body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Self-determination?[edit]

@User:HalseyEn Where does Theodor Herzl, an avowed colonialist, write about the notion of "self-determination"? That needs a citation, otherwise that section is simply anachronistic hasbara. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's also the question of whether warped interpretations of "self-determination", which does not conventionally extend to unilaterally determining your sovereignty over other people's space, should be included as mundane entries. I can self-determine myself as the legal owner of my neighbour's backyard all I like, but I imagine that would not be an accepted application of the principle. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a warped interpretation of Zionism and a false analogy. Zionism does not involve unilaterally determining sovereignty over other people's space. The Zionist movement sought to establish a homeland for Jewish people through various means, including diplomatic efforts, international recognition, and legal frameworks. The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was the culmination of these efforts, recognized by a majority of the international community. 2600:8802:1905:D200:9802:C09:41CA:9E68 (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He writes about self-determination in the cited work. It is the entire thesis. I have added the direct citation. 2600:8802:1905:D200:9802:C09:41CA:9E68 (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker does not appear in Herzl as far as I can see, and that would be understandable since it is a modern legal notion associated with Woodrow Wilson and his heritage decades after Herzl's death. In that period the most common expression used in Zionist literature was 'colonization', and that doesn't fit the legal concept of self-determination for the simple reason that colonization means dispossessing the colonized land's indigenous inhabitants of their right to self-determination. Secondly your edit removes the word 'ideology' which is universally recognized as what Zionism is, and uses the word 'restore' referring to an ostensible status ante quo 2 millenia ago, when Judea did not have anything like what we now call sovereignty, let alone self-determination, since apart from the Hasmonean interlude, it was ruled by foreign empires. The edit is therefore tendentious and engages in spurious claims from a primary text, and must be reverted.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Herzl did not use phraseology from the future, correct. The concept of self-determination is still central to his thesis and the Zionist movement. In the historical context of early Zionist literature, the term 'colonization' was used to describe the indigenous settlement and development of Jewish communities in the Land of Israel, did not involve the dispossession of any other indigenous or non-indigenous inhabitants, and does not align with the contemporary understanding of imperial colonization.
  2. It was not my edit. The long-standing word in use was 'movement', as used in the accepted definition. This was needlessly erased and replaced with 'ideology', despite the article stating that "Zionism does not have a uniform ideology..." and carrying potentially inaccurate connotations and assumptions. Absolutely not universally recognized, and should be reverted.
  3. Again, 'restore' was the long-standing, accurate word in use, destructively erased. You specifically omit historical periods of Jewish sovereignty and self-determination (the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah) referenced by your own edit, and even directly mention the Hasmonian era. This is a matter of historical record, neither tendentious nor reliant on a primary text, and must indeed be reverted.

MemoryGuardian (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your insult and NPA violation above underlines an inappropriateness that is wholly your own. Israel is the only example we have of the use of 'self-determination' in the sense of the right of an extraterritorial population claiming a right of possession of land at the expense of the majoritarian indigenous population's right to self-determination. Indeed, the use of the term in Israeli rhetoric automatically erases the appropriateness of self-determination in its classic sense. The same tactic is used in associating an immigrant population with indigeneity, which automatically denies that the historic population is indigenous. These are verbal games that maim conceptual clarity. They have therefore some traction in sponsored polemics and POV positioning, but that is politics, pure and simple. Here we are dealing with concepts, whose meanings cannot be turned upside down to any advantage.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no insults or attacks in my reply, though I am willing to edit it if an arbitrator wishes. Yours contains quite a few, however. "Tactics", "verbal games", "sponsored polemics", etc. But we can put that aside and actually address the concepts. Even if your "extraterritorial" framing were accurate, the claim is false. There are other examples. However, Jewish communities have maintained an unbroken presence in the land since antiquity, and those in diaspora originate there. Your zero-sum framing is conceptually unfounded. Multiple neighboring populations can be indigenous to a region. My original points stand as well. MemoryGuardian (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(a)It is absolutely not appropriate for individuals with multiple ARBPIA bans for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish editing to manage this entry.

(b)There are no insults or attacks in my reply

Perhaps you can reconcile the incongruities in the assault and defensive modes here. Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(a) is an objective statement of fact that would apply for any topic, not an "assault", thus (b). However, as I said before, if you find it insulting to you and it needs to be removed, I am completely willing to do so, especially since it seems to be distracting you from the substantive content. Perhaps you would also remove the overt insults in your reply. MemoryGuardian (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MemoryGuardian, you may edit the talk page "to post constructive comments", according to the above template--you are not yet at 500 edits of course, so you should be a bit careful. Your comments addressed at Nishidani do not exactly flow over with AGF. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I have removed the sentence in question. I expect they are also required to abide by the same rules? Aside from that sentence, I have posted an edit request to talk via constructive comments. MemoryGuardian (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course--and thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please make the requested terminological reversions. MemoryGuardian (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, if anyone is interested in Drmies's instant solution to this and similar edit problems: remove the list of "notable examples". It serves no purpose and causes unnecessary conflict. Abstract nouns and lists of "notable examples" just attract unrest. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we used the principle of eliding material that becomes contentious for all articles, it would make for less work, clearly. The collateral effect would be to remove an enormous amount of material which regards such topics. The world is itself conflicted, and we can't, surely, push wiki towards a Reader's Digest reading of it. Learning to edit wiki is, I think, also, in this impatient instant cliché interpretative networking society, an exercise in the old virtues of slow reading, close study, patience and a cultural and psychological accommodation to the fact that things are rarely what they seem to speed-reading eyes. I know that sounds stodgily old-fashioned, but the old owe the young whatever they retain of our moribund traditions of rounded clarity. The Notable Examples is half the article.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nishidani, I think that having so many articles becoming a list of examples isn't exactly stodgy--I think it's rather a feature of the modern era, and one which has become the bane of many a Wikipedia article. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I agree with you, in principle. 'Only distinguish' - an important principle - gets sunk. Most of the examples in such lists cry out for development or independent articles. But very few people appear willing to roll up their sleeves. Lists are quick - like those endless lists of 'reactions' to some event that mar every other article. There is nada value to them, they all convey predictable positionings by nations with a predetermined spin on whatever according to political alliances, to cite another grating type of abuse. But it's there. If a general principle were to be not only evoked but applied across the board, I'd second it to lighten texts without regard to sectional interests. But my feeling is that it would only lead to a selective hit at pages which arose the pique of one or another edit with some particular beef. That is why I withstand the temptation.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming article to: Self-determination of peoples[edit]

Maybe not in de US, but in Europe, self-detemination as a notion is tied to the basic classical human rights principle for individuals. The concept of 'self-ownership' isn't known as a notion for the right for a person in Europe. When European countries speak about the content of this article they give the article a name like: Selbestimmungsrecht der Völker (de), Droit des peuples à disposer d'eux-mêmes (fr), Autodeterminazione dei popoli (it), Samostanowienie narodów (pl Self-determination of nations) or Den nationale selvbestemmelsesret (da National self-determinatiion right) or Nationellt självbestämmande (sw National self-determinatiion) etc.

In the UN treaties the frase is: "self-determination of peoples" (UN Charter) and "All peoples have the right of self-determination" (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights / Civil and Political Rights. To give room (in other language versions) for an article on the right of self-determination (for individuals), linked to the english language version on self-determination, and Google finding the right article, it would be good the english version makers respect other countries, other cultures and other language versions and think about changing the name of an article with the content this article has, into "Self-determination_of_peoples". Thanks and keep up the good work VanArtevelde (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd suggest that this isn't done. I'm aware that there are several countries that dispute what constitutes a "people", whose arguments basically deny that a population constitutes a people with the right to self-determination. Guatemala does it ref Belize, Argentine ref the Falklands, Spain ref Gibraltar. Renaming is likely to trigger ethnic disputes and is unnecessary in my opinion. WCMemail 09:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Self-determination in this sense, rather than the personal psychological/philosophical sense, appears to be the common meaning. Searching self-determination gives you first and foremost the international law principle. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories