Talk:Zionism/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

issues for potential RFC

It was mentioned in the above sections (language in the lead consensus, NPOV balance issues in lead, best sources list, and how some sources describe Zionism, now archived to Zionism/Archive_25 Zionism/Archive_26 Zionism/Archive_27 I think, see [1]) that several editors do feel there is a balance issue with several sentences in the lead. Here are a few of my ideas for the potential multi-part RFC which should be modeled after the one at Talk:2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions#Requested_move_19_September_2024 which I'd say is an exemplary discussion on a very contentious topic, i.e. a series of constructive propositions or resolutions, with binary support or oppose for each. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but in some cases would result in a change that would make another one weaker or unnecessary.

1. Include "colonization" in the lead? Line 1
2. Include "colonization" in the lead? Paragraph 2 (mutually exclusive with #1)
3. Include "settler-colonialism" in the lead?
4. Include "exceptionalism" in the lead?
5. Change "as few Arabs as possible" to "Jewish majority"?
6. Change "as few Arabs as possible" to "largest Jewish majority possible" (mutually exclusive with #5)?
7. Remove summary about different mainstream types of Zionism sharing a view toward violence?
8. Remove summary about different mainstream types of Zionism sharing territorial displacement?
9. Include "homeland" in the lead?
10. Include "national home" in the lead?
11. Include "self-determination"?
12. Include "democratic" in the lead?
13. Include "pluralistic" in the lead?

Andre🚐 20:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As has been commented previously, this is slightly backwards, the lead should follow the body and we should be asking the question, "Does it?" and where necessary, fixing it up with good sources. Maybe we should start with the colonialism sections of the article given that there has been some recent editing on that per below section. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The problems exist in the lead right now, so this is where I think an RFC might be useful. As discussed by others, the lead is often the only part that people read of the article anyway. an RFC doesn't have to happen if we are having productive discussion, but you mentioned earlier you were waiting for an RFC, and progress seemed to have stalled out. An RFC for the lead wouldn't preclude progress in the body. Anyway, I appreciate any substantive critique or discussion of the 13 points above that I see as worthy of discussion, but feel free to propose different ones. Andre🚐 21:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

In that case, pass. Selfstudier (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Andrevan, in your 13 item list, you left out adverbs, conjunctions, commas, and dozens of other substantives. No person in his right mind could regard a proposal of this kind to be anything other than a recipé for wasting years of time on a talk page that has been, so far, consistently inconclusive on just one or two of those terms. It is a recipé for editorial stagnation, with zero value.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, Selfstudier, that's fine, and it's your prerogative, but you also indicated you were waiting for an RFC before. What did you think the RFC was going to be about if not the wording of the lead section? I mean I suppose we could have just a general RFC about whether the article itself is NPOV before even proceeding to any substance, but that would take 30 or 60 days to produce a NOCON probably. Whereas we could have a bunch of substantive constructive questions all at once and then after 30 or 60 days either make changes to the lead or have some consensus that it's fine as-is. Obviously if I'm the only one who feels that way it's a waste of time, but we had several users such as Bob, and I forgot who else, opining on the archived pages. They may not be active at this very moment so it should provide plenty of time for discussion or to refocus the discussion, though I'd say for users who are happy with the current page, I'd say that's a blind spot to the issues that others have also agreed are present, particularly in the lead. Andre🚐 22:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

In the section where I said I was waiting for an RFC it was either about Line 1 which everybody seemed to give up on, I know not why, or it was about colonization, which was what the convo had turned into by the time I commented. In other words it was yet another circuitous undirected affair. I don't mind if you want to have an RFC like the one described, when I said pass, I just meant don't expect me to buy into it.

You can have more than one RFC, you know that, and the RFC doesn't have to be about "the lead", it could just be about a sentence, say, and ask the question should (sentence) be in the lead, that's just an example. At any rate, if we go down the RFC route, I think it needs a more focused approach. Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

13 is way too many, I don't think all of these are even live issues, and I don't really agree with even the entire idea of asking "should <word or phrase> be in the lead?" for a series of words and phrases. I think a more productive approach would be for editors who want to change something (and who get reverted after boldly making the change) to put forward their case, with sources, quotes, etc., as to why the change should be made, and to limit the number of simultaneous changes that need to be discussed. For example, this week, we added "criticized," "democratic," and "pluralistic", each of which apparently need a discussion... I don't know about everyone else, but I absolutely cannot keep up with this volume of discussion. Levivich (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It was 13 points but not 13 discussions. Maybe clearer if I group it into 4 or 5 groups each having several sub-options. Andre🚐 22:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, agree. Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the sentence about as much land as possible and as few Palestinians as possible is so badly done with cherry picked quotes out of context and biased sources presented as fact that a RFC should be If it should be removed from the article entirety.

Bob drobbs (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that sentence should be rephrased or removed. I think a phrasing about the "Jewish majority" wanted by Zionists is how better sources frame it. That's why I included that as an option for an RFC proposal. Everyone said my proposal was too long, but if we condense it down or somehow make it shorter and simpler maybe we can start there. Andre🚐 22:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)