Talk:Zionist as a pejorative

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

Change the word Zionist to Jew. It’s what David Duke meant when he coined the term and it’s backed by the references Dimitri Careman (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitism

The article suggests that the term is “widely considered antisemitic” only among Zionists and in the British Labour Party. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Although I would agree that the people claiming antisemitism are a small minority, I don't think it would be accurate to change it to "often". "widely considered antisemitic" is favorable writing to those who consider it a pejorative towards all Jewish peoples. It is however, accurate to state that there are influential groups that are saying it is antisemitic. KeebisBored (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Reworded the lead to match with the article body. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. After reviewing the comments and waiting 10 days there appears to be consensus on moving this page to Zionist as a pejorative. After reviewing the sources provided it appears that the move is the correct choice. During discussion it was brought up that the word Zionist as used as a pejorative equates to antisemitism. The word pejorative is defined as "expressing contempt or disapproval.", it is not the same as the words found in category Antisemitic slurs. As also noted this definition can and has change with time as Zionist was not always used as a pejorative within the the core anglosphere nations, this is not always the case outside these communities. If there is any feedback on this or my conclusion please feel free to leave a note on my talk page.

• Nettler (1995). Medieval and Modern Perspectives (1 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315077666. ISBN 978-1-134-36682-8.
• Sicher, Efraim (2011). "The Image of Israel and Postcolonial Discourse in the Early 21st Century: A View from Britain". Israel Studies. 16 (1): 1–25. doi:10.2979/isr.2011.16.1.1. ISSN 1084-9513.

(closed by non-admin page mover) Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Zio (pejorative) → Zionist as a pejorative – Not in love with my proposed title, but in the past few years there's been increased coverage of "Zio" / "Zionist" as a pejorative term, both as an antisemitic stand in for "Jews" (see the cited RS about David Duke) and the more recent canard especially during the Israel-Hamas war that "Zionist" = supporter of settler-colonialism, apartheid, etc. This article can cover the pejorative uses of Zionist and its permutations.

Example sources: How ‘Zionist’ became a slur on the US left (The Guardian) How the Word “Zionist” Functions in Antisemitic Vocabulary (Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism) Inside Meta, a debate over when the word 'Zionist' is hate speech 'Jewish Supremacy': A Nazi Slur Goes Woke Longhornsg (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging previous ECP editors to this page @Andrevan:@IvanScrooge98:@NesserWiki:@Bohemian Baltimore:@TornadoLGS:@Uriahheep228:

• Support per Longhornsg Andre🚐 21:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for now as WP:POVTITLE. Criticizing Zionism is not hate speech. "the more recent canard especially during the Israel-Hamas war that "Zionist" equals supporter of settler-colonialism, apartheid, etc." Calling out Israeli apartheid is not a "canard". The Guardian article you cite is mainly about anti-Zionism, including Jewish anti-Zionism.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Deal with what this article is actually about. A pejorative is not hate speech. Per the sources in the article, are David Duke and white supremacists using "Zionist" to criticize the policies of the state of Israel or Israeli apartheid? There are ample RS dealing with the topic, including differentiating between the political use of "Zionist" and the pejorative use as a stand in for "Jew". (eg [1], [2]) The latter is what this article is about. This is not saying that criticizing Zionism (whatever hackneyed definition is used) is hate speech. Longhornsg (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  We can go into details about this, but effectively you're changing the topic here from "Zio", which seems to always be used as hate speech, to "Zionist as a pejorative", which can sometimes be used for legitimate criticism.

  The Guardian piece you linked above says: "But for the student anti-war protests gripping the US, the words “Zionist” and “Zionism” have become a watchword – pejorative and emblematic of the violent state policies driving the war on Gaza." You cannot lump this in with neo-Nazis like David Duke.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Longhornsg. Zionist has become used as a pejorative. Actually, such use dates to the 1980s, and was used by Soviet Russia. For example attacking individuals and organizations that are not necessarily actually Zionist, like Hillel International or Joshua Leifer. Therefore the article scope of "use of Zio as a pejorative" and "use of Zionist as a pejorative" are pretty much the same, this is just a more recent coinage, but I think it's well-founded to have an article on both, since there doesn't seem to be one yet on the more general scope. Neo-Nazism is probably related inasmuch as it deals with the trope of Jewish supremacy or Holocaust inversion. It's an unfortunate fact of today's discourse that those anti-war protests aren't as anti-war as we might wish they would be, since many of them have actually shown they are simply cheering on the violence just on a different side, waving flags of Hezbollah or Hamas or other things. That doesn't mean there aren't also anti-Zionists that are none of the above, but inasmuch as those things do exist, we should write about them. Andre🚐 04:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hillel appears Zionist as, on their website, they state "Hillel will not partner with, house, or host organizations, groups, or speakers that as a matter of policy or practice: Deny the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish and democratic state with secure and recognized borders."VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is hate speech when the term is used in a conspiratorial or violence-inciting context. The ZOG is a prominent example. Steven1991 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Consider this article by Amnesty International, which criticizes Meta's moderation of the word "Zionist" as potentially suppressing criticism of Israel.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• I have posted a neutral message about this RM at Talk:Anti-Zionism, as I think this RM appears to be expanding the scope of this article to include anti-zionism.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a good faith reading of of this RM. The scope does not include suppressing criticism of Israel (probably one of the most documented topics in this encyclopedia). It's about the word "Zionist" being used as a pejorative -- not hate speech -- for which there is a tremendous amount of coverage extending back decades. Let's deal with the facts as presented, not an imagined meaning. Longhornsg (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Amnesty should be attributed POV just like the ADL; and I would suggest you should more widely advertise the RM, since only sharing it to one targeted talk page might be considered WP:CANVASSing. As far as Hillel, Hillel is basically where college students go to a synagogue or a Shabbat dinner on campus, and it is the least religious Jewish campus organization, so targeting Hillel even despite a statement some don't like on their website, would be considered antisemitism by many of the statements released by Jewish groups, politicians, and academics. Andre🚐 05:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added it to Talk:Antisemitism too[3].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Jewish history, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Israel, and WikiProject Discrimination have been notified of this discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:25, 25 September 2024 (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.

“73 organisations”

One of The Guardian sources that claimed that “73 organisations” objected to the Meta’s restrictions on “Zionist” being used as a pejorative. I read through the article repeatedly, but haven’t found legitimate background information about the “73 organisations”. What are their ideologies? Have some of them ever been found to have any dubious affiliations? The Guardian is reliable, but it does have a slant in relation to the A/I conflict (it recently retracted a film review criticised for whitewashing the Hamas), so due consideration needs to be exercised when citing relevant news from it. Steven1991 (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

We're only hear to report what WP:RS say. Trying to break it down further goes into WP:OR territory. If you can find sources that go into detail, we can discuss whether it's WP:DUE to include them, but there's no requirement to identify what composes that number when we're only reporting what the source said.

As for The Guardian being reliable, that'd be something to take to WP:RSN. Personally, I don't find your argument convincing: the Guardian removed the supposedly biased review, which is a statement of opinion. This suggests they have enough editorial oversight that they retract things that are highly questionable. Meanwhile, this is a bald description of fact and has not been removed. Unless you're suggesting they made up the "73 organizations" figure entirely, it sounds reliable enough for our purposes. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I spent two minutes googling and found this, which is the letter the Guardian reports on. It includes the full list. However, it's WP:PRIMARY, so we shouldn't cite it in the article. This would be something we could perhaps add on as a second citation, to show that it's not just The Guardian. I'd prefer to avoid it; it seems like an advocacy organization, not a news one, but if you feel strongly that the Guardian should be verified, this provides a verification. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)