Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unbalanced

This article has a serious problem of neutrality, as many editors have already pointed out. The two main questions, as I see them, are:

• How can we accurately explain that this entire paradigm is mostly promoted by activists and academics associated with one side of the conflict?
• What should be done regarding the lack of criticism points regarding this much controversial article that almost entirely ignores the Jewish history of the land?

This is the first time I have heard of a settler colonial state in which its inhabitants are descendants of its ancient indigenous people and of the only independent kingdoms in the area that were actually ruled by the local, indigenous population. Please do not remove this tag until these issues are solved. Thanks. Tombah (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The first point is a valid question; the second point, i.e.: the sense of land entitlement, is part of mindset that makes up the paradigm. The ancient history is only indirectly related to the conceptual framework by way of said mindset. But the indigenous polemics need to be left at the door: it's no more relevant than a claim to Asia by descent from Genghis Khan sperm. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

On the first point, this also seems to have been already addressed with your addition to the lead - though ofc it should attend the body too (MOS:LEAD). Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Once again, we are presented with source free opinion and no evidence. We need relevant sources rather than assertions, failing which, the article tag has no place and has been removed several times already for lack of same. Selfstudier (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"mostly promoted by activists and academics associated with one side of the conflict?", is, to be blunt, horseshit. You dont get to assign academics to "one side of the conflict" because you object to their academic work. "this much controversial article that almost entirely ignores the Jewish history of the land?" is likewise complete nonsense. The "Jewish history of the land" has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. It may be a justification for Zionism, but it has absolutely nothing to do with discussion of Zionism as a form of settler colonialism. And no source raises that in relation to the two, making the wish to include a violation of our core policy against original research. nableezy - 17:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

For #1, just read the sources. Two of them are cited on lede. For #2, I happen to disagree. Even if the Zionist movements did have some characteristics typical for colonial settlement movements, it's pretty clear that, when looking on the historical facts, it is really another kind of phenomenon. Maybe the correct term is yet to be invented (Maybe "decolonization through resettlement"? Or "reclaiming old homeland via resettlement"? Here are some ideas for a PhD). As you said, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Nevertheless, some of the sources added before did touch on these problems. But unfortunately, they were all removed. Tombah (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Then since 1 is addressed already and 2 is just more irrelevant rambling, kindly remove the tag. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources were removed because they didnt directly discuss the topic of this article, that being the argument, for or against as supported by sources, that Zionism is a form of settler colonialism. I really dont want to go in to the same WP:FORUM territory you seem to want this talk page to degrade in to, but the idea that a group of (mostly) Europeans "decolonized" the Holy Land is on the same level as "mostly promoted by activists and academics associated with one side of the conflict". I believe Ive used my quota of the term to describe thay level already today. nableezy - 19:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

European *Jews*, descendants of the indigenous people who inhabited, ruled and prospered in the Holy Land for thousands of years. But this is obviously not the place to debate this. My questions remain. The sources state that the paradigm is mostly advocated by Palestinian scholars and activists, and explains their arguments in detail. The Israeli/Jewish viewpoint is almost non existent. All I'm asking is for us to be aware of that and do whatever we can to resolve that. I would appreciate the help of the experts here, as I admit - I'm not an expert in this subject. Intellectual integrity is important. And until it's done, the tag should remain. Tombah (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Please dont do that, make contentious statements for which you know sources seriously dispute (eg European Jews are descendants of *the* much less *an* indigenous people in Palestine, as though the Palestinians are not, and as though that was not something that is in serious dispute). Of the sources cited in this article, Moshe Behar is Jewish, Rachel Busbridge doesnt seem to be Palestinian, neither does John Collins, nor Arnon Degani, Neve Gordon is an Israeli-Jew, and his co-author doesnt look especially Palestinian. Please stop making things up, there are more Israeli-Jews cited here than there are Palestinians. nableezy - 20:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Once and again, we both remind the other that this is not a forum. But we keep on debating other stuff. I have no choice but answering these two-three assumptions/statements you have just made. (1) Genetic studies on Ashkenazi Jews have already shown that they are of Levantine ancestry. The Khazar myth is mostly disregarded by serious scholars today as a myth. (2) I haven't said anything about the origins of Palestinians, nor denied any connection to the Holy Land whatsoever. In fact, there is a proven, deep genetic overlap between Palestinians and Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. To me, the implications are pretty clear. Anyway, it is not me, but the sources here who make the connection between this paradigm and Palestinian academics and activists. Tombah (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the sources do not do that. Yes, activists have increasingly cited this in their positions. But unlike how you originally claimed that it is "mainly by activists and Palestinians scholars in Israel", what those sources actually say is that it has increased in usage by activists and additionally, though not as widely, by academics without ethnic-badging any of those academics. An ethnic badge that is manifestly untrue and any editor who in good faith even briefly peruses the sources would see to be tendentious bs. And the other source says that Palestinian scholars in Israel lead the paradigm’s reformulation, not that they are the people that mainly use it. Your attempt to make this in to a Palestinian vs Israeli/Jewish (as though those two are equivalent to begin with) ignores that Israelis and Jews are cited over and over in this article. Please stop making these statements that even a brief analysis shows to be total nonsense, I wouldnt dream of insulting your intelligence by claiming something so obviously untrue to be fact to your face, so kindly return the favor. As far as genetic studies, they also show significant European ancestry. But we both know this wildly off-topic, and absent you bringing reliable sources that relate any such material to the topic of this article it remains OR by SYNTH. nableezy - 22:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, there does seem to be a serious lack of neutrality and there does seem to be bias in the article. I believe the Israel view point ought to be presented. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There have still been zero sources presented to demonstrate any issue with neutrality here. If they are not presented in due time I will be removing the tag. You dont get to just say I dont like what this says, you need to make arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. This section has none. nableezy - 14:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, a tag is not meant to deface an article, if there is no active effort to discuss or demonstrate an issue with the balance there is no cause for the tag. Accordingly, I am again removing it. You cannot just say I dont like what this article says so it is unbalanced. nableezy - 16:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, you may not simply deface an article because you dislike its contents. The tag requires ongoing discussion of POV issues. Not just I forever hate this article and I shall tag it. It is absurd to do so with there being no changes while it is on the Main Page. Exactly what is the POV issue here? That material that isnt related to the topic isnt included? That isnt a POV issue. Where is the NPOV/N thread to address it since there has been no consensus for changes here? Where is the RFC? You cant just deface an article indefinitely. nableezy - 14:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Especially with no one having bothered to continue the discussion either here since 9 June, or in the NPOV thread above since 10 May. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

recent OR additions

Regarding this revert, there are several problems with these sources:

• Tablet does not once mention colonialism much less settler colonialism
• op-ed by non-experts, Ethan Roberts is the director of government affairs for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas (JCRC), Rhona Shwaid is the co-director of the Twin Cities Chapter of Zioness, and Jacob Millner is the director, Minneapolis-St. Paul American Jewish Committee (AJC)
• PBS does not once mention colonialism much less settler colonialism
• Jewish Rights in Palestine pre-dates Israel, much less any claim of Israel being a settler colonialist enterprise. Obviously does not mention the topic of this article
• Israel Studies usable, Ill work this in to the existing article after this edit
• Random blog
• Forward Community section effectively a blog, but regardless by a non-expert and regardless does not discuss the topic of this article
• The Samaritans under Mamluk and Ottoman rule and during the 20th century, from a Hebrew book. Now obviously with the information provided I cant find that source, but just off of the chapter title it cannot possibly be related to the topic of this article
• France 24 on an Iraqi troops liberate Christian town of Bartella from IS group not related to this topic
• Philosophy in the Middle Ages Indianapolis, 1973, p. 204 - very obviously unrelated to the topic of this article
• Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq, p. 187 - again, very obviously unrelated to the topic of this article

In sum, there is one source in the entire list that has anything to do with this article. nableezy - 16:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I added that one source to the article now. nableezy - 16:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

POV tag

Totally imbalanced article. There is only one or two sentences in the article dedicated to contrary views on a very controversial viewpoint and subject. Loksmythe (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT DarmaniLink (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Tag should go as nothing has been done to balance the article except this rhetorical disput. Here, for argument's sake, I don't agree with a statement, and I say it is balanced enough. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, without details on NPOV issues the tag is meritless. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Should we act accordingly ? I mean, should we remove it? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, no reasoning no tagging. nableezy - 19:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)