Category talk:Anti-Zionism

{ {talkheader}}

Should anti-zionism be a subcategory of antisemitism?

Some say Zionism is racism. Others say anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. But I don't think either of these points of view are appropriate for Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 04:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism and antisemitism. There is a valid debate as to whether anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. The category does not mean that Category:Anti-Zionists are Category:Anti-Semitic people. Rather, it means that Anti-Zionism is included in the general discussion about Anti-Semitism, as it undoubtedly and unequivocably is. The POV is to deny that a relationship, albiet not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence, exists. -- Avi 01:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and there's a valid debate over whether Zionism is a form of racism. A connection is not enough, putting Category:Anti-Zionism inside Category:Anti-Semitism implies that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. Since that's contested, it shouldn't appear in Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 07:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That is where you are incorrect, I believe. It does not imply that anti-zionism is a form of anti-semitism; rather, that the two are related, which is undeniable. -- Avi 12:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But "related" is not enough for categorisation. If we make every related category a parent of each category, the categorisation would be a mess. There has to be a clear containment relationship, not just a "see also" relationship. —Ashley Y 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect according to wikipedia guidelines. Per WP:CAT“If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?” The subject is prominently discussed in the article under Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism and antisemitism. And regarding NPOV, the definition per WP:NPOV is “representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source.” It is fair and without bias to say that there is significant discussion as to whether anti-zionism is a proxy for anti-semitism. The category does NOT mean containment, that is tantamount to saying that it is a proper subset. Oftimes articles are proper subsets of categories, but not always. There is linkage, there is reliable and verifiable discussion, and thus the category is proper. -- Avi 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not enough. There has to be some kind of containment relationship, not just linkage. That's why they're considered "supercategories". In any case, the nature of the linkage is itself highly contested, not something settled. —Ashley Y 04:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please read WP:CAT. In specific, direct your attention to WP:CAT#Categories do not form a tree. “multiple overlapping trees” implies a rather different connotation than your term "containment". Thank you. -- Avi 07:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I came up with that heading, as well as the applicability of directed acyclic graphs. "Multiple overlapping trees" is exactly what you get in a containment hierarchy, because a graph of proper subset relations is always acyclic, but not necessarily a tree. Please remove your POV from this category. —Ashley Y 08:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So your tenacity is even more surprising. Overlapping <> containment. Once again, please read WP:NPOV, and especially WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view where it says (emphasis added is my own)

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.

— WP:NPOV

The POV in question here seems to be yours, Ashley. -- Avi 09:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any validity to the debate. Jews have been anti-Zionist since before there was ever a state of Israel. Substantial numbers of both secular and religious Jews were opposed to Zionism from the very beginning: the Bund was anti-Zionist, as were a substantial number of Chassidic and Haredi Jews. What valid argument could there ever possibly be for calling anti-Zionism a form of anti-Semitism? Do you honestly believe that these Jewish anti-Zionists were opposing a State of Israel due to internalized antisemitism, or did they have some other valid reason? As long as that other valid reason exists, there is no valid argument for placing this in the anti-Semitism category. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

From the perspective of set theory, there is simply no good argument for making anti-Zionism a subcategory of antisemitism. If there exists a member of set A that is not a member of set B, then A cannot be a subset of B. The Bund were not antisemitic; they wanted to solve the problem of antisemitism at home. Orthodox Jews prior to the state's foundation were not antisemitic; they believed it was heresy to found a Jewish state without the Messiah. Therefore, anti-Zionism cannot possibly be a subcategory of antisemitism. There is no valid argument otherwise. To claim there is a valid argument that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism is false balance and rings of the same sorts of state propaganda techniques used by figures like Trump and Putin. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You should have bolded this: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth". From WP:CAT#Some general guidelines, point 8:

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option.

I think that's pretty conclusive. —Ashley Y 09:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the two are related is not giving one any undue weight. To say there is no relation is patently false, wlthough at wikipedia, we are more interested in verfiability than truth, and this is verifiably. Lastly, it is self-evident that it belongs in the category. Once again, being in the category does not make anti-Zionism a form of anti-semitism. What is DOES say is that there is a distinct linkage between the two, which cannot be argued. Does Category:Anti-Defamation League mean that everything the ADL does is related to Anti-Semitism? Does Category:Crusades means that EVERYTHING about the Crusades is anti-semitic? Of course not. But there is distinct, verifiable, reliabley sourced connections between those categories, and it is likely that someone coming to articles in those categories is interested in the anti-semitism overtones/relationship/discussion. Here too. -- Avi 12:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Being a supercategory suggests a parent-child relationship, which does not apply here. Suggesting that anti-Zionism is in any way a sub-field of anti-Semitism is highly contested and not at all self-evident. Categorisation is not appropriate for the presentation of POV. —Ashley Y 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems we disagree only on one point. Does a category being placed in another category imply that the former category is a proper subset ("containment" is the language that you used) or does it imply that there is overlap, but not necessarily total ("relationship" is the language I used). If wikipedia believes unequivcably the former, then I concede you would be correct, but if wikipedia believes unequivcably the latter, then you should concede that I am correct. If there is no consensus, then we should seek to acheive one. -- Avi 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for people to weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Does subcategorization automatically imply a proper subset? on the issue. -- Avi 19:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That the ADL is chiefly concerned with anti-Semitism is uncontroversial. That the Crusades were anti-Semitic is uncontroversial. That anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism, which is the equivalent assertion here, is your own POV. Indeed, given that most anti-Semites are likely to be anti-Zionist (rather than the other way around), there's a better case for making the categorisation go the other way, though that would still be an inappropriate POV. —Ashley Y 20:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I will wait for more input on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Anyway, as a content dispute, using my "last" revert to change it back would be patently gaming the system, so I'm willing to hold off and wait a bit for more input. I do think that user:Lquilter has an interesting proposal… . -- Avi 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• From what I can tell so far, I agree with User:Ashley Y's argument/s. IZAK 22:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all Anti-Zionism is the same

The phrase "Anti-Zionism" means different things to different people and when reading it one needs to consider its context, who is saying it and how it is used. On the one hand there are people who hate Jews and Israel and anything to do with either. Racist, Neo-Nazi, and many Islamic fundamentalist groups who spout and promote anti-Zionism are at the same time rabidly anti-Semitic (or antisemitic) and there is absolutely no difference between their anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism since anti-Semitism is the broader and wider phenomenon, so that that kind of Anti-Zionism could unquestionably be a sub-category of antisemitism. On the other hand, there is an anti-Zionism that many reasonable and even Jewish people have that is in no way connected to anti-Semitism. The opposition of Haredi Judaism to secular political Zionism is well known. The Reform Judaism movement was strongly and openly opposed to any form of Zionism. There are genuine Jewish and non-Jewish scholars, intellectuals and liberals who do not accept the tenets and views of modern or ancient Zionism and they may even speak out and argue against it. None of these latter forms of anti-Zionisms are in any way connected to Category:Antisemitism. Haredi Jews, Reform Jews, Liberal Jews and non-Jewish thinkers and academics who oppose modern-day secular political Zionism cannot be called "anti-Semites" and it would be ridiculous to even attempt to class them as such. Thus, because the situation here is ambiguous and subject to misunderstanding, miscategorization, and perhaps even (unintended or deliberate) false and misleading editing and categorization by editors who may not (want to) understand the delicate nuances here, this category should not be a sub-category of antisemitism. IZAK 22:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cat see also

I think that lquilter's suggestion in Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Does subcategorization automatically imply a proper subset? is the best solution. -- Avi 05:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Anti-Zionists

Here's some history about the Jews who opposed Zionism during and before WWII, when Zionism was simply one minor Jewish viewpoint among many. It was acceptable among Jews to criticize Zionists until 1967.

The Coffee House
American Jewish Commttee Report Goes After Liberal Anti-Semites
By M.J. Rosenberg
[URL:http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jan/30/american_jewish_commttee_report_goes_after_liberal_anti_semites]

... And even the more virulent critics can hardly be called anti-semitic. Anti-semitism refers to hatred of Jews as a race. Before 1948, millions of Jews would have categorized themselves as anti-Zionist especially in Poland where the Socialist and anti-Zionist Jewish Bund was so powerful.

Anti-Zionist Jews were among the leaders of the fight against the Nazis and were at the forefront of every ghetto uprising. It is almost sacreligious to take the term anti-semite and apply it to Jews who are part of a long standing and quite venerable Jewish tradition. Were the socialist, Bundist and anti-Zionist Jews who fought and died in the Shoah fuelers of anti-semitism?

Nbauman 08:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Category being misused to smear legitimate groups by association with extremists

I stumbled across this page while cleaning up after a bunch of POV edits by a now-banned sockpuppet "Willian Tennant." [1] [2] He added two rather mainstream organizations to this category, Council for the National Interest [3] and If Americans Knew ([4]). I urge other readers to be cautious about inferring that inclusion in this category means that a group is anti-Semitic or otherwise associated with some of the unsavory members of this category. The category "Anti-Zionism" should be defined more carefully to prevent such abuses, IMO. Markdepp (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

antisemitism cat

That is a non-neutral category to include here, all the more so as a category cannot, per WP:WEIGHT, show that a disputed claim is disputed or how much support or opposition such a claim has in reliable sources. nableezy - 22:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Disputed? Perhaps by anti-Zionists.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Im sorry, are only Zionists reliable sources? And even then, I think you know full well that it is not just anti-Zionists that conflate the two. Eg: [5]:

The conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is a bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand that depends on treating Israel as the embodiment of the Jewish people everywhere. Certainly, some criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but it’s entirely possible to oppose Jewish ethno-nationalism without being a bigot. Indeed, it’s increasingly absurd to treat the Israeli state as a stand-in for Jews writ large, given the way the current Israeli government has aligned itself with far-right European movements that have anti-Semitic roots.

Regardless, we cant, per NPOV, label something antisemitic as a fact when there is a dispute about that. And categorization does not allow for any nuance such as "these groups say it is these say it isnt". nableezy - 16:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Various white supremacist groups deny they are antisemitic as well. Self-denial should carry very little weight. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I said reliable sources. Which, as far as I know, does not depend on how Zionist said source is. I dont know, maybe things have changed, and Wikipedia requires a solemn oath to the ghost of Ben-Gurion to be used a source here. But last I checked the word Zionist did not appear as a requirement in WP:RS. nableezy - 16:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As I argued above, there is literally no logical argument for making this a subcategory of antisemitism. Jews have been anti-Zionist since before Israel ever officially existed, from Haredi Jews (in much larger numbers in the past) to the Jewish Labor Bund. It defies credibility to claim that either of these sections of the Jewish populace were opposed to Zionism out of internalized antisemitism. The Bund was anti-Zionist because they wanted to solve their problems at home; Haredi Jews were opposed to Zionism because they viewed the movement as too secular and they believed only the Messiah could return them to the land of Israel.

Wikipedia policies are clear that unless a subcategory placement is uncontroversial, it should not be a subcategory. This subcategory placement is not only controversial, but also completely irrational. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)