", the phrasing at the moment still states the settler colonialism as pure fact and only the perspectives on its success as what the study is claiming. The other question is if the study in question was cherry-picked for the hook fact, as I do note a recent string of anti-Israel hooks. And, like I asked recently with hooks for even Russia, where there is conflict, we should look to neutrality and accuracy (taken in balance to each other). So is there nothing else to say on the topic? Maybe there is a hook to be made about kibbutzim as proto-settlements? I am surprised the article doesn't mention early IDF objectives to destroy and resettle Arab villages, but recognise it is a work in progress. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Kingsif: I disagree that it states as fact, since it's clearly attributed to one study. As far as I can tell from the reading I've done, Zionism is undisputed as a form of settler colonialism by scholars of settler colonialism and was highlighted as such by the main pioneer in establishing the field, Patrick Wolfe. The journal Settler Colonial Studies has published a lot of articles about I/P but as far as I know, none that reject the paradigm. Rejection comes from outside this specific field of study; many scholars of the I/P conflict analyze it as a national or territorial conflict (although this is not mutually exclusive with settler colonialism). If you do a Google Scholar search, it's clear that the virtually all results discussing the topic (settler colonialism in Israel/Palestine) are using this analysis, so focusing on rejection would require cherry-picking. Obviously, the article is not complete and could be expanded a lot from the sources available. No one complained when I came up with a long string of hooks that reflected poorly on Germany, Turkey or Slovakia, so I think the same is true of any other country. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: As I said, the phrasing attributes the views on success to the study, treating the idea of settler colonialism happening there as a given and just something to be assessed. It would be like saying "that, according to one source, Russia's denazification of Ukraine has been successful, but only in the south and east" - this statement is true (Kremlin as the source), and it sounds like the source is just weighing in on the places of success, with "Russia's denazification of Ukraine" basically in wikivoice. I'm not comparing the two situations, but hope this analogy gets across how the "settler colonialism in Israel" statement does not seem to be coming from the study mentioned. I'm also not saying it's bad or wrong or anything, but that the article doesn't, at the moment, seem to support such certainty. Perhaps a little more expansion would make all well. Kingsif (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Otherwise; new enough, long enough, QPQ done. The ref section looks a little unusual, and again concerned about overall coverage. Sectioning also doesn't seem standard for history/ideology article? I presume the article will improve with expanding. Kingsif (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, article has now been expanded and reorganized. If you don't like the original hook, how about:

• ALT1: ... that according to historian Rashid Khalidi, "Israel has been extremely successful in forcibly establishing itself as a colonial reality in a post-colonial age"?
• ALT2: ... that settler colonialism theorist Patrick Wolfe argues that "it is hardly surprising that a nation [Israel] that has driven so many of its original inhabitants into the sand should express an abiding fear of itself being driven into the sea"?
• ALT3... that the argument that the "Zionist national project has been predicated on the destruction of the Palestinian one" is related to a settler-colonial analysis of the conflict?

(t · c) buidhe 04:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, I think there are still some article issues, but, you know, better quality than a lot out there. Ideally, hooks shouldn't just be X says "quote", so alt3 is the best from that standpoint, but all of them are a little unwieldy. I acknowledge you're trying to work around my comments of stating as fact, so thanks for that. It is for these issues, though (lack of article quality and a suitable hook), that I would, personally, fail this nom. I don't want you to think that I'm out to stop your noms, though, because I'm not, so I'll offer this up for someone else to review. Sorry about that. Kingsif (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your opinion and pushing me to improve the article. When dealing with an abstract topic, I've found quotes to be a successful way of building hooks. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

From cursory look I have found at least three sources written by academic or printed in academic press that oppose the notion that presnted in the article [1],[2],[3](p46-47) I think important to include them per WP:NPOV . I am willing to send full text version to anyone intersted --Shrike (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't add the first source because it's a news not academic source. Colonialism isn't the same thing as settler colonialism and the second source is about the former rather than the latter, not mentioning settler colonialism at all. The third source is about campus debates on Israel and does not discuss settler colonialism either, only mentioning it in a few quotes from other sources. Of course relevant criticism can be added (in fact it already exists in the article), but in order to avoid cherrypicking, I would only cite sources that are about settler colonialism of which there are many. (t · c) buidhe 16:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe, Kingsif, I am suspending this nomination because of active NPOV challenges (whose merits I do not assess but there is a banner and several largely unresolved talk page discussions) and a merge request which may substantially impact the quality and depth of coverage of this article. When these are resolved in either way, you may resume. (You may request third-party input for the talk discussions so that the NPOV concerns are settled for good). I also ask to start working on it because it's been hanging in the air for quite some time, and we have a backlog here. PS. I will close the talk page RfC and will look into closing other discussions if I think I will be accurate in doing so. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• The tags have been removed per Wikipedia:Template_index/Cleanup#Best_practices_in_heavily_monitored_articles. There is no consensus that there are problems with the article or to institute changes proposed on the talk page. I don't agree that people should be able to block a DYK nomination when they cannot get consensus for their criticism or provide high-quality sources to back up proposed edits. (t · c) buidhe 19:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• The "X" icon means that the nomination is to be closed as unsuccessful; suspending requires something else entirely, such as what I've used here. In any event, with the extant tags on the Historiography and Criticism sections, the article cannot be approved in its current state. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset The tags were added back still without any consensus that they belong there. How can some editors who don't like it just block a DYK and keep cleanup tags on an article when they cannot get consensus for any of their changes? (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
• If it's worth anything, I think the article is accurate and, while I would like it to be broader, I would not have personally added orange tags. I don't have much time at the moment for Wikipedia, unfortunately, so I can't offer much more input or try to help work on the article. But if someone wanted to review it, as it is, and they approved it, I would not personally have objections to the approval. Kingsif (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

All orange banners have been removed, so this is ready for a review. @Kingsif: are you or anyone else interested in reviewing this? Z1720 (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment Touch banners were removed but the problems were not got away article in current form is not DYK material I urge the reviewer to check the article for POV problems moreover the article is not new enough any longer so I am not sure its eligible at all per our policies --Shrike (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Shrike: you haven't commented on the talk page since 12 May, and you have barely touched the article. Engage with it if you like, but don't just harang at DYK. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment This article has a serious problem of neutrality, as many editors have already pointed out on the article's talk page. It somewhat ignores that this entire paradigm is mostly promoted by activists and academics associated with the Palestinian side in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and almost entirely ignores the Jewish history of the land. Several sources that criticize this paradigm are repeatedly removed under the false claim that "settlement colonial movements" or "colonial-settler states" are unrelated to settler colonialism. It is claimed that prominent scholars who reject this paradigm do not have expertise in this area. As per WP:NPOV, this nomination should be suspended until these problems are solved and criticism is re-added. Tombah (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• There are multiple concerns from multiple editors that the article in its current state does not properly adhere to NPOV. As this nomination has been open since April without significant progress towards addressing these concerns, it appears that the article will not be stable or adequately neutral enough for DYK any time soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• I read the talk page, the RFC and the DYK nomination. It appears to me to be NPOV compliant. Those opposing the nomination do not point to a specific item of contention and some of it smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article has multiple WP:RS to WP:V and participants in the discussions have had exactly four months to make any specific changes. The article uses the correct inline citations and it is long enough. It was also new enough on April 2, 2022. My reading of the article is that it is neutral and there are no POV tags atm. The article has been stable since July 11, 2022. It is plagiarism free, the qpq is done. I will accept ALT1 as confirmed and interesting. Bruxton (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Map

Does anyone know if there is a freely licensed version of one of the Palestine land loss maps like this one? (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I only know Template:Palestinian territory development Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Article tag

Hi Tombah, would you mind explaining why you added the article tag? What viewpoints present in reliable sources do you think are missing and what sources specifically should be cited in order to cover them? (t · c) buidhe 19:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This controversial article needs a section on criticism of the concept, obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:73c0:600:6b2b::11c2:1bc9 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

You forgot to sign. I see some criticism in the article and in the lead, so what's missing that would justify adding a whole section? You say it is "controversial", based on what? Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I should have done so earlier. Yes, a criticism appears in the lead, but only because I added it yesterday... Personally, I find it hard to believe that the whole criticism against that paradigm can be summed up in two sentences. As mentioned above, this is an (extremely) controversial topic, mainly put forward by scholars who are usually identified with one side of the conflict. If you are asking why it is so controversial, the answer is clear: the other side in the conflict, as explicitly stated in the article, completely rejects these claims. To portray a more balance picture, we need to make sure the criticism is described in much greater detail. Tombah (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Tombah Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If you can't find any sources that cover settler colonialism versus Zionism from a perspective that it doesn't apply, such content can't be included in the encyclopedia. the other side in the conflict, as explicitly stated in the article, completely rejects these claims Public opinion is a poor guide to encyclopedic content; for example, most Turkish people reject the idea of an Armenian genocide and consider it anti-Turkish. But this point of view is mostly ignored on Wikipedia because it's not backed up by reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 07:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The entirety of the "criticism" in the Busbridge article is already quoted here, that Jewish Israelis object and consider it an attack on the legitimacy of the state and possibly antisemitic. Note that Busbridge does not say either of these things are true, and throughout the article engages in the paradigm and discusses the history of its use. KKK members reject that they are white supremacists too, so what? What is needed, if you want to have a critique disputing the applicability of the framing of Zionism as a settler colonial project, is reliable sources that actually dispute it. nableezy - 21:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

buidhe Generally, I would say I agree. But in this case, public opinion simply reflects the reality on the ground. Around 50-60% of Jewish Israelis today are Mizrahi Jews, the descendants of Jewish immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa. Many of them were expelled or evacuated from Arab and Muslim-majority countries. Is Iraq their metropole? or maybe Morocco? The same can be said about the founders of Zionism, most of them were European Jews who were persecuted in the Diaspora. Is there a reason to believe that David Ben Gurion, or Theodor Herzl, were sent by Russia or Austria-Hungary for colonial purposes? What drove them was finding a solution to rising antisemitism in Europe, which they believed would be the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. To sum up, the colonial claims are clearly controversial, to say the least, and leaving these points out would mislead our readers. nableezy, I am sure there are many scholarly articles which can further expand on these points. Few are already mentioned in this article: [colonialism#Palestine, Zionism and Israel]. Using them would be a great start. Tombah (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The same can be said about the founders of Zionism, most of them were European Jews who were persecuted in the Diaspora.

Any evidence for this wild claim, which certainly contradicts my prosopographical profiles of the founders of Zionism. The overwhelming majority suffered no persecution. Nishidani (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Colonialism and Zionism would be a separate article. As Verancini wrote in the first issue of Settler Colonial Studies, "Colonialism and settler colonialism are not merely different, they are in some ways antithetical formations". Much of the rest of this statement has little or nothing to do with the arguments made by researchers of settler colonialism. Again, we need a reliable source specifically about settler colonialism to include such arguments. (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If you have sources that dispute anything our article says or offers a different view on this topic then you should bring them and add them where they fit. Waving to some imagined source that you are sure exists is not a valid reason to tag the article. nableezy - 23:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy That is incorrect... There is no "our" or "their" here. This is a collective responsibility of all editors (not just myself) to maintain balance in articles. As I already pointed before, there are already some sources cited on another Wikipedia which show the other side of this viewpoint. and until these sources are cited here as well, the template should stay. Tombah (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What sources specifically? Please paste them here after checking that they are about settler colonialism specifically. Otherwise there is no basis for the tag. (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

our article means Wikipedia's article, I didnt use our to not include you. And again, just waving to some source without showing that it is relevant is simply not an acceptable tactic. If there is some source that offers some critical view on the topic of this article, Wikipedia's article, that is actually related to the topic of the article, then present it. Otherwise I will be removing the tag from the article as lacking any foundation. Tags require a good faith effort to demonstrate the issue and address it. You have merely claimed one, and that is not sufficient. nableezy - 07:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

One added, more to come. Tombah (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed the tag, if you have justified criticism to add, then add it rather than placing a tag to no useful purpose.Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

All the usual pro-Israel criticism (applied to any subject at all), antisemitism, BDS, blah blah, even a computer scientist. Is that the sum result of all the trawling? Can we get on with doing a proper article now? Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

All the new sources are respected scholarly publication or university press so I don't see any problems. Shrike (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Really? The hysterical screed by Judea Pearl is a slapdash tirade and not academic, since the author has no specialized knowledge of what he writes about. None of the standards adhered to in his professional area of research are respected. But I'm not going to fuss about it.Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

If Indiana University Press found him good to print that he probably did meets some standards Shrike (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The book is published by Indiana University Press, correct, but he is well outside his area of expertise. Why exactly is a computer scientist relevant here? The contribution is entirely personal opinion, not anything scholarly. nableezy - 16:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The biggest issues with the new "criticism" section are 1) original research and 2) due weight. For #1, I checked the sources and found:

• Lissak: no mention of settler colonialism
• Pearl: no mention of settler colonialism
• Hirsch: exactly one mention of settler colonialism, no in-depth engagement with what settler colonial theorists are actually arguing, which is very different from the strawman he is going after
• Norwood: no mention of settler colonialism
• Troen: no mention of settler colonialism

On the due weight front, I went through the first thirty results on Google scholar for "settler colonialism" Zionism and found that literally none of the sources within the first 30 results are criticising the application of settler colonial theory to Zionism. Wikipedia should reflect the vast majority of reliable sources on the topic; writing a long criticism section by cherrypicking sources that are opposed is not in keeping with due weight. (t · c) buidhe 17:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I started looking in first source its clearly discussed and refuted "However, in practice, the unique circumstances that predominated during the Ottoman period led them, according to Shafir, tochose between two alone: the model of "plantation colonialism," with a split market of the type found in the southern United States or South Africa,and that of "pure settlement colonialism," which completely pushes the natives out of the labor market...". I will look in other sources too Shrike (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what "settlement colonialism" is. This article is about settler colonialism, which is a very specific thing. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Which exactly the same thing Shrike (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

(t · c) buidhe 18:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless these sources tackle specifically the 'settler colonialism' thesis, they don't belong here, and should be removed. On Buidhe's analysis above, this would apply to most of them. Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is really getting out of hand... settler colonialism and settlement colonialism are exactly the same thing. Our own article on "Settler colonialism" mentions the word "settlement" countless times, and mentions that "settler colonialism" contrasts with "exploitation colonialism"... Well, it's not hard to see which of the two "settlement colonialism" is identical to. Hopefully in a few years, when time travel is actually possible, we would be able to go back in time to the early Middle Ages, and ask the Old English speakers how did they come up with this interesting language. Tombah (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

(Opinion) https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-why-slamming-israel-as-a-settler-colonial-state-is-such-a-useless-insult-1.9999205

"Calling Israel a settler colonial state is correct and helpful analytically" & "Settler-colonialism is not a "colonialism that has settlers."" Anyway, it is obvious that your additions are not exactly well researched.Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how this opinion article helps this discussion anyway. Tombah (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Besides, you should check the sources again. David Hirsh uses the phrase "settler-colonialism" (with an hyphen), and Stephen H. Norwood mentions colonial-settler. Judea Pearl uses the term "White settlers", which redirects to Settler colonialism. All of these terms are clearly synonyms. Tombah (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

To all those wittering on about 'settlement colonialism', please see Ngrams and understand that there is no contest in terms of usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This proves what? Yes, settler-colonialism is the more widespread term. It doesn't mean other terms can't be used. And again, the sources cited use their own naming, but all refer to the same thing - settler-colonialism. This discussion is getting pointless, and I really think we are all wasting our time on this. Can we conclude it already? Tombah (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, as noted by @Buidhe, we would still need a source saying that the two terms mean the same thing to claim as much. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Judea Perl is a world class philosopher, much more prominent than Moshé Machover for example, whose views on same subject are regularly added by involved parties. Tritomex (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That seems completely made up. Pearl, not Perl, is a computer scientist and an expert on any number of computer science related topics, among them AI and probabilities and statistics. He however has no expertise on the topics of Zionism or settler colonialism. Machover likewise has no academic expertise on these topics. nableezy - 03:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

And what about Noam Chomsky? Do we consider him as an expert on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? Tombah (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

More than Judea Perl, yes. Noam Chomsky is actually a 'world class philosopher' and has written prolifically on US policy in Israel-Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Tombah (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Not 'more than'. Chomsky is an historian of the I/P conflict, and has written many books, thoroughly researched and footnoted, on the topic going back to 1974 (Peace in the Middle East? a very balanced account) at least. All are thoroughly researched and documented by not only the academic literature but with sourcing from Hebrew newspapers. Pearl is a leading figure in his field, but has no competence in the topic. He is plainly out of his depth.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

As for Norwood and Hirsh, its obvious that they are experts in this fields and that their arguments refers to "Settler colonialism" As For Pearl, he is a rewarded intelectual, philosopher and public figure and his attributed remarks on this question are fully acceptable. You dont need to be a historian to have a notable view on this subject, nor this criteria applied anywhere in other article's with similar or same thematic. Tritomex (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The concept of deferring to "subject-matter experts" is a criteria that applies whenever articles get into the nitty gritty. Pearl is not renowned for any sort of historical or political insight. His accolades are purely based on his work as a computer scientist. Writing opinion pieces in sympathetic publications does not make one a subject-matter expert. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with reliability, nor does it have anything to do with article content. Pearl is notable, that is why we have an article on him. He is not an expert on this topic however, no more than say Alan Dershowitz would be. Beyond that, even if he were an expert, his use here would still be SYNTH as he does not discuss settler colonialism. Chomsky isn't cited anywhere on this page as far as I can tell, making that whataboutism somewhat perplexing. nableezy - 09:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Tombah you have the WP:ONUS here completely backwards. The onus to achieve consensus is on the one seeking to include disputed material. I reverted based on ARBPIA, but now I am reverting based on OR/SYNTH issues, and per ONUS you need to demonstrate that there is consensus to include, not shift that onus on to me. nableezy - 08:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is violation WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. It promotes a fringe theory that is seen by many as anti-Semitic. And without the criticism section, as it is written now, this article is the most one-sided piece on English Wikipedia. Tombah (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Just saying so does not make it true. Please see WP:FRINGE, it does not in any way describe the content of this article, and it cannot be used to describe what actual expertise say about a topic. And see Wikipedia:Criticism for how criticism sections are generally used by users with strong opinions seeking to shoehorn in their POVs. We say who sees it as anti-semitic in the article already. The "by many" part of that is however untrue. nableezy - 09:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

Once again, this obviously controversial theory needs criticism, both in lead and article's body. And the sources we have are all relevant.

Lissak: mentions "settlement colonialist movements", "settlement colonialism"

Hirsch: mentions settler-colonialism (and yes, it's okay that this article touches on other criticism of Zionism.)

Norwood: mentions "colonial-settler state"

Troen: speaks about Israel, colonialism and "settler societies"

In any case, scholars who reject the theory that Zionism is a form of colonialism, also reject the comparison with settler colonialism - which is obviously a sub-category or a type of colonialism. This is just basic logic. Sources which refute the comparison of Zionism with colonialism should be also taken into account. Tombah (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think historiography section without criticism is clearly WP:UNDUE and should be removed. It present a narrow set of opinion slanted toward one POV Shrike (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Settler colonialism isn't a subset of colonialism, it's not even colonialism plus settlers. Colonialism is imperialist (eg the British Empire) exploiting of local labor while settler-colonialism looks to take the land and this is only one difference albeit an important one. Anyone may add relevant material to the historiography, if there is material expressing a different view, then add that. A historiography is obviously not some sort of anti-criticism. Selfstudier (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The key points:

1. Original research: sources that don't verifiably mention the topic
2. Undue weight: the vast majority of sources on this topic don't engage in this type of criticism. A long section on it is clearly UNDUE
3. Cherry-picking: the section cherry-picks sources that either don't mention the topic or are about something else entirely
4. Violation of WP:ONUS: no consensus to include this material

Have yet to be addressed. The material may not be restored until all of them have been. (t · c) buidhe 09:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I do believe that all the sources cited under the "criticism" section are actually referring to the same concept. The terms "Settler colonialism", "colonial-settler", "settler society" and "settlement colonialism" are all synonyms, and are used interchangeably in some sources. But, for some reason, the one source that did use the original naming (by Hirsch), was removed from this article as well. It almost seems like we are just trying to get rid of criticism. Are we falling prey for WP:IDONTLIKEIT?.

It's true, most sources do not engage in this type of criticism. Those who does are very explicit why: they completely reject this comparison and view it as another tool used to delegitimize Israel; others even claim this theory is anti-Semitic. Other sources try to refute the claims one by one, but they were deleted too. On the same time, one of the sources that appear at lead explicitly mention this theory is developed by scholars identified with one of the two sides. To me, it is clear this article violates WP:NPOV. Tombah (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

By cherrypicking I mean selecting sources that, assuming you are correct in your interpretation of them, just mention settler colonialism once and don't treat the subject in depth, while ignoring many other sources that do treat the subject (settler colonialism in Israel/Palestine) in depth.

The only source that, according to your analysis, deals with the topic substantially is Lissak. I don't know if the author is notable, but the idea that nationalism and colonialism are mutually exclusive is not a mainstream view, otherwise what is American nationalism or Afrikaner nationalism? German nationalism was key to the development of the German colonial empire both in Europe and Africa. (t · c) buidhe 01:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Again those papers/books were printed in respectable academic journals making them WP:DUE and WP:RS also without the proper criticism the article is incomplete and not WP:NPOV, your argument seems to me like WP:IDONTLIKEIT --Shrike (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Having a respectable publisher does not guarantee inclusion. Nor is criticism required in an article for completeness, you can always find someone to criticize something, the question is whether the criticism is part of a meaningful inquiry or more like....nah. I don't understand the reference to Idontlikeit, don't like what, specifically? What's "proper criticism"? Criticism you approve of? tool used to delegitimize Israel; others even claim this theory is anti-Semitic Really? They say the same thing about apartheid allegations, BDS and pretty much anything else they don't like. I suggest taking the sources you want to include one by one and see where we get to. Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

As Buidhe notes, the real WP:DUE issue is whether sources cover the subject in depth. Minor references in WP:RS are not necessarily due. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Wider NPOV concerns

This article has multiple NPOV notices on it, which is not surprising. What is surprising is how the people disputing the neutrality of this article ignore the elephant in the room. The entire assumption of settler colonialism as an ongoing system of oppression, rather than an event or process, is controversial. Someone on this talk page thought it was obvious, beyond dispute, that American nationalism and Afrikaner nationalism were forms of colonialism. Many people would dispute that. The idea that the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. existing and not returning their entire territories to their native minorities is a form of ongoing colonialism in 2022 is something that many people would disagree with. The idea that South Africa, a country where the black majority has the majority of the power in the Government of South Africa and in most provincial governments, is suffering settler colonialism in 2022 by Afrikaners, or white South Africans more broadly, is controversial.

The fact that nobody seems to raise the obvious point that the framework of settler colonialism (as settler-colonial studies define it) is itself controversial, yet assumed true without justification, is representative of a political bias that needs to be examined. And even if you accept the framework that countries that were formed by settler colonialism (the uncontroversial definition of it) are still settler colonies by the virtue of their continued existence, it is unclear how it applies to Israel and Palestine. Jewish people were the original inhabitants of the Holy Land before Arabs settled there. Of course, defenders of Zionism as settler colonialism have heard that, and they have responses to it. But the fact the only concession to opponents of the Zionism as settler colonialism framework is that some people view it as antisemitic is not enough.

Of course, many people, especially Western leftists sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, believe strongly in this framework, and it is a legitimate framework to examine Israeli and Palestinian histories and present realities. This article should remain to describe this framework. However, it still assumes a multitude of controversial beliefs that are treated as obvious truth in this article. For example, by describing Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States as settler colonial states without any hesitation. This article should be rewritten to avoid treating the framework of settler colonialism as undisputed truth, and it should mention the perspectives of people who believe that the foundation of the State of Israel or even the settlements in the West Bank are forms of "decolonization". StuckEarlier (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that disputing the entire premise of settler colonialism doesn't belong in this article but instead in settler colonialism. However, I'm skeptical that such criticism is all that prominent in reliable sources since I can't find it through generic searches. Furthermore, I do not think that South Africa and the US having experienced colonialism is a "seriously contested assertion". Are there any RS that dispute this? (t · c) buidhe 01:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It is relevant to this article because it describes the Anglosphere countries are settler colonial states without any hesitation, and it accepts this framework as inherently valid. I never said that what is now South Africa and the US never experienced colonialism (they obviously did), just that it is debatable if they are currently experiencing colonialism in the 2022nd year of the Common Era.

As for reliable sources, the History section of the article, "Israel and the apartheid analogy" cites Seeking Mandela saying that comparing Israel to South Africa under the rule of the National Party leaves the question of when and how "settlers" become indigenous open. Are white Americans, or even black Americans, Hispanic Americans, or other non-native Americans, still "settlers" in 2022? Many people would say yes, but I wouldn't say it is undisputed. The book also raises the point that many people see Zionism as a form of "returning home", decolonization, if you will. StuckEarlier (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The article says "Commonly cited cases of settler colonialism include the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand", which is undoubtedly true. No start or end dates given, that's your assumption. (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"A settler-colonial analysis has been used to explain the positive relationship between Israel and other settler-colonial states such as the United States and Australia." Israel wasn't established (1948) until after the American Indian Wars ended (1924) and the Australian frontier wars (1934).

Idk. Maybe you (or someone else) could just add a note about how some Jewish Israelis think they are the ones decolonizing their ancestral homeland or something of that nature. StuckEarlier (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@StuckEarlier Take a look at the history of this article and you will find what you were looking for. For example:

Computer scientist and philosopher Judea Pearl wrote that “misrepresenting Israel as a ‘white settler-colonialist society’ has become a cornerstone of BDS ideology and propaganda.” When reading such claims, he asks readers to consider whether they can recall any of the following: an example of white settlers moving into a country they thought was the birthplace of their history; an example of white settlers speaking a language spoken in the land before the language spoken by its contemporary residents; An example of settlers whose holidays commemorated historical events in the land to which they moved; A case of settlers naming towns by the names by which they were known by in ancient times, rather than after New York, New Amsterdam, and New Wales (Israeli towns are not called "New Warsaw," "New Berlin," or "New Baghdad"), and an example of colonizers writing poems, prose, lore, and daily prayers depicting their homecoming journey for 80 generations. Pearl, Judea, "BDS and Zionophobic Racism", Anti-Zionism on Campus, Indiana University Press, p. 229, retrieved 2022-04-27

Tombah (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: Sorry to edit your comment, especially on a heated topic, but don't put ref tags on talk pages. Just leave your source as text in or just under your comment. — LlywelynII 22:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Judea Pearl is not a serious source for this subject matter, per previous discussion, I see no reason to raise that again. As for some Jewish Israelis think they are the ones decolonizing their ancestral homeland or something of that nature, displacement of populations over the centuries is a commonplace and currently, those being displaced are Palestinian and it was not Palestinians that displaced Jews in the dim and distant past afaik. Of course, nowadays, such displacement and replacement by settlers is illegal.Selfstudier (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

On a purely personal level, I agree with you, somewhat. I don't think Zionism is a form of decolonization. (Then again, I don't think the US or Australia are settler-colonial states in 2022 either.) But that is irrelevant to my feelings about this article, which I still believe promotes a biased narrative. Even in the article Israeli settlement, Israel's and its defenders' legal arguments are described. StuckEarlier (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said in the previous section, let's take these arguments/sources one by one and see where we end up, the problem was mainly caused by haphazardly adding this and that such that the "criticism" section became larger and larger and then not substantively addressing the complaints about these additions. I haven't gone into the historiography in any detail, typically, good sources would address both sides of the argument anyway.Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

We'll wait and see. I can't edit the article, obviously, so I trust that these concerns will be dealt with by those can edit the article in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia policies. If that doesn't happen, I might be back on this talk page. StuckEarlier (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Bear in mind that debate doesn't end with accusations and denials, but goes on to counter-denials and so on. There were responses to the type of reasoning used by Judea Pearl, above, for example. Searching Google Scholar using terms such as "settler+colonialism"+zionist+denial" helps to turn up sources. For example, "Zionism Then and Now", Saree Makdisi:

"What further distinguishes Zionism as a settler colonial movement is that, unlike many of the advocates of earlier colonial projects, who produced unabashed and often brutally frank statements of support for the kinds of violence that colonialism necessarily involves, the best known contemporary advocates of Zionism go out of their way to repackage what they stand for in more palatable terms. This has involved a nearly complete denial and rewriting of the history of the Zionist conflict with the Palestinians, thus standing the well-documented evidentiary record on its head. So powerful is this denial, such is the extent of the self-indoctrination that it generates, that it even enables, for example, the construction – without even a trace of irony – of a so-called Museum of Tolerance (in fact a kind of shrine to Zionism) right on top of what had been, until 1948, the most prominent Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem (Makdisi 2010b)."

Also, "When Politics are Sacralized: Comparative Perspectives on Religious Claims and Nationalism" - Nadim N. Rouhana, Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian (eds.). Chapter 3 "Religious Claims and Nationalism in Zionism: Obscuring Settler Colonialism" - Nadim N. Rouhana:

"This chapter examines how nationalism, religious claims, and settler colonialism enmesh within Zionism, and demonstrates how their interaction played a major role for Israeli academia and politics in sidelining or obfuscating settler colonialism as an appropriate frame of analysis for Zionism's encounter with the Palestinians. The chapter will make three main arguments: first, that while settler colonialism is an obvious framework for analyzing and understanding the unfolding of the Zionist project in Palestine, the framework has been obscured by highlighting the connection between Jewish nationalism and religious claims; second, that the steady rise in religious encroachment into institutions and public sphere in Israel is rooted in the need for legitimation (grounded in religious claims) in face of rising Palestinian resistance to the expansion of the settler-colonial project from Israel to the West Bank; and third, that while secularization was possible in other settler-colonial contexts such as South Africa, Nothern Ireland, and North America, it is impossible to achieve secularization within a Zionist regime. Rather, for secularization and democratization to take place, Israel has to recognize the settler-colonial reality of the Zionist project, a recognition that will make it possible to free Israeli Jewish nationalism from religionism and work towards decolonization."

    ←   ZScarpia   15:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, to me it seems that just the usage of these search keywords ("settler+colonialism"+zionist+denial") is another indication for how biased this article is... The word "denial" itself somewhat implies rejection of something true, and in that case, the view that Zionism is indeed a form of settler colonialism. Also, the keyword "Zionist" is not needed here. Scholars of all backgrounds, not only Zionists, might have something to say about this theory. Tombah (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Those are just search terms @Tombah, for illustrative purposes in talk; it does not indicate anything about the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The point of the search was find, on Google Scholar, criticisms of Zionist repsonses to allegations of "colonial settlerism". Hopefully you're not trying to argue that searching for such responses is illegitimate. If you find the search term offensive, fine, I'll try again with one more acceptable ... BUT, in return, I'll ask you not to write anything here which is offensive to me.     ←   ZScarpia   12:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously the current name is a ridiculous WP:POVFORK that needs to be moved to something more neutral.

Beyond that, 1st, why isn't this entire article's content at something visible and neutrally phrased like Zionism or Israeli settlement? 2nd, if the answer is that the creators have accumulated so much helpful neutral scholarship on the topic that you're splitting out from the main article, why isn't this page linked with a hatnote as the expansion of one of its sections? 3rd, why is this entire article not linked from any other page on this topic at all, trying to grow without outside input? Stinks to high heaven even before it headlines with a "chart" involving exactly 4 data points. Someone marked the WPISRAEL link as "low importance" for an article questioning its legitimacy but marked the WPPALESTINE link as "Mid"? C'moooooooon. — LlywelynII 22:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Striking Pt 3 as unfair. The article isn't being discussed at WPISRAEL or WPPALESTINE and there isn't a RFC here but I had gotten the link list for the talk page. There are minor but legitimate links to 50+ pages, which is fair enough. — LlywelynII 22:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

POV fork of what? Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Any arrangement of words in the current title to begin with. Any arrangement of those words with Israel(i) and Palestine/Palestinian after that. — LlywelynII 22:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If you say something is a POV fork then you need to point to the article it is a POV fork of. Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

A, I just did.

B, based on the current lede at Settler colonialism the current title is "Zionism as a Perpetuation of Genocide". No, that is not remotely neutral. If the lede of Settler colonialism is wrong, feel free to fix that first. Look at any of the other section main links from Settler colonialism. Make this title look more like any of them. — LlywelynII 23:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Settler colonialism has a section Settler colonialism#Palestine, Zionism and Israel which includes a link out to this article as main. Are you saying that this article does not qualify as a spinout article? Or that it is a POV fork of the section? I assume you do not mean that it is a POV fork of the entire settler colonialism article since that is obviously not the case. Selfstudier (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As above, even within the terms of that page, this is an extremely POVy way of discussing the relevant topic. The only other page remotely like this is Settler colonialism in Canada, which is a historical treatment of the existence of some people showing examples of settler colonialism. This page is framing the entire idea of Israeli existence as settler colonialism. If you don't see how far that is from NPOV, I don't know how I could help you see it. The best thing for it is to just bring in more people. Maybe scholarship really is just treating it as neutral to call Zionism genocide these days and I was out of the loop; maybe someone else will be more able to AGF and get these problems sorted. — LlywelynII 23:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

"This page is framing the entire idea of Israeli existence as settler colonialism. If you don't see how far that is from NPOV, I don't know how I could help you see it."

The essence of settler colonialism is the acquisition and settlement of land, by immigrants, in disregard to the wishes of existing inhabitants, who become marginalised. As far as Zionism, which is in the article title, is concerned, are its objectives so far removed from that? There's a bit of a conceptual jump between Zionism, a political ideology or philosophy, and the "entire idea of Israeli existence", a pretty abstract notion, that you'd have to bridge in order to persuade me, at least, that the article is "framing" the latter as settler colonialism in a way which seriously deviates from NPOV.

You raised the example of the article on settler colonialism in Canada as an example, pointing out that it is a historical treatment. Perhaps, say, the example of China in Tibet may also be seen as a modern example of settler colonialism, but the age in which the settling was being done by westerners, such as in the Americas (including your example, Canada) and Africa, was largely over by the mid-20th century. Israel is still going through an expansionist phase, creating "settlements", to which citizen "settlers" migrate. Although it is some time since the last large scale expulsions of non-Jews, small-scale "cleansing" is still occurring and Israel is ramping up, or formalising, discrimination, the Nation-state Bill being seen as an example of such.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: why isn't this entire article's content at something visible and neutrally phrased like Zionism or Israeli settlement? Because this isnt about Israeli settlements, it is about the wider Zionist project. This is a child article to Zionism and a child article to settler colonialism. Zionism is some 62 kB of readable prose, including this in its entirety would make up over 10% of the combined article. As this is a notable topic in its own right, given the abundance of sources discussing it, we split that off in to its own article. You appear to not understand the chart at all, and this rant is completely decoupled from any of our policies. Disliking what reliable sources say does not make this "POVy". nableezy - 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

RFC for "Zionism as settler colonialism"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Even if we ignore the (numerous) requests to procedurally close this discussion, this request for comment yielded little in terms of how to change the article so that it conforms to the neutral point of view, or even whether we should change anything in the first place, and instead mostly devolved into the discussion about what exactly is an RfC. There's basically nothing relevant to sum up, so I close this without action. Try more precise questions or other venues of dispute resolution (noticeboards, WikiProjects etc.) in order to attract more eyes if you feel this is needed. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

---

We need a whole bunch more eyes on this article, its framing, and its intervention in other Wikipedia articles on this topic if any of y'all have better blood pressure medicine or deeper knowledge of this topic than I do. It may be fine that the current lede of settler colonialism involves accusations of genocide or that this title is completely differently formatted for every other section link coming off of settler colonialism. I really don't know and I do appreciate that the current editors on this new page have been formatting well and finding sources to build their page. An intro "graph" of exactly 4 data points seems like an excellent example of how lazy and partisan "sources" on this topic can be, however, and I'd be much more comfortable with wider community involvement from both sides plus plenty of neutrals. — LlywelynII 23:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Close as malformed An RFC ideally needs to be a neutrally worded question. If your objection relates to the name then you need an RM not an RFC. If your objection is to do with the content of the article Settler colonialism then you need to address that on that page, not here. I had understood your objection to be that this article is a POV fork in which case you should presumably be asking for merge/deletion. In addition, the RFCbefore is not at all clear. Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  That isn't actually true. Go ahead and reread the policy: WP:RFC. As far as the WP:POVFORK issue, yeah, that's still legitimate and a move is still necessary in my opinion. What's more important is getting more involvement and feedback on the page and its treatment of the topic by a wider number of people... y'know, like my RFC request just said. — LlywelynII 23:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Malformed RFC no clear, neutrally worded query to answer. (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  As with Selfstudier, go ahead and reread the policy: WP:RFC. You currently misunderstand it and its requirements. — LlywelynII 15:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• An RFC is required to have "a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue", not a rambling diatribe that lacks coherence or even the most basic familiarity with the topic. If you think this is a POVFORK what article is it a POVFORK from? And what exactly are you proposing this RFC accomplish? nableezy - 23:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  You actually cited the relevant policy (thanks!) and then ignored it to follow up with a faceplant of a failure to WP:AGF. Reread it when you have time and kindly try again. Incidentally, three active editors trying to shut down even attempting to bring in outside perspectives on (mistaken) procedural grounds is a very bad look (WP:OWNERSHIP). You're welcome to highlight any additional points you'd like more feedback on yourself, rather than attempting to shut down outside involvement in the page. That would be far more helpful and productive. — LlywelynII 15:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody is trying to shut any attempt to bring "outside perspectives" at all. But you are requesting comment without posing a request for comment. What exactly do you dispute here? It just feels like it isnt NPOV? Have you read any of the sources? Do you have any familiarity with the scholarship? Or does material that is widely covered in reliable sources need to take into account your feelings here? nableezy - 15:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I personally don't see anything problematic in the use of RfC here--at least, certainly not to the extent of necessitating a procedural close. I estimate I've responded to a little over a thousand RfCs over the last decade or so, and in the last two years or so I've observed a kind of peculiar trend towards attempting to force any and every RfC prompt into a singular express question (or series of such), and there just isn't any such requirement for an RfC, nor has there ever been. It's true that it's highly advisable to try to refine the description of the feedback being sought as much possible, but there are plenty of scenarios when broader community input is valuable, even if you don't have a list of discrete questions to ask. Consider what the OP's options were here: they seem to be an outsider to this article's historical development, who has concerns (if I read them correctly) about neutrality and tone. Are either 1) leaping in to edit contrary to current consensus, or 2) going to a WikiProject and getting comparably limited/highly interested input from a narrow band of editors necessarily better approaches here than RfC? I'm certain the first is not, and I'm not sure about the second either.

All of that said, I do understand in part where my fellow respondents above are coming from as regards WP:RFCBEFORE: some additional degree of engagement with the regular editors here would have been appropriate and nice to see here, before judging the call for additional perspectives necessary. Also, even if a specific question is not required, at least some additional focus is necessary to make this discussion at all useful. But we're here now, so we might as well allow the community process to run: there's no strong argument for keeping the questions that the OP wants to raise constrained to just the regular editors and those of us already pinged, if it's just going to result in these parties needing outside help to resolve the dispute eventually anyway. For my part, a brief review of this and the root settler colonialism article does reveal what I would call a somewhat askew tone: both feel like they lean a little too much towards scholarly and arguably even persuasive tone as much as encyclopedic and objective. They foreground certain academics prominently, even in the leads, and their language in certain sections employs a sociological idiolect in places, when it should be looking to articulate to a general audience.

Even so, I don't think the regular editors here are going to have trouble finding sources that can defend the argument that Zionism has elements of colonialism: that's just not a very controversial observation in many parts of the world; either broadly or in social/policy research, you'll find no shortage of people who have some variation on that general belief--though needless to say, it's hardly a universal interpretation of Israeli policy either. So I do see the the validity of disparate arguments here: I don't think the RfC is procedurally self-invalidating and I do understand the general gist of what the Llywelyn is concerned about here (I think), but I also don't think the underlying content has any bad WP:WEIGHT issues from my cursory look through it so far: at most what is needed here is some tonal tweaks to make this read a little less social science text concentrating on particular scholarly threads and a little more encyclopedic and generalist. Those are my immediate observations anyway: I'll reiterate that I join with the other respondents above at least insofar as thinking the OP needs to at least be a bit more specific about particular content or issues, if this is going to go anywhere. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is opposed to additional perspectives, but this isnt an RFC, there is no request being made here. Its just "I dont like this article, comment below". What is the action being discussed here? The line An intro "graph" of exactly 4 data points seems like an excellent example of how lazy and partisan "sources" on this topic can be "seems like an excellent example" of an editor digging their heels into a topic they have no understanding of, and then being upset that their misunderstanding is not coddled. nableezy - 12:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a request for additional comment from uninvolved editors, being attacked on (mistaken) procedural grounds by the group developing the current article rather than tweaked to hone what additional perspectives they would like to see. Seems like that speaks to the need for more eyes on what's being built over here. It may be legitimate failure of reading comprehension, thinking that a specific question needs to be involved, but the policy is already linked above, you yourself quoted it, and Snow Rise just explained it to you again. You're welcome to reread it, since you currently seem to misunderstand what it says. Alternatively, remember to review WP:AGF if this just comes from thinking of me as an unhelpful 'agitator'. — LlywelynII 15:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"I personally don't see anything problematic in the use of RfC here..."

Right? The idea of "voting to close" one seems completely nonsensical and OWNERy on its face. There's no actual policy for such a "closure" (the actual policy is at WP:RFCEND and isn't what's going on above) and it's always in the interest of the project to have more involvement than less. How did this even become a thing? — LlywelynII 15:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying this nonsense about a request for comment being attacked on mistaken procedural grounds. The entire point of an RFC is to resolve a content question. You pose no content question. What exactly in the article is POV? You cannot just say I feel like this is not neutral. Sorry, but your feelings are not relevant to the neutrality of this article. An RFC is required to have a shot neutral statement about a specific dispute. Your opening statement is none of these things. It is a personal diatribe that is better suited to a forum. And I still have no idea what it is you are requesting comment on. nableezy - 15:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Let me say that I wish Llywelyn would be a little more uniformly dispassionate than the occasionally inflammatory tone they have responded to you with above, but at the same time, I'm afraid that at the end of the day, they have the right end of policy here, and you just don't. I'd even go so far as to reiterate what they've said about reviewing WP:RfC: in particular, you should read WP:RFC#What an RfC is and WP:RFCBRIEF. Because you keep insisting upon "An RFC is required to have a short neutral statement about a specific dispute." (emphasis added), but that's just not the case, and never has been. Not only is that not a formal requirement of an RfC, but the wording of the process page makes is express that and RfC can take the form of a statement about current issues, rather than a discrete question or list of questions. I'm glad straightforward requests to respond to a particular inquiry or choice have become increasingly the norm over the years, because it is the most useful format for the vast majority of RfC prompts. But more open-ended requests for outside input and attention on a general aspect of an article are still permissible under current community consensus on the process. So insisting the OP has failed to meet a procedural bar/formatting requirement that does not in fact exist isn't really helping to resolve any editorial concerns.

Now, that said, I do think Llewyln definitely could stand to provide some more concrete and particularized information on the nature of the problems they perceive here and where feedback should be focused, and I wish they had responded to that element of my input as much as the portion defending the RfC format in principle. We'll see if that requested refinement of the description of the sought-after feedback is forthcoming--if not, I too am skeptical that the discussion that follows will actually help improve the article: it could just as easily lead to a muddled waste of time. But even so, this RfC does comport with the requirements for the process, and calls for a procedural close here aren't likely to result in anything but more distraction from the underlying concerns, vaguely defined as they admittedly are at the moment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If the calls for a procedural close result in the creator being clearer about their concerns, that will be a good outcome. As would closing this RFC procedurally for want of said clarity.Selfstudier (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that closing a discussion on that basis alone, in this topic area, I suspect would be all but certain to land the matter at WP:ANI as the next stop, and that won't serve the article well at all. And at that point, the OP will probably be perfectly satisfied anyway, since there will then be no shortage of eyes on the article at that juncture. So while I agree that the better scenario here is one where the issues are fleshed out a little better by the OP, even if that doesn't happen, the least problematic solution under both policy and a likely disruption analysis is to just let the discussion stand. Without a clear mandate, it is almost certain to come to a no consensus result anyway, so why feed a pointless fire by taking a dubious closure action that could cause a lot of blowback? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

All this RFC has achieved so far is a couple of essays attempting to explain to experienced editors what an RFC is. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I should read WP:RFCBRIEF? You mean the part that says "Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded, short and simple."? What about the part that says "If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp. If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the question or summary, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it. It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise." Or the example of a "bad question" where it has "What do other editors think about the discussions on this page?" or "We should talk about this some more", which is basically what this long-winded and wholly unsourced "RFC" statement is. What about WP:RFCOPEN, which, again, says "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section". I should read the policy? I have, and yes, RFC questions should be neutral and brief and this is neither. nableezy - 12:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I've already said that the prompt leaves a lot to be desired, and that if the OP doesn't become more particularized in their criticism, there's very little that this discussion is likely to achieve. But what has been expressly said here (repeatedly) was "An RFC is required to have a short neutral question about a specific dispute." And again, that is just not true. It is a false, inaccurate statement. WP:RfC is littered with descriptions about how the statement "often" is a question, but it is unambiguous from any reading of the full page that it is not required to be a question--let alone a discrete, hyper-focused question. All of the selective quoting in the world doesn't change that plain fact. If you feel the trend towards a more precise question that has evolved in recent years ought to be codified as a requirement, by all means WP:PROPOSE that to the community. I might even support that. But that's not how the process currently is required to operate.

Now, do I agree that the prompt here leaves much to be desired? Yes. Do I wish the OP would have formatted it closer to what is the norm for an RfC these days? Yes. Do I think they should amend the prompt or at least clarify their take on the issues with the article further? Yes. Do I think it would be productive and helpful for another editor (particularly an WP:INVOLVED one) to try to procedurally close this discussion that asks for more eyes, on an article covered by discretionary sanctions? Absolutely not. That could only possibly lead to acrimony and accusations of bad faith attempts to stifle criticism (whether those accusations are fair or not). If you want to try your luck with a move like that, that's your business. But when that inevitably leads to an edit war and you find yourself at WP:ANI, facing a headache, having your behavior scrutinized, and having handed the OP a strategic victory (because at that point, there will be even more eyes on the article, precisely what they opened the RfC to achieve in the first place), you won't be able to say that you weren't warned...

In short, if you really do feel that the call for increased attention on the article is uncalled for, your best move here is just to ignore the thread, because respondents (myself included) are already impatient with the lack of a more concrete complaint and this probably will go nowhere as a result. But if you try to close the discussion, you're going to end up dealing with the Wikipedia equivalent of the Streisand effect. Railing against the format of the RfC, when technically the format is acceptable (if less than ideal), and leaning into the suggestion that it is illegitimate are only going to appear to confirm the OP's claim that the article has a walled garden of regular editors. In other words, your current strategy is doing much more to advance the OP's perspective than your own. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I have never been opposed to more people getting involved in any article. I am actually in favor of it. But, again, an RFC question is meant to address a content issue. None is presented here. There is no brief, neutral prompt to solicit feedback on. This is a waste of time, but no, I am not here and not anywhere opposed to wider involvement, including yours. I indeed welcome it, I think the more people involved the better, as I tend to think my positions in regard to the various editing disputes I find myself in are actually backed up by the sources and our policies, and I still believe that the answer to the problems I see in this topic area are to get more and more people to look at those sources and policies so that those editing with less noble intentions arent able to force their preferred versions in through sheer force of will and obstruction/filibustering. If there was something in this RFC that could possibly be addressed Id be answering the question and moving on with my life. There still isnt though. nableezy - 04:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep as valid request for comment to attract a broader authorship. The advice in WP:RFC to seek participation in the relevant WikiProjects will obviously bring more involved Wikipedians, rather than uninvolved ones. Keep in mind that WP:RFC is an information page, i.e., neither policy, not even a guideline (which most people treat as cast in stone no less than policy). Yes, RFC may be malformed, because, e.g., it can mix several issues making discussion unmanageable or the issue is presented in an incomprehensible way. In this case the issue is a singleton: the overall framing of the article. @LlywelynII: - please remove personal detail from declaring statement, for better understandability and phrase the criticisms thereof as examples what is wrong (in your opinion) with the article. You may move them into a "Comment" bullet. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I posted directly to WPISRAEL and WPPALESTINE as well. @Loew Galitz: you're welcome to include others if you think there are any other active wikiprojects that would also be helpful to hear from. — LlywelynII 15:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The article has POV problems as outlined Talk:Zionism_as_settler_colonialism#Criticism the whole criticism section was removed[4] without it article could never be WP:NPOV --Shrike (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RFC as far as it goes, although I suppose it will achieve its goal of attracting more eyes to the article. There may be POV problems here but this doesn't meet WP:RFCBEFORE or WP:RFCNEUTRAL. If you just want to attract more eyes to an article you believe has broad neutrality problems, it's better to start at WP:NPOVN instead - RFCs are for more specific questions. --Aquillion (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There should probably be a consensus (and sticky) about the scope of this article. If the scope is the paradigm of settler colonialism, then why is Fayez Sayegh's 1965 essay cited as an example when the founder of the field was 16 years old? I understand this isn't a science, but as the article is about the application of a technical concept to a real-world situation, it should have a strict scope. Overreach makes the theory look ridiculous (see for example the mention of the one-state solution: that's not what the source says, and it's not even properly cited as an indirect citation). Then there's how criticism is handled. If I write a book called "My theory on why X sucks", I should expect the article written about my bestseller to have a criticism section from people saying X doesn't suck, right? No, it should have criticism of the merits of my theory first and foremost. And if the conclusion is considered demonstrably inconsistent with reality it is also worth adding that X doesn't suck. However, if there is nothing demonstrable being said, or nothing demonstrably inconsistent, then saying X doesn't suck is no longer much of an academic criticism as much as it is just an opinion. I'm not so naive as to believe this article can be reframed in such a way that people will simply walk past and say "oh, that's just some idiot academic theory, no need to get worked up over it". But I do think you can make some consistent inclusion guidelines that will adequately dissatisfy everyone. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Writing an article about "My theory on why X sucks", it would be inadmissible to cite sources that don't mention the book "My theory on why X sucks", regardless of their position on X—that's original research.

  Any material that verifiably is about settler colonialism is fair game, and since RS say that Sayegh is dealing with it is perfectly acceptable to cite. While Wolfe is often considered the founder of settler colonial studies as an academic discipline he certainly did not invent the idea of settler colonialism and never claimed credit for such. (t · c) buidhe 22:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Redlinked names in the lede

Clearly we cannot refer to random redlinked persons, especially in the lede. Fortunately in this case here is a remedy other than removal of these names: from a quick google search it appear to me they are reputable scholars. Please write bios for them. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly we cannot refer to random redlinked persons, especially in the lede I think we can. There is no problem with redlinks if the redlink is apparently for persons that would meet the usual criteria for an article. They should not be removed in such a case. Someone will likely show up and create the article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There is literally no issue with having redlinks in the lead or anywhere else. See WP:REDLINKS. nableezy - 15:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

<sigh> No it makes no sense to relink random persons. In fact, the guideline specifically talks about this: do not create red links when there is little chance to have an article. That said, it this particular case I wrote I have no objections to these redlinks (and I even created a couple myself :-) and called or creation of bio articles, since the persons are clearly notable. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You already said that each of these people appears notable, not random persons. As such the redlinks are useful. nableezy - 16:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

They are useful for editors, but they are an eyesore for readers. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

This article and section Settler colonialism#Palestine, Zionism and Israel are widely divergent. I would not call this a "POV fork", but a regular sloppy content fork, which prevents us from well-formed, consistent development of the subject. The majority of the content of the section must be moved into the "main" article, while the section must be an extended summary of the subject, per WP:Summary style. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you even use that merger template for sections? Seems odd. Can't you just copy relevant content between the sections two, assuming no one objects? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(So long as you provide attribution, templates for which exist at: WP:COPYWITHIN) Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want copy paste from the section to here, just go ahead and do it, pretty sure no-one will object. An editor here has already done the reverse thing previously. Then you need to reconcile the moved material with the material here as there should not be any contradiction. One needs to leave a summary at the other article along with a link out to this article as main. And done. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

No I don't want to do this myself, because I am not an expert in the issue. Moreover, someone may object. Therefore I placed the template. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont think the merge tag is what youre really looking for here, it seems more you want the Settler colonialism section updated. That correct? nableezy - 16:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

No. See the top of the section. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Infographics

I removed the top image: it strikes an eye, but it is hardly encyclopedic, because it compares "apples and oranges", does not say which region it is applied to, and worst of all, it is taken from a tweet, which is hardly a peer-reviewed source. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing most of the counter-response to you is that because the tweet came from an Israeli professor of human rights, it's a "reliable source." Putting aside that Gordon's views aren't without controversy, that position practically screams Argument From Authority. Gordon's alleged expertise on the subject doesn't change the fact it's a poorly constructed infographic. Who are the "Palestinian population" in 1947? It doesn't say, so we're left to infer whether it includes Jews or not. What is the "Jewish Establishment"? Doesn't say. What specific land was being "controlled" by the Jewish Establishment? Doesn't say. The image is forcing those of us looking at it to let unspoken implications do a lot of the legwork in figuring out what it means. Whether Gordon is an "expert" or not, the infographic is simply confusing. - EricSpokane (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Surely, it would be good to have an illustration, but I urge Wikipedians not to create charts, diagrams, etc. themselves, because it would amount to original research in a sensitive area. This was a common pastime in the olden days of Wikipedia, and until now from time to time we have to struggle with hand-made amateurish maps, tables, and charts. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

So no picture is better? I'm not sure I see how. The image was created by Neve Gordon, an Israeli professor of human rights, and the population figures can quite clearly only refer to one think, which is the transformation within the boundaries of Israel as established in 1948, which is where the rapid depopulation of Palestinians and land seizures occurred. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The chart does not compare population with population and land with land. It compares population with land. That's why I called it "apples and oranges". Also, we have a clear policy on WP:RS. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and Neve Gordon is an academic expert in this field and is a reliable source. This is just basic WP:IJDLI. What the graphic is actually showing is that as the land under control by the Jewish Agency increased the Palestinian population decreased. That is it is a visual representation of the difference in settler colonialism, in which the objective is to replace the native population, and old school great power colonialism, where the objective is to retain the local population to help exploit the natural resources of the land. I am going to restore the image, its removal is based on literally no policy, and the policy offered as the reason is so obviously inapplicable (OR, no it is not because it comes direct from the source, RS, search google scholar for Neve Gordon to see why his self-published work is reliable). nableezy - 19:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree that this chart comes from a reliable source and there's no reason to remove it. I'm sure all the figures given in the chart could be independently confirmed. Of course, if there are other infographics illustrating this phenomenon they could also be added. (t · c) buidhe 20:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Loew. I was about to remove it myself for the same reason but I didn't want to trigger the pro-Palestinian editors so I stayed quiet. (Also, this article talks a lot about things like ethnic cleansing, but in reality, the Arab population in Israel and Palestine has been growing steadily. In Israel, even more so than the jewish population. In 1950 jews comprised 87% and arabs 8% of the population. Now jews are at 74% and arabs at 17%). My point is: let's tone down accusations of ethnic cleansing or replacement which don't correspond to reality. -Daveout(talk) 19:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Daveout: A) WP:AGF, B) The population growth argument is the most tired piece of attempted Israel-Palestine conflict misdirection out there. It's much like the, 'oh, how can there be global warming' every time there's a cold snap. Ethnic cleansing is about population displacement, not population eradication (which is genocide). Pretty key difference. Also, the chart in question refers to Israel between the years of 1947 and 1951, whereas today, the epicenter of the settler-colonialism phenomena has clearly shifted to the West Bank ... village evictions, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, the fast change in demographics was initially caused by jews running for their lives and also by their expulsions from Arab countries, not by a colonialist endeavour. (This should be mentioned in the article ​somehow. For historical context etc.) -Daveout(talk) 19:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The chart shows absolute number of Palestinian population. I don't think that Jewish immigration is the reason why Palestinian population fell. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

In a completely biased, tendentious, and cherry-picked framework. Its like showing the number of jews before and after the disengagement from Gaza and say that there was a Jewish ethnic cleansing there. -Daveout(talk) 21:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on what? You can keep acting like you are a reliable source and your personal views matter here, but Neve Gordon, an actual reliable source, says this is a visualization of settler colonialism in Palestine. There are no "accusations of ethnic cleansing", people are faithfully reporting what reliable sources say. Kindly take that triggering gaslighting somewhere else. And kindly abide by WP:NOTFORUM, I have zero interest in reading your personal views here. Are you challenging that Neve Gordon is not an established academic expert in this topic and as such per WP:SPS he may be cited as a reliable source? Because thats what matters here, not what you think is really true or whatever other personal opinion you have. nableezy - 21:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Daveout, you put a disputed tag on the description, based on what? You can verify the tweet and the graphic coming from Gordon's twitter account here. You can verify this is Gordon's twitter from his university profile. What exactly is the factual dispute here? You just not liking what the source says does not make it a factual dispute. nableezy - 21:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

For the third time, tweets are NOT reliable source for wikipedia. period. It does not matter who made a tweet. A tweet is not a peer-reviewd source. A tweet is a blurb taken out of context. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:Cite tweet & WP:SPS

"Tweets and other self-published material may be acceptable if the conditions specified at WP:SPS or WP:TWITTER are met." &

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Selfstudier (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You are quite simply mistaken on this. An expert, academically published on this topic in peer-reviewed journals and texts published by top-tier university presses (see for example his article in Political Geography (journal) Ethnic cleansing and the formation of settler colonial geographies) is reliable for his self-published works, including his tweets. A source need not be peer-reviewed to be reliable. WP:SPS is very clear on this point. nableezy - 01:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the lack of an answer to you put a disputed tag on the description, based on what? You can verify the tweet and the graphic coming from Gordon's twitter account here. You can verify this is Gordon's twitter from his university profile. What exactly is the factual dispute here? You just not liking what the source says does not make it a factual dispute. I've removed the tag. nableezy - 15:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding but User:Nableezy seems to be saying that because person with qualifications "says this is a visualization of settler colonialism in Palestine", that makes it so? That's not WP:RS. You don't call a person a RS, you call a specific source in a specific context a RS. And the effectiveness or appropriateness of an image/graphic/etc. to an article is an editorial judgement that is not somehow trumped by a RS. Twitter is not a RS as it is not subject to editorial or peer review. And finally, this is among the dumbest, most useless graphs I have ever seen, and I feel so much dumber for taking extra time to try to interpret it. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That isnt what WP:RS says, specifically WP:SPS. See where it says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Neve Gordon is that. Self-published works by established experts are reliable sources. So yes, because this person who is an independent expert on the topics of Zionism and settler colonialism and the intersection of the two, because he says this is a visual representation of settler colonialism and no source disputes that, that does make it so on Wikipedia. If you lack the ability to understand the graphic Im not sure I can help with that, but it is incredibly clear. As Jewish property ownership went up, the Palestinian population was displaced. That is what settler colonialism is. nableezy - 23:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You forgot the word "may" in WP:SPS. And you left out this part: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." I know I'm not going to win the war against terrible graphs anytime soon. But dude... there's only 4 data points on 3 axes on 2 dimensions. And people in the thread immediately think it's causal. He could have written a single sentence with three numbers and it would have been crystal clear. Instead he posts garbage and I'm wasting an hour over it. Just do everyone a favor and find a better graph? SamuelRiv (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I didnt forget anything, that is in my quote. I dont think this is a terrible graph, I dont actually think the objection makes any sense. I can try to look for a more in-depth and longer time range somewhere, the problem is avoiding original research here. nableezy - 01:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's a terrible graph either, not that there isn't room for improvement graphically. The one and only problem I see is the lack of clarity on which geographical area this covers. It is heavily implied by the timeline and the numbers that this is within the 1948 borders, but it doesn't explicitly say that. That would also be a much better complaint than some of the other reasons listed here, but it requires one to actually engage with and think about the chart in the first place to arrive at this particular realisation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It's been a month and still there's no better graph with a transparent data source (the author says "the numbers are from several places", and links two long papers... from which we are to somehow extract, again, four data points). People have independently raised several issues with the graph several times. The objection I raise here is – not exclusively, only because it wasn't emphasized enough by most others – that picking two data points and connecting them with a line is not an illustration of any phenomenon (because your choice of data is unconstrained, and real-world data is always messy), but it is an effective way for anyone to deceive dolts. I suppose if the purpose of the graph is to illustrate that settler colonialism is an embarrassing fraud of an academic model, it could arguably be effective in that role. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Surely the academic IS the transparent source: we don't have to do any extracting, since a subject-matter expert has already done this for us. What deception exactly do you think is at work here? Yes, it literally just joins the dots, but what do you think the problem with that is here? It makes a very simple point. What is the nuance/complexity that you think is missed? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This carping about a plot is getting tiresome. Especially when the carping is from random people on the internet convinced they know better than a subject matter expert and accuse said expert of duplicity into the bargain, a BLP violation. The only way to object to this is to demonstrate that the figures given are wrong (or at least, seriously misleading), not engage in handwaving argumentation out of a text book and personal opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

See also section

Selfstudier. The see also section is important bc it provides further information for the topics mentioned here. (Like previous colonial movements in the region). Also, this article is about a jewish natinal movement, so what's wrong in mentioning another national movement that is disputing the same land? Please revert your edit. -Daveout(talk) 20:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the verifiable relation between Zionist settler colonialism and these other topics? Please cite RS. (t · c) buidhe 21:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The relation is self-evident. Please cite a WP policy that requires RSs for See also sections. -Daveout(talk) 21:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That is evasive. What is self-evident for you is not for others. You fail to see the conceptual distinction, in the literature, which Buidhe has rightly elicited. The result is to make a mishmash. In addition, your remark that places Zionism as a 'Jewish national movement' sits with difficulty with the fact that before WW1 hardly any Jews had heard of it.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Just saying something doesnt make it true, what is the relation of Muslim conquest of the Levant to this article? That involved large conversions, but not a displacement of the native population. What exactly is the relevance of Palestinian nationalism to this article? You just saying it is self-evident doesnt mean that anybody else cant say it not and remove it. See also links are for related topics, and as with any other challenged material you need to demonstrate that relation with sources when challenged. nableezy - 21:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

this academic article (see abstract) (cited 455 times). Points out how there's an undeniable relation between Jewish and Arab nationalism. This is obvious. There are many article like that. It's hard to AGF at this point. No offense, but there's a clear whitewashing and pov-pushing movement going on here. (RIP criticism section, you will be missed). -Daveout(talk) 21:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What article? You're linking to a Google Scholar search. This article is about settler colonialism not Jewish nationalism. (t · c) buidhe 21:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(Fixed link, sorry.) "This article is about settler colonialism", you say. Reality? So let's take Zionism (a national movement) out of it's name shall we. Again, It is impossible to AGF here. It's a shame. -Daveout(talk) 22:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If you find it impossible to assume good faith you are at the wrong website, as that remains a core pillar and basic requirement of participation on this website. If you continue to fail to do so in such a blatant and blasé way well then there are places to discuss editors failing to abide by our core policies. For this page however, this is an article about the treatment of Zionism as settler colonialism by scholars. We discuss the methodology and applicability and findings of that framing. Where there is relevant criticism, and relevant not meaning whatever some random google result that doesnt actually discuss the topic of this article says that some user finds oh so important to present their favored view, that should be included as well. You were asked directly, what is the relevance between "Zionism as settler colonialism" and the "Muslim conquest of the Levant". You respond with it is self-evident and then violate several behavioural policies when challenged on that. And your the one having a hard time assuming good faith. Huh. nableezy - 22:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I actually dont care what you assume here, but you are required to at least feign assuming good faith, as am I. You have this article confused with Zionism. And Palestinian nationalism is indeed linked in the article Zionism as it makes sense there. Unless you are claiming that Palestinian nationalism is a form of settler colonialism, and in that case {{citation needed}}, what is the relationship between viewing Zionism as settler colonialism and Palestinian nationalism? And if you dont want me to remark about the clear effort of editors who lack even a basic minimal understanding of the topic demanding their unsourced and often propagandistic talking points be prominently reflected and their ignorance be treated as having greater standing than actual scholarsip, kindly keep your musings about "pov-pushing movement" to yourself. nableezy - 22:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Wolfe and "Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native"

Loew Galitz, you have repeatedly removed information about the significance of Patrick Wolfe and his work. Yet, it is important that the reader should know that Wolfe and the paper in which he described Zionism as a form of settler colonialism are foundational to the academic field. Since you don't like the sources I cited here are some other ones:

• "Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native" is a "seminal essay"... "a foundational text for comparative settler colonial studies"[5] ""Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native," offered a language for settler colonial studies that has been immensely influential... His insights have become ubiquitous as countless scholars embrace the phrase "the logic of elimination" and point to the fact of invasion as "a structure not an event" that invokes his work without even needing to attach his name to this formulation."[6]
• Wolfe "made an immense impact on scholarship in colonial history and settler colonial studies... His impact subsists in the way his work transformed multiple fields of scholarship",[7] "is often credited with having popularized the term and, intentionally or not, generating the field of settler colonial studies."[8], "has been instrumental in the foundation of this field"[9] "More than any other scholar, he has emerged as the leading figure in the burgeoning field of settler colonial studies and has done so much to advance its generative theoretical paradigm."[10]
• "Now a classic, Settler Colonialism [1999 book by Wolfe] practically established what is now a burgeoning scholarly subfield."[11]

The paper "Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native" has more than 4,000 citations which is exceptionally high for a work in social science or humanities. Minimizing this significance hides relevant information from the reader. (t · c) buidhe 21:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd like to hear a response on that as well. A substantive response. Selfstudier (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm back. What we see here, in talk page, are claims from reliable sources about importance of something, and this is my "substantive response". It is not I "don't like" the sources; my likes have nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines, and by them,, the sources were not reliable. Instead of reverting, colleagues should have addressed valid criticism expressed in edit summaries. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You didn't give any valid reason why the originally provided sources weren't reliable. Yes, if we're going to discuss Wolfe in the lead it's essential to mention why his opinion is important. (t · c) buidhe 01:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

reader should know that Wolfe and the paper in which he described Zionism as a form of settler colonialism are foundational - no objections here. However a lede is supposed to give a definition of the subject and a summary of the article. You are very welcome to enrich "Historiography" section with relative importance and seminality of works of various scholars. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So it sounds like the actual intent of this thread is more along the lines of whether this particular material is topic-specific enough to be due in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That said, I don't like this kind of cooperation and I am removing this page from my watchlist. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The Visualizing Settler Colonialism image is confusing

In the graph provided by Neve Gordon titled "Visualizing Settler Colonialism,"[12] which is sourced from a tweet on Gordon's Twitter account, the "Palestinian population" is depicted as dropping from 778,700 in 1947 to 173,400 in 1951 while "Land controlled by Jewish Establishment" is depicted as rising from 13.5% in 1947 to 92.0% in 1951. The image doesn't explain what "Jewish Establishment" even is, whether it's Jewish people, Jewish organizations, or the Israeli state. The image doesn't explain what land it's even talking about, because if it's a reference to the British Mandate of Palestine, obviously Israel winning the war in 1948 would result in a large acquisition of land within what previously was Mandatory Palestine. Finally, the image doesn't explain what the "Palestinian population" was, considering Mandatory Palestine in 1947 included roughly 630,000 Jews and 1,324,000 non-Jews.[13] I'm presuming the chart only considers non-Jews to be the "Palestinian population" in 1947 when Israel didn't even exist yet, which is both ahistorical and simply confusing. I suggest the image be replaced with something more accurate. - EricSpokane (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Already discussed above. Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah. My mistake. EricSpokane (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Gordon lists the sources for the graphic here. On the other hand, Jewish Virtual Library is definitely not a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 18:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Do the "law professors" have relevant expertise per WP:SPS

The source cited is an editorial. Most news organizations do not fact check editorials so it would have to conform to SPS in order to be considered a reliable source. It doesn't seem to me that either of these "law professors" are experts in colonialism or the history of Israel/Palestine (Lubet seems to be best known for his book Modern Trial Advocacy), so I do not see why this is reliable or relevant. (t · c) buidhe 07:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

As an editorial, the selection of these sources quite possibly had far more to do with who was available to speak on the subject at short notice than it did with choosing the most pertinent voices on the subject. Obviously neither of them are sociologists, anthropologists or aligned with any other appropriate discipline. Unless there is truly a dearth of engagement with this framework, one would certainly hope that there might be some more suitable specialized sources available, ideally presenting arguments in a peer-reviewed format, to provide perspective and balance. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that these are probably not the best voices about this issue, and that a format other than an opinion piece would be preferable. However, I would contend that this article needs some counter-arguments and that that should do at least until the "reception" section is better developed. It also seems to me that this article deals with a fringe theory, simply being peer-reviewed and published is not a guarantee of reliability (as we learned from the Grievance studies affair). In this case, I would argue that an underdeveloped fringe theory like this one desn't need extraordinary rebuttal, simply presenting uncontroversial historical facts (like the professors do) should be enough to break the egregious one-sidedness of this article and evoke a different, broader perspective. -Daveout(talk) 10:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources please for statement that this is a fringe theory. Sounds like just your own opinion. And people keep saying this article is one sided and tagging it for NPOV but are completely unable to present evidence that is the case. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Read again. I said ”It ... seems to me”. You don't have to agree, but I hold this to be self-evident. -Daveout(talk) 10:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether I agree, WP requires sources, not forumy chit chat and random assertions. Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I hold this to be self-evident, please see WP:NOTFORUM, a Wikipedia talk page is not the place for your personal opinions, and if you do not have sources for such a statement then make it on your blog and not here. Oh, and the source you are citing, unreliable though it is, proves the lie in the claim that this is some fringe theory. See its subheadline saying "Framing Israel as a 'settler colonial state' is now routine in academia". Something that is routine in academia is definitionally mainstream and not fringe. nableezy - 13:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The follow up question is fringe in what? Fringe in Israel? Perhaps. Fringe in colonial studies? Not so much. There are 40,000+ scholarly hits [14], [15]. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree these are not reliable sources for this topic, WP:SPS gives an allowance for experts who are published academically in the specific topic they are being cited for, and neither author has, as far as I can see, any academic pedigree on the topics of settler colonialism, Israel and Palestine, or even colonialism. Being an expert on Wyatt Earp does not make you citable in topics far outside any field in which you have been published. I am removing the poor sources. nableezy - 13:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I would ask on a noticeboard Drsmoo (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

If youd like to take it to RSN feel free. Just let us know if the discussion moves there please. nableezy - 16:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Pearl

Shrike, you know full well what WP:ONUS says, you have repeatedly cited ONUS in your removal of other sourced material. Kindly do not edit tendentiously. As far as the repeatedly added material, it, as discussed above, fails WP:OR by WP:SYNTH or is a poor source. Judea Pearl has no expertise in this topic whatsoever, and the sources that would otherwise be reliable do not mention settler colonialism. Lishak comes closest, but that paper is dealing with comparisons to general colonialism, not settler colonialism. But to the point, if you are going to make an edit like this or this or this or this you cannot, without being incredibly hypocritical, make an edit like this. nableezy - 20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Israel Affairs journal

This sources sends alarsm bells ringing. It is published principly through Taylor and Francis, rather than through the university press channels typical for an academic work, and it is run by Efraim Karsh of the already deprecated meforum (and Middle East Quarterly) and hosts Daniel Pipes on its editorial board. Karsh seems to have a special affinity for pseudo-academic publishing. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed journal published by a solid publisher, if you want to challenge its reliability I doubt youll get very far. nableezy - 05:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The author also seems fine, I think you should self-revert. nableezy - 05:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The author does seem fine, though it's bizarre that the founder of the esteemed Israel Studies would elect to seek space in a far more suspect publication. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Are editorial boards commonly overseen by individuals responsible for running political think tanks? Honest question. I really don't have much of an idea. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I get the feeling that this journal is less academically focused than the ideal sources used for Wikipedia. I didn't check the editorial board but it's what I would expect given the content. (t · c) buidhe 07:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

background

much of the included background material is poorly sourced (eg antiwar, israel365news.com), OR (the FMEP population stats), dead (borderlands). I dont think we should be importing another articles deficiencies here, the standard of sourcing in this article has been significantly higher than that, and I would just as soon remove almost everything just added absent better sources. Also dont need that much from Pappe IMO. nableezy - 15:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Connection with apartheid

There is a lively debate (type apartheid + "settler colonialism" into google). Example https://muse.jhu.edu/book/88845 - https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/3136738/pdf (4. Colonialism, Apartheid and The Native Question: The Case of Israel/Palestine Ran Greenstein). Also see From the Editors Rashid I. Khalidi & Sherene Seikaly Published online: 22 Jun 2022 at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showAxaArticles?journalCode=rpal20 Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove "needs expansion" banner in "Reception" section?

I would like to remove the "needs expansion" banner at the top of the "Reception" section, but I thought I would check in here first. With three paragraphs, this section is the typical length. While most articles could always use an expansion, I feel like this banner is not helping editors understand what is missing in order to expand it, and any possible dicussion about this on the talk page has been difficult to find. The banner is also stopping this article's DYK nomination from moving forward. Can I remove the banner? Z1720 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I support removal. After discussing there is no consensus what if anything editors believe is so missing from this section so as to merit a cleanup banner (t · c) buidhe 16:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Banner has been removed with this edit. Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The " UN's "Zionism is racism" resolution." should link to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379

In the section Historiography," UN's "Zionism is racism" resolution" links to Racism in Israel#Zionism. It would be more specific if it linked to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)