Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Discussion on the Talk page of the Zionism article ([1])
Attempts to resolve through Talk page threads addressing specific issues, such as the use of "colonization" and the characterization of Zionism as a diverse versus unified movement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism#The%20shift%20in%20the%20meaning%20of%20the%20terms%20%22colony%22/%22colonization%22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism#Proposal%20to%20Revise%20the%20Lead%20of%20the%20Zionism%20Article

Despite extensive Talk page discussions, consensus has not been reached. No prior formal mediation or dispute resolution steps have been undertaken.

Statement by Boutboul

I am requesting arbitration due to an ongoing and unresolved dispute over the lead of the Zionism article. The main points of contention include:

1. The inclusion and framing of the term "colonization" to describe Zionist activities in Palestine, with disagreements about whether it reflects reliable sources and maintains neutrality.

2. The characterization of Zionism as either a single, unified movement or a movement encompassing distinct ideological streams, with disputes over whether sources support the latter framing.

Discussions on the Talk page have been thorough, but the parties remain deeply divided, preventing any resolution or improvement to the article. Specific disagreements include:

Whether the term "colonization" accurately describes Zionist settlement efforts and whether it requires additional context.
Whether the lead should emphasize Zionism's ideological diversity (e.g., political, cultural, and religious Zionism) or focus on its unified goals as a single movement.

While I have presented detailed arguments supported by reliable sources, the discussion has reached an impasse. Other parties have also presented compelling arguments, but consensus remains elusive. I believe arbitration is necessary to address these disagreements in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's content policies.

Key discussions and diffs:

I seek arbitration to provide clarity on how these issues should be addressed to ensure that the lead reflects a neutral and balanced summary of the topic, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Statement by Levivich

Statement by Andre🚐

Statement by Selfstudier

This should be declined with prejudice, it is an ongoing and well known content dispute, the only behavioral issue is the bludgeoning of talk page discussion by case opener, a novice editor recently qualified to edit the topic area. Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DancingOwl

Statement by Bob drobbs

Statement by DMH223344

decline

On point 1:

Mainstream RS use the term colonization everywhere when describing Zionism. The use of the term "colonialism" to describe Zionism is more debated and there is a section about this topic in the body of the article, and it is covered in passing in the lead.

On point 2:

The lead describes the mainstream Zionism movement. When RS describe Zionism they describe the mainstream of the movement. We also cover dissident groups in the movement in the lead briefly. DMH223344 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Dispute over the lead of the Zionism article: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Dispute over the lead of the Zionism article: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)