Talk:Revisionist Zionism

Inserted main heading above. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "*Revisionist Zionism, a movement that argues the terms of the British Mandate in Palestine."

Is that correct? That's what the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page says at Revisionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisionism (Zionism)

• Reference: A History of the Jewish People, ed. by H. H. Ben-Sasson (Harvard University Press, 1969, 1976) "Revisionsts", p. 1159. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Historians call participants of this "movement" Revisionists. That's the point. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• The current article name is either WP:Original research or WP:Neologism. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• From the article: In 1925, Jabotinsky formed the Revisionist Zionist Alliance How can "Revisionist Zionism" be either original research or a neologism? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• See also, A History of the Jews (1987, 1988), Index,, by Paul Johnson, p. 641. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, Paul Johnson, in said text, on said page, has this: "Revisionists (Union of Zionist-Revisionists, later, "Likkud". --Ludvikus (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Revisionism (Zionism)"

Ludvikus has suggested renaming this article "Revisionism (Zionism)". I think this is inappropriate.

There is a Zionist movement called Revisionist Zionism. In a general context, I don't think anybody uses the word Revisionism by itself when they refer to Revisionist Zionism. (In a specifically Zionist context, one might speak of Revisionism or Revisionist but this is a shorthand, just as one might speak of Labor to mean Labor Zionism.) I don't think there's any chance that somebody who comes to Wikipedia looking for information about Revisionist Zionism will type Revisionism and expect to find an article about Revisionist Zionism — but per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation, this is the only reason one might name an article "Revisionism (Zionism)". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• From the article: In 1925, Jabotinsky formed the Revisionist Zionist Alliance How can "Revisionist Zionism" be either original research or a neologism? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The above defines the issue(s) well, I think. Please give your view/vote below with a brief comment, beginning with either *Move, or Keep: --Ludvikus (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

• Keep. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Move, for the reason(s) I've given above. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Malik Shabazz is absolutely correct about the usage he states. It is used by the Jewish Virtual Library and is as well a subtitle of at least one book. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I propose, therefore that we have a REDIRECT to Shabazz's title. As one reads the Index of the scholarly work I cited above one will NOT find a reference to "Revisionist Zionism." And I maintain that it is a term of disparagement to them. Revisitionist Zionists would maintain that they are insulted thereby, and claim that they are the true Zionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In 1925, Jabotinsky formed the Revisionist Zionist Alliance How can Revisionist Zionism be a term of disparagement? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the way to seek guidance on the choice(s) is to look at the uses by the scholarly sources on Zionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Revisionist movement is the Only expression given for it in Melvin I. Urofsky's American Zionist Movement (1975, 1995), Index, p. 533. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Malik. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per Malik. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Hertz1888 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a summary of my point. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I do not wish to participate in an Edit War

One, single, editor persist in Reverting all my work. I will therefore, reproduce here, for archival purposes, what I hold to be the better opening (--Ludvikus (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)):

• Revisionist Zionism, briefly Revisionists, also Union of Zionist-Revisionists, later Likud --Ludvikus (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Your work is being reverted because it's just plain wrong. Revisionist Zionism is a philosophy and political movement. Revisionists are people who espouse Revisionist Zionism. The Union of Zionist-Revisionists was an organization of Revisionists. Likud is a political party that supports (or once supported) the principles of Revisionist Zionism. Four different animals: philosophy/movement, people, organization, political party. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Good. OK. Then why don't you Disambiguate? If I'm wrong, it's your fault. You've completely ignored my repeated requests for it. Perhaps you do not know what WP:DAB is? If you knew it, or did it, we would not be in this predicament. Answer me about Disambiguation, please. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why does Wikipedia need a disambiguation page? There isn't any confusion between the articles about Revisionist Zionism, the Union of Zionist-Revisionists, and Likud. Nobody is likely to type one phrase when they meant to type the other. Perhaps you should read WP:DAB to make sure you understand the purpose of a disambiguation page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• We're getting somewhere, brother. I've just inserted your exact word above into Revisionism, which is a DAB page. Know please go there and WP:cleanup after me]], consistent with your distinctions. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue now is essentially the above WP:DAB page. Let's stick to the issue & reach a consensus. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted links to two articles that aren't likely to be confused with revisionism. Please read WP:DAB and try to understand why I deleted the them. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's contrary to your own explanation of what these are. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Apparently, you are unware that this page is also a Wiktionary page. Therefore, according to your own explanation, these belong there. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said that anybody would confuse Likud with Revisionist Zionism, so please don't put words in my mouth. And a Wikipedia disambiguation page is not a Wiktionary page. The Wikipedia page merely has a link to the definition of "revisionism" in Wiktionary. In any event, what does Wiktionary have to do with anything?

Please read WP:DAB and try to understand that guideline. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I understand you. However, look carefully at the page - a page You edited - you yourself left it as a Wiktionary. It is at present a Wiktionary page!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  OK. I'll study your points more carefully. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I now think the above is best. I think it conforms best to the usage, ordinary and scholarly, and it better distinguishes from what I believe are two WP:Neologisms remaining at Wikipedia, namely: Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (negationism), which I think are (the latter) effectively covers for Historical Revisionism, Negationism and their subcategory, Holocaust denial. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open discussion

Please express your views below. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Move appears appropriate. Jabotinsky first organized the Union of Zionist Revisionists, and in consequence thereof Zionists commenced calling one another revisionists. There is this usage:

    "Over the years Israel has moved relentlessly towards the political right,
    towards an interpretation of Zionism known as Revisionism." [1]

• • My concern is to WP:Disambiguate it clearly from all forms of Historical Revisionism, an anathema to the Jewish people who have nothing to do with the latter. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I want Wikipedia to say that within Zionism there is Revisionism, and not that within Revisionism there is Zionism. (as the current title does). --Ludvikus (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Historical Revisionism" says that within Revisionism there is the historical kind. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support for Move (1):

The Jews of China - Google Books Result

by Jonathan Goldstein - 1999 - Jews

D.2 Zionism and Zionist-Revisionism in Shanghai, 1937-1949 Pan Guang

To understand Zionism in Shanghai after 1937 it is essential to discuss the origins and ...

[books.google.com/books?isbn=0765601036]...

--Ludvikus (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support for Move (2):

Vladimir Jabotinsky -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Zionist leader, journalist, orator, and man of letters

who founded the militant Zionist Revisionist movement that played an important role in the ...

[www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/298639/Vladimir-Jabotinsky]

--Ludvikus (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support for Move (3):

Vladimir Jabotinsky

3, 1940, near Hunter, NY, U.S.), Zionist leader, journalist, orator, and man of letters

who founded the militant Zionist Revisionist movement that played an ...

[www.odessit.com/namegal/english/jabotins.htm] - 4k

--Ludvikus (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support for Move (4):

[PDF]

THE ANTI-ZIONIST CAMPAIGN IN POLAND 1967–1968 [*] Dariusz Stola

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML

The campaign not only separated the masses from potential leaders

but channelled a part. of popular frustration:

against ‘Zionist-revisionist’ scapegoats. ...

[web.ceu.hu/jewishstudies/pdf/02_stola.pdf] - Similar pages

--Ludvikus (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support for Move (5):

Lenni Brenner: Holocaust History, Beyond the UN's Rhetoric

Sharon was born into a family of supporters of

Vladimir (Zeev) Jabotinsky and his Zionist Revisionist movement.

When Sharon became a teenager, he abandoned ...

[www.counterpunch.org/brenner01292005.html] - 82k - Cached - Similar pages

--Ludvikus (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for move (2):

My Jewish Learning: Ze'ev Jabotinsky: Leader of Revisionist Zionism

Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Revisionist Zionism. Origins of Zionism.

Jewish History from 1650 - 1914. Modern Jewish History. Jewish History and Community.

[www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Modern/Overview_The_Story_17001914/Zionism/Jabotinsky.htm] - 22k -

--Ludvikus (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What on earth?

What on earth is happening here? This is the worst structured talk page I have ever seen. Is it a requested move or an argument about the disambiguation page? Regardless, the article is at the correct location (Revisionist Zionism), no question. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bear with me, please. I'm trying to gather evidence as to what the correct name of the article should be. The article is about a movement within Zionism. And it turns out that Jabotinsky had formed "official" organizations from which the movement's name derives. I'm gathering evidence that the name we've got now for the article is a WP:neologism. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Number 57. Article is in the right place, the way Marxist feminism, for example, should not be moved to "Feminism (Marxist)". -- Nudve (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In 1925, Jabotinsky formed the Revisionist Zionist Alliance Revisionist Zionism is not a neologism, nor is it original research. You've been trying to make this argument for several days. Now you're just being disruptive. Please stop. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: Why are we having this discussion for the third time? See #"Revisionism (Zionism)". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at #5 above, you see the following: Zionist revisionist movement. I don't think we should invent names to suit Wikipedia when a proper name or common name exists. In our case, the original name derives at least from the American union which Jabotinsky formed, namely: the Union of Zionist-Revisionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Malik, Nudve and No. 57. It's time to leave it be. Revisionist Zionism is the name it's known by, more than any other. There is none more appropriate. Please stop wasting other editors' time. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your "PS" comment, User:Malik Shabazz, immediately above, is out of sequence. Please give me a moment, and I shall respond to it appropriately. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides me and you, User:Malik Shabazz, the only other active editor on this talk page was User:Boodlesthecat. And he has so far said nothing. It appears to me that your opinions are different than mine - from that it does not follow that the expression of mine here are "disruptive." As to your more specific point, I'm now proposing a different name than I did before. Futhermore, I feel I need to say that, no Wikipedia is the private turf of anyone, and it's my experience that Wikipedia's articles are constantly getting better as time moves forward. And no one, or two, editors can dictate to a third what he or she must do. Now lets get back to the issue at hand:

• As I've indicate above, it would appear that Zionist revisionist movement is the best tile for our article. I wish to direct you all to the Archives which support this name as most appropriate as well. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, stop it already before your endless disruptions get you blocked. OK, I said something. Happy? And yet again, stop using bullets on talk pages. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, this is the second time you have moved this article against consensus. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What consensus. You were away. And it was just me and him. It appear there are only two editers talking to each other lately. Where did you come from? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not the best title, because it is not necessarily a movement - it's an opinion, a way of thinking. Please do not move it again. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"What consensus"?!? The three editors beside me and Boodles who said to leave the article where it is during the two hours before you unilaterally decided to move the page. That's the consensus. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly ZIONIST-REVISIONIST MOVEMENT is the correct title. Reasonable editors please help out a fellow NPOV champion against this politically motivated hatchet job. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, not it isn't. See the Jewish Virtual Library article or Zionism-Israel. If anything is an expert source on Judaism/Zionism, I'd say they are. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You cite good source. And these are important. However, I think the problem is that the article is sloppy about what it is about. You should not confuse Likud with Jabotinsky's original organization, of which the latter is a successor. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, although the JVL is a wonderful organization, and does good things, it it is not a primary scholarly source - like a pear reviewed journal. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For example, Antisemites who propgagate the Protocols of Zion invented the idea that the so-called "Elders of Zion" were the participants in the First Zionist Congress. In order to show the ridiculousness of this view I contacted by email the JVL, and they told me that they didn't know - that I should go to the archives of the American Jewish Committee. So although the JVL is a great source of useful leads, it is ultimately an advocacy group. The place to go is to the historical journals which, by subscription, are available to anyone who pays. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice further what the JVL makes reference to: Revisionist Zionist Alliance - who are they, why do we have no reference to them, and did the JVL get it wrong? Look at the {{stub}} I've recently created: Union of Zionist-Revisionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, stop it. You troll through Google trying to find quotes to support your moves after you make them ("Bear with me, please. I'm trying to gather evidence..." you say above), but you apparently have zero comprehension or knowledge of the subjects you are googling. Stop it. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I own (and am holding in my hands right now a scholarly reference work, an anthology):

• A History of the Jewish People [2] [3]

ed. by H. H. Ben-Sasson

[authors]:

A. Malamat

H. Tadmor

M. Stern

S. Safri

H. H. Ben-sasson

S. Ettinger

(Tel Aviv: Dviir Publishing House, c1969)

(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976)

• If you turn to its "Index", pp. 1159, you'll only find "Revisionists" - there is no such thing listed in it such as we have: Revisionist Zionism. I submit, therefore, that it is either a neologism, or a term of more recent vintage which designates something else. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that you don't know what a neologism is. How can a phrase used more than 80 years ago by the man who established Revisionist Zionism be considered a neologism? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: Do you realize that this is the fourth time you've written that Revisionist Zionism is a neologism, and you have yet to respond to the fact that Jabotinsky used the phrase as early as 1925. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we're talking. But I think you din't here me. I'm trying to tell you that until at least 1976 scholar Abraham Malamat used the term Revisionists to designate the followers of Jabotinsky. And that in his index he has no listing that is the same as the article here: Revisionist Zionism. In other words, until 1976 at least (when the book was translated), in the English language (in the USA) these people were known as "revisionists." OK? (just got your PS, will answer later your PS) --Ludvikus (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

First, Ludvikus, you're cherry-picking your sources. Second, it doesn't much matter what a history of the Jewish people says. In 3000-4000 years of Jewish history, how many pages do the Revisionist Zionists get? One? One-half? A better source would be a history of Zionism, a book about Revisionist Zionism, or a biography of a key Revisionist Zionist. In any event, you still haven't responded to the fact that the founder of the movement used the name Revisionist Zionist in 1925. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me exact references so I know what your talking about. Just give me two things: (1) The exact title of the book you are talking about, and (2) the page number. Otherwise I do not know what you are talking about - and it becomes impossible to avoid disruptiveness. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

PS (example): I'm right now holding in my hand a book I own. American Zionism, by Melvin I. Urofsky (1975, 1995), ISBN 0-8032-9559-6 - and as I turn to the Index, page 533, the only thing I find listed is "Revisionist movement." How do you account for that? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Are you both really quarelling about the use of the expression "Revisionist Zionism" ???

If you don't know the topic, you should avoid working on this article.

Here are hundreds Ceedjee (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good observation. However, (1) look at the dates? And (2) open these books and read them. Surfing on the Internet with Google is no substitute forv reading the books you find. (3) Nevertheless, your own reference show that this expression is of recent vintage. And I think that's an exremely important fact. Also, I will put your insults aside, but ask you to adopt a more civil tone of voice consistent with Wiki Policy. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

funny.

you have your answer. We are in 2008 and in 2008, historians are talking about Revisionist Zionism.

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no "debate" except in Ludvikus' mind. According to the article, Jabotinsky formed the Revisionist Zionist Alliance in 1925. So the term has been Revisionist Zionism from the beginning. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because "I'm talking to the wall." Reading Melvin I. Urofsky's American Zionism (1975, 1995), p. 357 has no "Revisionist Zionism." Rather, Urofsky discusses "Revisionists" and immediately introduces a footnote with a star ("*"). He discusses in that context the Revisionist party as follows:

    "*The Revisionist party had been founded in 1925 bt Vladimir Jabotinsky
    to fight for a revision of the Zionist Executive's conciliatory attitude
    toward great Britain's whittling down of the Balfour promise,
    and to urge greater effort in the settling of Palestine."

• Urofsky, an authority on Zionism, makes no mention of the "Revisionist Zionist Alliance, and, I might add, neither does Wikipedia."
• The Jewish Virtual Library does. Is that your source for it?
• But another source I own, History of the Jewish People, says that in 1925 Jabotinsky had set up the Federation of Revisionist Zionists, which proclaimed its aspiration to return to the 'original Herzlian policy', .... --Ludvikus (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Another book I own, A People Apart, by David Vital, p. 994, has Zionist Revisionist Movement. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, why don't you write to the publishers of this book and tell them Revisionist Zionism doesnt exist. Let us know what they say. And this book. And this one. And this one. And this one. And stop cluttering the talk page with this foolishness. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good idea (to write to them). However, your list of books above is excellent. For that you get some points in favor of a WP:Barnstar. Give me a moment to ponder the complex situation: (1) You gave me a list of 5 books, but I've only had a chance to handle the first one, a 2005, but I think we are lucky, this first 2005 book may be enough to solve our dilemma. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Revisionist Zionism is a subject classification scheme used by the Library of Congress. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The first book I open this morning : Sachar, Howard, A History of Israel. From the Rise of Zionism to our Time, Knopf, 3rd édition, 2007, (formely published 1976 and 1996) ISBN 9780375711329 has in the index p.1253 an entry for "Revisionist Zionism" with 15 differents references.
The second book I open : Laqueur, Walter, A History of Zionism, Schocken Books, 2003 (formely published 1972), ISBN 0850211497 refers in the index p.634 to "Revisionists". p.350, he refers to a book written by Vladimir Jabotinsky in the 1920's (around 1926?) and titled : "Was wollen die Zionisten-Revisionisten ?".
Ceedjee (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's very helpful. I have an idea. Hangon a moment. OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) "Eran Kaplan is assistant professor of Judaic studies at the University of Cincinnati." He's the author of the 1st book of the 5 given above. That too is very helpful. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am still there : Amazon also refers to this book : [4] and states it was indeed published in 1926. Ceedjee (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's stick to the first book (this German language one requires translation, etc.). I think we should deal with the 1st book: The Jewish radical right: Revisionist Zionism and its ideological legacy. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, you are gravely mistaken when you refer to "our dilemma". The only dilemma here is yours. Nobody else is questioning the name of the article. Nobody. Only you. It's your dilemma, not ours. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) I'm going to email the Library of Congress to learn when they came up with this Subject classification scheme (they're quite responsive). I agree that there "extists" the label "Revisionist Zionism." But it only started being used in the last few decades. The older scholars did not use it. I think that's an important fact. Now look what at what Prof. Kaplan introduces The Jewish Radical Right. So are the tw0 phenomena one? --Ludvikus (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(2) How come the older scholars didn't use that expression, Shabazz? And is it a label for the "Jewish Radical Right"? according to Prof. Kaplan's book title? --Ludvikus (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(3) Is Jabotinsky a member of the "Jewish Radical Right"? All the scholars on Zionism say that he wanted a state, whereas Brandeis maintained otherwise. So what are these books telling us about that? --Ludvikus (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It was used the first time in 1926, by the founder of the Revisionit Zionist Movement.

At the lattest, scholars used this in 1976, ie 32 years ago (and Howard Sachar is not just a scholar, he is one of the major reference)

Would you mind defening : recently, primary source, and reliable secondary source ?

Ceedjee (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, why don't you e-mail whomever you'd like and research whatever issues you have. In the meantime, your incessant questions on this page are disruptive. First you tried to argue that "Revisionist Zionism" is WP:OR or a neologism. Now you acknowledge that it exists, but you will only concede that it is a few decades old. As I pointed out 4-1/2 days ago, Jabotinsky used the term in 1925. The phrase has been used to refer to this philosophy from the beginning. You still have not addressed this fact; you prefer to muddy the water with other issues like the Jewish Radical Right.

Please do all the research you'd like. But please stop posting status updates every 10 or 15 minutes as you have been doing for the past 5 days. As I wrote, this is extremely disruptive. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 09:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As another editor wrote earlier, if you have to ask basic questions about what Revisionist Zionism is, maybe you shouldn't be editing this article or trying to rename it. This isn't a forum to educate Ludvikus about Revisionist Zionism. Please conduct your research in a quiet corner of the library, not on this Talk page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 09:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's very provocative of you, and insulting to the memory of the great Malcolm X. If you don't cut it out, I'm going to ask you to change your name on Wikipedia because of all your provocations. Just give us an exact quote of such usage in the past. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't give you anything. There is a solid consensus to leave this article where it is, a consensus you have twice violated by moving it. Since you wish to rename the article, it is your responsibility to convince other editors of the validity of your point of view. It is not our responsibility to educate you, provide you with references, quotes, books, or anything else. Stop this madness or I will go back to WP:ANI and ask to have you blocked. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 09:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Again you are insulting. Please stop right now. I'm having a productive discussion with two other editors, including Bootles-the-cat who supplied us with five titles, and the other editor whose name I do not remember, and you come in with disruptions. You use the inappropriate word "madness" and you threaten to report me. Now cut it out already. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Palestine Post, April 16, 1933, titles an article : Split among the Revisionist Zionists.

The article start by "The differences of opinion between the Revisionist Zionist Executive and their charmain Mr Jabotinksy have now lead to a definite cleavage".[5]

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm sorry, User:Seejee, for not rememdering your name. I find your reference to the 1932 newspaper above extremely relevant, useful, and contributory to our discussion, so thanx for your good work. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be expanded. Because it just dangles in the article as half a sentence there's confusion about this article. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There's the following:

1. Herut (Hebrew: חרות - Freedom) was the political party of the Revisionist Zionist movement in Israel.
2. Herut – The National Movement, a new Herut party was created in 1998 by dissenting members of the Likud led by Michael Kleiner and Benny Begin.

--Ludvikus (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think there's a confusion or insufficient clarity respecting the movement and the party. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should Split the article into the movement and party - as they are obviously related yet distinct. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The successor of the "Revisionists" was the "Herut." These Revisionists founded the Histadrut Ovdim Leummiyim, or the Histadrut of Nationalist Workers. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, I do not think the article is clear about it's subect matter, namely, the Zionism of Jabotinsky, a major other voice in the Zionist movement, and the subsequant party politics, particularly when Menachem Begin assumed political office. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Summary: for these reasons I think we should distinguish between the two major versions of Zionism on the one hand, and Israeli party politics on the other. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)