Talk:Zionazism

May 2021

This entry is total garbage. It was created by a now-blocked user, it's not an identifiable ideology or even a word except to the degree that it's cited as being used once 18 years ago by some rando on the internet. Also, inserting "Derogatory" when the definition tends to the assertion that this is an actual phenomenon is contradictory WV789 - 19:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Aren't you an Internet rando too? And it's not contradictory: there can be words for real things that are derogatory, e.g. feminists exist, and some call them "feminazis". Equinox ◑ 19:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2021

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Zionazism

Tagged but not listed (diff). --Fytcha (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Move to RFV. DTLHS (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Move to RFV. Equinox ◑ 14:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Move to RFV. --Fytcha (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved to RFV: Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#Zionazism --Fytcha (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2021

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Zionazism

Originally tagged but not listed for RFD (diff). Moved to RFV as per the RFD discussion. --Fytcha (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This should pass due to being in ‘clearly widespread use’ and therefore meeting the CFI. It’s extremely easy to find this word used on Twitter, FaceBook, YouTube, Reddit and on numerous other internet sites. I could only see one hit on Google Books (which I’ll add in due course) but we already have its close relative Zionazi as an entry and the durably archived citation in the main page of this contested entry, so we only ‘need’ one more (if we absolutely insist on another ‘durably archived’ citation for a word that is so clearly in common use and was only nominated for deletion for political reasons in the first place before being converted from RFD to RFV, which was probably the right decision). Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It's in widespread use but is our definition appropriate? DTLHS (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

We should probably change the definition to something like ‘Zionism, especially when viewed as being totalitarian…’ for a more neutral and encyclopaedic tone but we also should discard the possibility that this word should be removed altogether from Wiktionary, regardless of whether that’s due to it being considered to be unverified or offensive. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve added the quote and slightly modified the definition, surely this is now resolved? Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

3 citations are required. DTLHS (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

If it's barely even made it into three books/journals/magazines/etc in the past half century, it's not "widespread use". It also doesn't seem at all clear that the "Communism and Nazism (Zionazism, Fascism) are two heads of the same serpent" cite means "militant Zionism"; perhaps context would clarify. I did manage to find one cite in a scholarly journal quoting Urban Dictionary (Citations:Zionazism) where the meaning is in that vein, though. - -sche (discuss) 01:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Surely the only reason the CFI includes a line about ‘widespread use’ is precisely for words that appear often online but not often in GoogleBooks, Google groups, Usenet and archived journals (otherwise why mention it in the CFI?). Also the quote I added that compared Zionism to Communism and Fascism can only be interpreted as saying that Zionism is totalitarian; for that matter it’s hard to see how this doesn’t suggest that Zionism is a militaristic philosophy, though the word ‘militaristic’ doesn’t appear in the current definition. Regardless of ones personal interpretation of the CFI, the citation that you’ve added now means that we have 3 durably attested cites though (so again I have to claim RFV-resolved) Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd always thought the "widespread use" bit was designed to stop people from RFVing, say, run verb sense 1 on the grounds that it "doesn't have three cites". This, that and the other (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. This one scrapes in with three cites. Kiwima (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Usage note

I think it's pretty obvious why calling someone a Nazi could be considered offensive. No need for this "insensitive" or "perpetuating harmful stereotypes" word salad (I don't even know what the stereotype would be here!). @Mbknapp, -sche Ioaxxere (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The stereotype is that the term implies that Israelis are Nazis. And the fact that it's obvious to you the term is offensive doesn't mean it shouldn't be clearly identified in the usage notes. I can point to many other words that are identified as offensive, with the reason clearly explained in the usage notes, as I have attempted to do here.

The very limited usage of this term is predominantly anti-Semitic. The way you've edited the usage notes is unacceptable to me, but I have been blocked from making further edits, so my efforts to work with you and others to improve this entry are unwelcome. Is the purpose of this entry is to promote anti Semitism online, as opposed to defining a word? Mbknapp (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course the term should be identified as offensive. That's why we have the label (derogatory, offensive). I'm saying we shouldn't need to explain why it's offensive because it's pretty obvious why comparing someone to a Nazi would offend them. Also, looking at Category:English offensive terms, I see that very few of them have usage notes. One example of a helpful usage note is at Lefkosia, which is very useful to someone unaware of the Cyprus conflict. By the way: you being blocked without a warning is unjustified IMO. ≈ (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

A few comments/questions for you @Ioaxxere:

• If it's so obvious it's offensive, than why have we made and insisted on adding the qualifier to the usage notes that *ONLY* pro-Isreali groups find this term offensive? According to how we've written the usage note, people who are NOT a member of a pro-Israeli groups find the term inoffensive. I believe it's extremely important to change this usage note so that it's clear that this term is offensive, including to people who are not members of pro-Israeli groups. For example, I am not a member of any pro-Israeli groups that I am aware of, yet I find the term extremely offensive.
• You state that I should have been warned before being blocked from editing. Please clarify what I did to deserve being warned? I am honestly very unclear about that. I made very reasonable edits to this entry that were consistent with how we've defined other terms in the wiktionary. I see elsewhere the person who prevented me from editing felt i was making the same changes over and over again. That was certainly not my intention. My intention was to work with the group of editors to craft the best possible usage note.
• Looking ahead, what is the process for proposing a change to the usage note (remove 'pro-Isreali groups' from it) without resulting in my being warned or blocked? I'd propose we change it to "the comparison of Zionism and Nazism is offensive, and is insensitive to the memory of Holocaust victims and survivors." If we must qualify who finds the term offensive (and by extension, who doesn't???), we could say that say "people who believe Jews have the right to live in Israel find the term offensive because they feel it implies that Israelis are nazis, and the term is insensitive to the memory of Holocaust victims and survivors." or something like that? We really need to be more accurate than the way its currently written with only 'pro-Isreali groups' considering the term offensive.

Thank you in advance for your help Mbknapp (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mbknapp 1) Yes, I agree that the term is likely offensive to more than just individuals specifically targeted by it. Thus I think we should remove that qualifier. 2) I'm not sure but evidently User:-sche thought that you were reverting other people's edits too much. I think this site sometimes has a problem with users overzealously "biting" newcomers which could scare off potentially productive editors (I hope you stick around!). 3) You can make a thread on the Wiktionary:Tea room. And if people still can't agree, then you can do an informal vote to see how many people are on each side. Ioaxxere (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

As a novice editor, I request some advice before editing. I am upset by the last edit to our usage notes made by User:CitationsFreak. I think it's inappropriate for the user to justify the use of this derogatory and offensive new portmanteau used predominantly in anti-Semitic communication in our usage notes. Take a look at the usage note for a similarly offensive words, such as https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger#Usage_notes I have been modeling my work on other usage notes because those words are obviously also highly offensive. I am not sure what steps to take that are constructive other than reverting User:CitationsFreak's edit, which might be misunderstood by experienced users as an unreasonable edit for me to make? Thanks. Mbknapp (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mbknapp: Like I said, you can start a discussion in the Wiktionary:Tea room. If you do, ping me and everyone else who's recently edited this entry. By the way: I have to ask whether you have any word-related interests beyond this particular entry. Have you taken a look at Wiktionary:Requested entries? Ioaxxere (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Appreciate it. Glad to move this discussion elsewhere, but I was curious why it is more appropriate to hold this discussion in the Tea Room vs this discussion page? Since you asked, my interest in this usage note stems from my efforts to address growing anti-Semitism in my local community, and discrimination more generally. Glad to provide more details on that if its relevant. But now that I look, I see the term housing stock needs an entry :-) Anyway, giving people the benefit of the doubt for the moment, I have to assume the problem here is some folks editing this term are conflating support for the right of Jews to live in Israel with support for the current Netanyahu government. But none of this belongs in a dictionary. We can't justify the use of a new highly offensive, derogatory word in our usage notes. Anything else misuses the dictionary to promote hate. Quoting a mentor of mine in this work - wars begin as well as end with words. Mbknapp (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mbknapp: The reason why is that talk pages of individual entries are rarely monitored, so very few people would be aware that the discussion is happening. Posting in the Tea Room would let us hear from as many perspectives as possible. Your activism is admirable, although keep in mind that Wiktionary is written from a neutral point of view, so entries have to reflect what English speakers in general think rather than what we personally think. So cabal (for example) may have antisemitic origins but very few modern speakers are offended by it. Ioaxxere (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not trying to "justify the use of ... derogatory and offensive [portmanteaux]". I was trying to address the claim that Zionazism is always offensive to Holocaust survivors. This is due to the fact that some say that Zionism and Nazism are bad for the same reasons ("[resulting] in genocide to obtain living space for their own group"). (Indeed, I am seen some Holocaust survivors say that.)

Also, the reason that the n-word page doesn't have the same "some people say this, others say this"-type usage note is that the question on if the word is offensive is much less controversial than if Zionazism is. CitationsFreak (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned about the inconsistency in how this entry is being handled. Initially, it was argued that the usage note I proposed was unnecessary because the offensiveness of comparing anything to Nazism is widely understood. However, the current usage note on the page attempts to justify the term. This justification has been online for days and, in my view, it is both inaccurate and highly offensive. It's crucial that we work together to develop a usage note that is objective, factual, and devoid of political bias. If there is reluctance on your part to collaborate with me on this, it may be important to reflect on the reasons for this unwillingness.

You write that "The entry for the n-word omits the type of usage note that presents conflicting views because its offensiveness is broadly recognized." A similar approach should apply to 'Zionazism', a term that seems designed to provoke and offend. I am not criticizing anti-Zionism, instead, I question the necessity of your justifying the use of a term crafted to cause maximal offense, particularly within a dictionary.

As I've been saying, it is vital to distinguish the ideology of 'Zionism' from the policies of the Israeli government. Zionism, conceived as a response to historical persecution, aims to prevent further exoduses of Jewish people and does not advocate for eugenics, dictatorship, Islamophobia, scientific racism, white supremacy, or social Darwinism. Absence of evidence to the contrary means the current usage note is unacceptable and supports hate speech as it is currently written.

Although I am a novice editor, I still understand our role is to define terms accurately without propagating offensive or derogatory language. We should clarify meanings without fostering misunderstanding or conflict.

If there is still a belief that there is a compelling reason to justify the term 'Zionazism', we need a clear explanation in the usage note about why a small subset of the people who use this term may not be anti-semitic and might find its use acceptable, but we also need to explain why they are wrong. This term's usage note has to acknowledge the misunderstanding of Zionism inherent in equating it to Nazism, and the resultant highly offensive comparison to Nazism. I am eager to collaborate and propose appropriate language for the usage note. However, the current geopolitical tensions, including the massacre on October 7th and the ongoing, horrible suffering in Gaza, make true collaboration challenging. Yet, it is essential to remember that we are working to craft a dictionary entry that is acceptable to all of us, and our focus should be on accomplishing that. @Ioaxxere, -sche, CitationsFreak (Mbknapp (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC))

I agree with the statement that we should "develop a usage note that is objective, factual, and devoid of political bias". The only issue is that your unbiased usage note is my biased screed. However, I do believe that we can come up with an acceptable proposal.

My unwillingness has to do with me seeing anti-Zionists say that Zionism is Nazism, for the reason that -sche wrote. I do admit that this word is used to "provoke and offend", but that is the same as any Nazi comparison in the modern day. In addition, your edit makes it look like we're saying that (close to) everyone, even anti-Zionists, say that the term is offensive. However, I have been unable to find any anti-Zionist source saying that. If you can, please show me!

Also, "explain why they are wrong" makes me feels uneasy. That you're not really editing Wikt to reflect reality, but to promote your viewpoint. The backbone of my edit was to give both sides' take on the word (and comparing Zionism to Nazism in general), not to say that there's no way that "Zionazism" is offensive, and if you think so, you're wrong and stupid. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s simply incorrect, and I hope acknowledging that doesn’t make you uneasy. We seem to have a fundamental disagreement here. Any anti-Zionist who believes using this term isn't offensive is clearly mistaken—it's hate speech intended to offend people.

While you may see value in including allegations of genocide concerning the actions of the Israeli government in this dictionary entry, it’s crucial to clarify that these actions do not reflect the foundational principles of Jewish nationalism, or 'Zionism.' Any comparison drawn requires an understanding of what Zionism involves and an assessment of the lack of similarities with Nazi ideology. Central Zionist beliefs such as 'Negation of the Jewish Diaspora' and 'Revival of the Hebrew Language' are completely unrelated to Nazi ideologies. Associating these beliefs with Nazi doctrines definitely risks veering into anti-Semitism. Critiquing the Netanyahu government, as Senator Sanders eloquently notes in this press release ([1]), is not anti-Semitic. The misunderstanding of this very important distinction needs to be addressed in the usage note if there's a belief here that the term is being used for purposes other than hate speech. It’s essential to highlight that while critiques of governmental policies are valid, misunderstanding the core beliefs of Zionism and labeling them as Nazi-like is misleading and risks propagating hate speech. This distinction is crucial for understanding the misuse of the term and avoiding the promotion of deeply offensive comparisons.

I’m eager to work together on creating objective and factual usage notes. Would you prefer I take the first stab at it, or would you like to propose a revision to what’s currently published that might be less upsetting? Perhaps it would be productive to post our proposed revisions here in this thread, allowing us to edit each other’s work before publishing it. Mbknapp (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think, as you say, we have a fundamental disagreement here, and your inability to see (and thus correct for) your own bias means that while you're welcome to keep making proposals on this talk page, unless those proposals account for both the reasons not to use this and the reasons this is used (whereas your proposals to date have been very one-sided), your proposals are unlikely to be accepted/implemented. - -sche (discuss) 14:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

What bias do I hold? Is my bias that i refuse to hate people based on their race, religion, or nationality? That's not bias; that's compassion. You have not demonstrated how Zionist beliefs justify any comparison to Nazism. If your motivation is not a misunderstanding of Zionist beliefs, as I previously thought, but rather stems from an inherent hatred towards people who are Israeli and/or who are Jewish, then we indeed have a different sort of fundamental disagreement. That situation is akin to trying to collaborate with someone who uses racial slurs—it's unacceptable. (Mbknapp (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC))

lol. If you don't understand Zionism, I'm sorry to say a Wiktionary talk page is not the place to go over it; as Wikipedia would say, this isn't a forum. (Wikipedia has a partial primer.) - -sche (discuss) 20:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocking of a new user for editing this page

Discussion moved from User talk:Ioaxxere.

Re Mbknapp: WMF really needs to rename the "restrict editor from a specific page" function so it has a different name than the "block editor's account entirely" function, because you're not the first person who's seen "X BLOCKED Y" and seemed to think it meant (or at least react as if it meant) the editor was totally blocked.😅
Re warnings: nah, unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary doesn't tend to faff around with giving everyone escalating warning templates on their talk page and all that jazz in a situation like that; it's not a situation where the person doesn't realize they're inadvertently making the same edit multiple times. (Indeed, I can't offhand think of any similar case where someone was given a warning; the most recent similar thing I can think of was color earlier this month, where Chrythanus was similarly given a few days' restriction from the one page.) - -sche (discuss) 00:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: I see that now. But I still think you should have tried to deescalate the issue on the talk page (Talk:Zionazism#Usage note) rather than jumping straight for the admin tools. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree with user -sche that I was making the same edit over and over again. Instead, I was doing my very best to work with the other editors to develop a usage note we all agree with. The record shows a highly inaccurate usage note was posted, and I was prevented from editing it. I am currently awaiting your reply/opinions to my comments at (Talk:Zionazism#Usage note) before making further edits. Although I believe my suggested edits are reasonable, significant, and much more accurate than the current content, implementing them might lead to me receiving warnings or blocks for reasons that are unclear to me. - Mbknapp (discuss)|19:54, 24 April 2024}}

RFD discussion: April–May 2024

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Please consider deleting these four entries Zionazism, Zionazi, ziofascism, ziofascist

These are offensive terms, used predominantly in anti-semitic communication, made by combining two words. These portmanteaus are not in widespread use, and people find the terms extremely offensive because the purpose of this portmanteau is to dispute the right of Jews to live in Israel by implying that all Israelis are fascists or Nazis. Mbknapp (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mbknapp: The purpose of the presence of the terms in the dictionary is so you can understand, and optionally dispute those who use the terms. We are also specifically interested in rareties, so keep words not in widespread use. It is wrong to find offence in the terms in the dictionary, rather than in the wild. In fact, you are offensive to us, disacknowledging our service to the community. Somewhere we have to talk about sex, drugs and violence. Fay Freak (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the term obvious? Are you really claiming you need your dictionary entry to understand this portmanteau? Insult me all you like, but do you really consider it a service to the community to legitimise and establish a new portmanteau, not yet in widespread use, whose sole purpose appears to be used by antiSemites to imply that Israelis are Nazis, and to dispute the right of Jews to live in Israel? My very appropriate usage notes, as well as my description of the term as a slur, were removed, and I was blocked from making further edits to the usage notes. Lastly, I very much appreciate the many people who have made wiktionary such a success. Mbknapp (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mbknapp: We don’t legitimise or establish anything, isn’t that obvious? It’s a Wiki, covering the most random niche subjects, with appropriately few page views! It also has some claim to completeness. Coverage of the whole political spectrum, including Nazis and other anti-Semites and pedophiles, is our success. Some people who learn a language don’t see the “sole purpose” that you see if you rally for Israel all time. Maybe someone has lived in the woods for years and not followed politics, or is an asylum seeker from some dark corner of the world only now learning the language and debates. In developing countries people often have faint ideas about what is the crack about Hitler. And even if you understand the term in its whole “profundity” then you might like to compare against a quote, or a pronunciation file. In fact, I will add requests for pronunciations to the pages just to cheese you off so you can be offended more. Just listen and melt! Why you do this? It is an attention issue. And what happens from it, nothing! Israel does not win any war nor battle by some frankenwords being retired from some online dictionary, nor does Ukraine by supporters writing Kyiv instead of Kiev; they need ammunition. I will demand the latter and continue to write Kiev, perhaps. Fay Freak (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

We include entries for many obvious terms, like nonacidic. In addition, we carry many offensive terms. None of these are reasons for deletion. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mbknapp It might be worth reading our criteria for inclusion. The only point at which this policy makes a distinction based on offensiveness of a term is the "Derogatory terms" section, which offers an expedited deletion process for unattested derogatory terms. Other than that, we do not exclude terms purely on the basis of offense.

It seems highly likely to me that these terms meet the "Attestation" section of CFI, but this can be challenged using the requests for verification process if there is genuine doubt. This, that and the other (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Equinox ◑ 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, nomination misunderstands the purpose and scope of the dictionary. bd2412 T 04:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Offensive or potentially offensive terms belong in dictionaries and it's by no means always a bad thing to be offensive in any case, it depends on who you're offending. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep, this isn’t a family‐friendly dictionary, and merely documenting a term is not the same thing as approving of it… on a less relevant note, I find it odd how the requester made an account seemingly for the sole purpose of discouraging these pejoratives. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 22:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep being offensive isn't a reason for deletion Purplebackpack89 21:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above. Antisemitism does not disqualify a word from being added to Wiktionary. Netizen3102 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

RFD-kept This, that and the other (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)