Talk:Zionist revisionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Why the VfD vote was resolved as it was 2 Zionist revisionists are improperly redirecting this page 3 There is no consensus for Redirect 4 It's neither disparaging nor purported any more than Holocaust revisionism.

[edit] Why the VfD vote was resolved as it was

"This article was improperly renamed ("An editorial by Alberuni") and then deleted by Zionist revisionists after it failed to reach consensus for deletion by VfD. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Zionist_Revisionism

Zionist Revisionism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. Although redirects plus deletes do form a rough consensus, there is no consensus (as per wikipedia policy) that this means anything. Any attempt to resolve this VfD by newly-formed policy would not seem to be legitimate, especially because partisans in this dispute dominate talk for the new policy. The VfD tally suggests that many wikipedian's would be in favor of redirecting this, but this should be brought up on the talk page of this article. I'm removing VfD from this article. Please discuss possible redirects or moves on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 23:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)" --Alberuni 01:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually a reasonable majority was reached, which is all that is required for VfDs, and now the material needs to be merged and NPOVd. Jayjg 02:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the results of the VfD notice again instead of trying to make up your own rules. "Zionist Revisionism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. Although redirects plus deletes do form a rough consensus, there is no consensus (as per wikipedia policy) that this means anything. Any attempt to resolve this VfD by newly-formed policy would not seem to be legitimate, especially because partisans in this dispute dominate talk for the new policy.

The VfD tally suggests that many wikipedians would be in favor of redirecting this, but this should be brought up on the talk page of this article. I'm removing VfD from this article. Please discuss possible redirects or moves on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 23:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)" --Alberuni 02:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. A policy change was proposed on Wikipedia:Deletion policy to mandate and codify redirects in cases where deletes plus redirects constitute a rough majority, but this policy did not have immediate consensus. It seemed that deciding the fate of articles based on it would not be legitimate. (Resolution of the VfD appeared to have been possibly stalled pending emergence of this policy.) I suggested that we not decide this article on the new policy in either case, and another editor in favour of new VfD rules (User:Gadykozma) agreed. Therefore, unfortunately, the fate of this article should be decided through consensus and the talk page like other articles which have not been through VfD. Cool Hand Luke 07:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, Alberuni, what is your reaction to the fact that 16 out of 23 Wikipedians thought the combination of title and contents is improper? There was a week long discussion on Talk:Zionist revisionism in Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which you only claimed that the VfD is not abiding. Nobody said it was. Do you have any suggestion how to resolve this conflict. Gady 12:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, VfD failed. Your belief that this article's title and contents are improper is irrelevant as is your intepretation of the intent of other editors. The solution when a page fails VfD is to keep the page. Your continued attempts to redirect and delete it are truly "improper". --Alberuni 15:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having seen many VfDs, it seems to me that they work by significant majority, not consensus. Jayjg 15:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni seems to value consensus and voting. If we really must, we could run a survey on this. No doubt we could solicit the original redirects and delete voters to vote redirect, but I would really hope that Alberuni sees this is a waste of time. Not just zionists voted to redirect. Cool Hand Luke 19:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I've said before, consensus and voting are quite different. And frankly I've haven't seen much evidence of Alberuni valuing either. Jayjg 22:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I value consensus and voting. For instance: the VfD on this page failed, therefore the vote was not there to delete. Yet, the page was deleted. I restored it. That shows my respect for the process while indicating the lack of respect for the process shown by those who improperly deleted and redirected the page. If you have evidence to support your accusations against me, please bring them to an arbitration rather than engage in Talk Page personal attacks. You may want to brush up on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Alberuni 22:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Zionist revisionists are improperly redirecting this page

Revisionist Zionism is a right-wing Zionist political movement unrelated to Zionist revisionism, which is more like Holocaust revisionism in its denial of unpleasant realities. --Alberuni 03:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai, if you needed any proof of what I wrote in Talk:Zionist Revisionism, there it, just above, straight from the horse's mouth. This title is nothing but a personal attack against Jayjg. Gady 03:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Eh? I don't see a personal attack against Jayjg here. Could you be more specific so I can edit for civility? --Alberuni 04:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, how old are you? Gady 04:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this Talk page? --Alberuni 04:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thought that would be your age. Gady 12:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] There is no consensus for Redirect

Why are the Zionist revisionists redirecting? --Alberuni 03:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any Zionist revisionists redirecting; the British are long gone, and I don't think anyone proposes a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan, as Jabotinsky once did. Jayjg 09:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg apparently feels no obligation to justify his improper redirects and other actions on Talk pages anymore. --Alberuni 04:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More likely Jayjg is not on Wikipedia 24 hours a day, and so not necessarily able to respond immediately to your every insulting comment and personal attack. Jayjg 09:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your absence doesn't stop you from reverting all changes. And you still haven't explained your improper unilateral redirect in the absence of consensus. What insulting comments? You are a Zionist. No more needs to be said. --Alberuni 17:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your comments weren't directed to me, they were directed to "Zionist revisionists". I am not a "Zionist revisionist", so there was no need for me to respond. As for the re-direct, "Zionist Revisionism" is an alternative term for "Revisionist Zionism", as a simple Google will show; that's what re-directs are for. And regarding the vote, as Gadykozma pointed out long ago, 16 of 23 voters thought the title and contents were improper. Voting sections of Wikipedia work a little differently than other sections of Wikipedia; articles are deleted by majority, not 100% consensus. Admins are elected that way as well. Jayjg 17:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are a Zionist revisionist as you fit the definition of the article that you seek to censor. That's why you want to censor it. It describes your behavior and the behavior of other disgusting Zionist propagandists on Wikipedia. You redirected the page improperly without consulting Talk pages. You know that the VfD vote does not imply consensus to redirect as has been pointed out to you several times by me and Cool Hand. You are a repulsive dissembler and a dishonest editor who continues to push your bigoted Zionist POV on Wikipedia at every opportunity. Your insistence on deleting the page Zionist revisionism is itself an example of your constant hasbara censorship of historical facts unfavorable to Israel, i.e. Zionist revisionism. --Alberuni 18:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai moved the contents of this POV original research essay long ago, not me, and the original contents can all still be found in Israeli-Palestinian history denial, so nothing is being censored. The VfD was clearly against keeping this article under this title, which is why a number of editors attempted to carry out that wish. "Zionist Revisionism" is "Revisionist Zionism", which is why the former should re-direct to the latter. And let's try to use the Talk: pages for discussion of article content, and not personal attacks, ok? Jayjg 18:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, there is not consensus for a redirect, but the VfD results suggest that many people (and if VfD is a fair sample, most people) find redirection reasonable. This is therefore not merely a zionist conspiracy to suppress information; most non-zionists appear to have voted redirect and this topic is encompassed by Israeli-Palestinian history denial. Would you be opposed to redirecting to that article instead as a compromise? We could even include a new subheading to list any facts from here not already present there. Cool Hand Luke 19:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it's not a re-direct (which it should be), then it should at least be a disambig page, because Zionist Revisionism really is the alternate term for Revisionist Zionism. Jayjg 19:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, your right. That is the most common use of the term, by far apparently. [1] Is disambiguation acceptable Abruni? Something like:

• Zionist Revisionism is a common term for Revisionist Zionism.
• Zionist revisionism can also be used as a disparaging term that refers to purported denials and fabrications of history by Israeli sympathizers, see Israeli-Palestinian history denial.

Cool Hand Luke 00:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's neither disparaging nor purported any more than Holocaust revisionism. You are bending over backwards to accommodate the house revisionists who spend their days revising Wikipedia to suit their Zionist POV. --Alberuni 00:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I believe a disambiguation represents a real concession. This use of the term appears to be relatively rare. In any case, would you agree to disambiguation in principle? (Go ahead an rewrite it to make it less accommodating to Zionists.) Cool Hand Luke 01:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The version you have is actually too accomodating; the denials and fabrications of history are indeed purported, the usage in that sense is not "can be also be used", but in fact "is used by Arab propagandists", and "Israeli sympathizers" is a disparaging phrase. "Zionist revisionism is sometimes used by Arab propagandists as a disparaging term for purported denials and fabrications of history by Zionists, see Israeli-Palestinian history denial".

"For Zionist revisionist, See User:Jayjg" --Alberuni 04:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. I honestly didn't know "Israeli sympathizer" is more disparaging than "Zionist"—that word seems to be used as a slur. At any rate, do you have a serious counter-offer, Aberuni? Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What bothers me is that every time I offer some sort of compromise, I get slapped down and insulted. I should know better by now. Jayjg 21:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Poor innocent Jayjg. Editors are not accepting your attempt to frame Zionist revisionism as a term used by "Arab propagandists." When will the suffering of Zionist revisionists ever cease? Perhaps you and your gang should work harder and faster to get me and others banned from Wikipedia so that you can continue spreading your repugnant Zionist POV without any opposition. --Alberuni 20:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you are banned from Wikipedia, it will be for your own actions. Jayjg 00:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] It's neither disparaging nor purported any more than Holocaust revisionism.

Zionist revisionism is a fact. You don't see Holocaust revisionism described as disparaging or its existence disputed. It is also a fact. Perhaps you should read and research and add to the article rather than trying to accommodate the very Zionist revisionists that the article describes. That's like revising the article Anti-Semitism to accommodate anti-Semites. --Alberuni 20:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This label refers to Revisionist Zionism more than anything else, so a disambig is quite generous. If you disliked how the term is being described you're free to fix it. Cool Hand Luke 20:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A disambig was far too generous, considering that the term really refers to "Revisionist Zionism", but I'm trying to go along with it in order to diffuse this conflict. Jayjg 00:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)