Talk:Zionist entity/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, even less a dictionary of pejorative terms. This article should be deleted. --FvdP 21:59, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that it is not a dictionary however, due to the unfortunately all too common use of the term "Zionist Entity" in the Arab World's press statements and historical documents, it carries some historical and political connotations that make it necessary to be included in the encyclopedia. We can link it to pejorative political slogans though. What do you think?

-Leumi
You'll note that terms cited in "List of pejorative political slogans" tend not to have their own article, e.g. "islamofascism": instead, islamofascism redirects to LoPPS. If I remember well, this was the result of a request of deletion for Islamofascism, which I supported as well BTW. I think people who read "zionist entity" know pretty well they're actually reading "israel", they do not need this article to enlighten them. The term "zionist entity" might well be cited somewhere in Wikipedia though, but I don't like the idea of Wikipedia be used as a receptacle for hate speech. --FvdP 23:49, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is no state that uses the term "Zionist Entity" that recognizes Israel's right to exist.

-Leumi
  • Zionist entity. Not a NPOV title. Dictionary definition of a pejorative term. No reason to stay here, IMO. --FvdP 22:01, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Somewhere on Wiki must be a discussion of which countries have refused to recognise Israel at what times. Discuss the use of this term there and redirect. Onebyone 10:41, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I would say redirect to Israel. We have other similarly pejorative redirects (Chemical Ali, Butcher of Kurdistan, etc). As an article though, it's pointless. Discussion of countries that have refused to recognise Israel goes on Israel or a subpage. Martin 19:40, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Maybe redirect to Zionist Occupied Government ? Maximus Rex 03:04, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Or move/redirect to List of pejorative political slogans? Kosebamse 14:05, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I've changed my mind on this, I think you're right, we should delete it, now that I have a better concept of Wikipedia. As for where to place it, I think it should probably go to List of pejorative political slogans. Leumi 20:43, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The Zionist Entity IS Israel, so obviously redirect to there. Bertilvidet 09:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You can't ignore the negative impact of the term. Naive users looking up "Zionist Entity" must be informed that it is a pejorative term, and can use the Israel link to look it up. --Gabi S. 11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a quite neutral term. Is it "Zionist", "entity" or both terms that you find pejorative? Bertilvidet 11:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bertilvidet, I'm rather surprised. The combination is pejorative. Only anti-zionists use this combination, and it must be emphasized in the article. --Gabi S. 11:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I can not see how it is a pejorativ. Both terms seem neutral. It is completely different from "Zionist pigs" (a title that I immediately would nominate for speedy deletion) that you suggested in an edit summary. Bertilvidet 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking for the quoted term "Zionist Entity" in a well-known search engine, the first 100 references are mostly from Muslim countries or, peculiarly, from Germany. It seems that the term is not used in any of the Americas, Africa, Central Asia, Eastern Asia, most of Europe, Australia and some small Middle-Eastern countries. And wherever it is used, it is usually in a negative context ([1], [2], [3] and more). I rest my case. --Gabi S. 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
237.000 hits on Google should make it clear that the term is used. The first hit is "Global Security". It will be an exhausting task to analyze how it is used. I would also expect the term to be used mainly in Muslim countries, and so what? The term is clearly used to describe the state of Israel. Bertilvidet 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is used, no one disputed it. But it is used as a pejorative term by Muslims and anti-Zionists. The "Global Security" article uses the term as tongue-in-cheek. I did analyze the first 100 entries, and the results clearly show that wherever the term is used, it is usually in a negative context (I gave some examples above). To claim that it's a neutral term is incorrect and misleading. --Gabi S. 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I believe you. The term might primarily be used by people who question Israel's right to exist. But I can still not see how the term per se is pejorative. Bertilvidet 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Leaving the "pejorative" issue aside, the definition "Term used by anti-Zionists to portray Israel as an illegitimate state" is accurate and NPOV. Redirecting it directly to Israel is taking the term out of context, and misleading. --Gabi S. 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...In princile I can agree on finding a short description for this page rather than a redirect. But we shouldnt judge the purpose of using the term. How about something like: Another term for the State of Israel. The term is primarily used by individuals, organizations and states who question the legitimacy of Israel ? Bertilvidet 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead. As for your previous question, many terms look pejorative to one side but perfectly neutral for the other side. For example, Final Solution probably sounded like a good solution to some European problems at that time, at least to Nazi supporters. --Gabi S. 17:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Why should this have its own page, when the one line description (already) fits easily into the List of political epithets#Zionist entity? If the entry there expands significantly, then we should perhaps consider a separate page. In the meantime, is anyone opposed to a redirect? TewfikTalk 15:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Not me, obviously. It's not "another term for the State of Israel", it's a disparaging epithet used by those who can't bear to let the country's name cross their lips, lest by so doing they somehow give it some legitimacy. Jayjg (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with redirect per Tewfik and Jay. 6SJ7 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If redirect we do necessarily have to redirect to what "Zionist entity" is, and we all know it is Israel. Bertilvidet 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it re-directed to the List of political epithets, which is what "Zionist entity" is, and which discusses "Zionist entity". Please stop changing this against consensus, and pretending that your reversions to your previous versions are "compromise". Jayjg (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right, there is no consensus. For this reason there is a request for mediation. So far may I suggest that we find a compromise. IMO a compromise is a little sentence about the expression, rather than any of the redirects we would prefer. If each of us impatiently opt for our own preference it will just be a never-ending revert war. As you can see here on the talk page Gabi S agreed on the compromise. It isnt my preferred option, but I realize that we need to seek compromise here. Bertilvidet 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No, there is a consensus. 4 editors have stated it should re-direct to List of political epithets, and one (you) wants it to be something else. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wikipedia articles are not dictionary definitions. Gabi S was beaten down by your constant reverting, and your particular version was indeed your version, not a "compromise". Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I will not analyze on Gabi S' reasons to agree with my suggested wording. As I understand you don't agree may I ask for your suggestions? Bertilvidet 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to analyze her reasons, I just need to look at her edits to see her preference: [4] [5] My suggestion is that you respect the consensus. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
May I kindly urge you to have a look at the talk page. Indeed, Gabi and I had debates about to where this article should redirect. However, I deeply respect Gabi for taking the time to engage in debates and searc for a compromise rather than blindly reverting. This is how we reached the sentence Another term for the State of Israel. The term is primarily used by individuals, organizations and states who question the legitimacy of Israel. You have of course your right to dispute this compromise. But may I then suggest you to come with other proposals than starting from the very beginning. Bertilvidet 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
My I kindly urge you to look at the dates of Gabi's reversions; she reverted you days after the alleged "agreement" on this Talk: page. As explained above, "Zionist entity" is not just "another term for Israel", it's a pejorative epithet. The fact that Gabi took my response to your "compromise wording" above and inserted it verbatim in the "list of political epithets" while thanking me should tell you something. The fact that a number of others disagreed with you should also tell you something. But don't call your particular POV version, which no-one agrees with, a "compromise". My personal preference would be to delete and protect this article against re-creation; the fact that it exists at all is a compromise. Jayjg (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion. I agreed to Bertilvidet's suggestion on 29-Aug-2006, then I thought it over, and changed my mind (as explained right here, below - Zionist entity DOES NOT EQUAL Israel). I think that "Zionist Entity" is more than a term "used by those who question Israel's legitimacy"; it is something worse, a disparaging epithet, and that's why I changed it to redirect to List of political epithets. Due to this disagreement with Bertilvidet I filed a request for mediation on this issue. I hope that whatever is suggested by the mediation comitee will be regarded as a long-term solution. Ah, by the way, and irrelevantly to the discussion, I'm male. --Gabi S. 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I stand corrected, and will thus refrain from changing the page until the request for mediation has been adressed. Bertilvidet 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Zionist entity DOES NOT EQUAL Israel

Zionist Entity is a term used by Anti-Israel persons, because they are afraid that saying "Israel" might mean they support the State of Israel. I have a similar example: If person A calls person B a "nigger", he doesn't mean just to say that B is a black person of African origin. It has a negative context that cannot be ignored. So claiming that "Zionist entity" is Israel is wrong. The negative term "Zionist entity" is a political epithet, and that's where it belongs. --Gabi S. 07:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I also reaffirm my position - this should be a redirect to List of political epithets#Zionist entity. TewfikTalk 19:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)