Talk:Zionization

RFC discussion: May 2012
The only def given is: We don't have anything for Zionize at the moment, so Zionization is effectively without a definition. Can someone add a usable def? Without one, this looks ripe for deletion due to no useful content. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 14:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to "The process of becoming Zionist." We don't really have the appropriate sense of, but I think it's good enough. —Ruakh TALK 15:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks! Strike from RFC?  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This term doesn't seemed to be used except as a codeword for alleged nefarious Zionist influence, a way to counter accusations of racism by making the conspiracy an ideological or political one instead of racial. We need to be careful- it's a POV-magnet. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree. A since-deleted change to the WT:Feedback page adding just such politically charged content for this entry is what initially drew my attention.  The relevant EN WT entries at present all appear to be quite neutral, so (for now, at least) I see nothing POV that might need changing.  (I'm also no expert on Zionism, etc., so there might actually be something POV that I just don't pick up on.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Chuck Entz: I agree that it's a potential POV magnet, but I don't think it's true that it's only used cryptoracist-ly. A fair number of the hits at do exhibit hatred and/or paranoia, but quite a few hits seem to be in decently respectable academic works that are sincerely examining the adoption of Zionism by various persons or groups, without really passing judgment. (I note that a fair number of the hits at  are also anti-Zionist, as are a few of the hits at . This doesn't negate the positive and neutral uses of those words.) —Ruakh TALK 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I definitely overreached with the "doesn't seemed to be used" part. Still, the volume and the intensity of the POV usage is reason enough for caution, even if it's not the only usage out there. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)