Talk:Hasbara

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2025

The final two sentences in the subsection entitled "Hamas is ISIS and the West is next" are tu-quoque ad-hominem additions, not given any context, and are not directly related to the subject of the article overall nor the specific subject of the subsection. They read: "Ukraine used similar rhetoric to win Western support in its fight against Russia.[85] Western support for Ukraine began to waver as the Gaza war began.[86]". I could make a case for adding context (Russia has, unlike Hamas, threatened "the West" on multiple occasions for over a century https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106hhrg66968/html/CHRG-106hhrg66968.htm), but the addition of data to support the sentences would further depart from the purpose of the article, which is to define "public diplomacy of Israel", and of the subsection, which is to illuminate the Israeli government's use of conflation between ISIS and Hamas as justification for peer support of military efforts against the latter. The sentences should be eliminated. Sophie Matilde (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done I agree with your reasoning. The situation in Ukraine is not necessarily analogous to the situation in Israel, and these two sentences aren't relevant. - Brian Kendig (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Context for word propaganda

I think its important to highlight the meaning of propaganda when it was used by early zionists. Particularly in Sokolow's article, he explains "Although the first President of the Zionist Organization, and those who followed, habitually used the accepted term "Propaganda", in the Zionist context, an ethical element was added to that of persuasion, the desire to search for the truth and to set things right. "We show ourselves as we are: we simply speak the truth", declared Herzl at the opening of the Second Congress" Hasbara is about explaining and not how others view propaganda as it is used today.

Kouts, Gideon. “From Sokolow to ‘Explaining Israel’: The Zionist ‘Hasbara’ First ‘Campaign Strategy Paper’ and Its Applications.” Revue Européenne Des Études Hébraïques, no. 18, 2016, pp. 103–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26624281. Accessed 27 July 2025.

Mypart1 (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

(Incidentally, per WP:PIA you are not entitled to comment here.) It's true that the word "propaganda" has a more negative connotation now than it did in Sokolow's day, but that only serves as an explanation why he was happy to use the word and it doesn't prove that his propaganda would be called anything different today. Every entity that engages in propaganda claims to be explaining the truth. Zero^talk 07:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I read through the page you shared and could not find anything about not being able to comment here. I think it is important you state their intended purpose and highlight that more than it being referred to as propaganda at that time. It is misleading. By your logic we should be introducing all news organizations, etc. as primarily propaganda. There is no reason to single this entity out. Mypart1 (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Zero0000 doesn't WP:PIA say the opposite – that non ECR editors should post on the talk page if they want a particular edit made? Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet:@Mypart1: WP:PIA says that non-EC editors are restricted to making edit requests. Follow the link extended confirmed restriction. They can't add other sorts of commentary. The boundary is not always clear, but I judged this one to be a comment rather than an edit request because no specific change to the article was suggested and it reads like an opinion based on several parts of a source. Usually a "change X to Y" type of request is required, though I think we should allow requests that can be understood that way even if they aren't structured that way. Zero^talk 12:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Zero0000 got it -- +1 Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. Please remove the statements below. They introduce hasbara as propaganda because the term was used at that time when it meant something else than it does now. These statements are misleading and cause you to associate hasbara as propaganda. Unless you are going to introduce every communication organization as propaganda on wikipedia, you are singling this organization out and delegitimizing it in the opening section. The following section provides sufficient description of hasbara that this statement repeats and slants.

"Historically, these efforts have evolved from being called "propaganda" by early Zionists (when the term was considered neutral), with Theodor Herzl advocating such activities in 1899,[1] to the more contemporary Hebrew term hasbara introduced by Nahum Sokolow, which translates roughly to "explaining". This communicative strategy seeks to justify actions and is considered reactive and event-driven."

As I states earlier, the meaning of propaganda when it was used by early zionists was not used as misleading as it is used today. Particularly in Sokolow's article, he explains "Although the first President of the Zionist Organization, and those who followed, habitually

used the accepted term "Propaganda", in the Zionist context, an ethical element was added to that of persuasion, the desire to search for the truth and to set things right. "We show ourselves

as we are: we simply speak the truth", declared Herzl at the opening of the Second Congress" Hasbara is about explaining and not how others view propaganda as it is used today. To introduce hasbara as propaganda and not other organizations this way is unfair.

Kouts, Gideon. “From Sokolow to ‘Explaining Israel’: The Zionist ‘Hasbara’ First ‘Campaign Strategy Paper’ and Its Applications.” Revue Européenne Des Études Hébraïques, no. 18, 2016, pp. 103–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26624281. Accessed 27 July 2025. Mypart1 (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

While the OP clearly shouldn't have posted here, I do feel they have a point that it might be helpful to explain somewhere in this article how usage and perceptions of the term propaganda has changed over time (where in the past some governments openly had parts of their government responsible for propaganda e.g. various Ministry of propaganda), and so it's not just in terms of Hasbara where it's changed. That said, for personal reasons I stay away from most editing of A-I articles so I'm not going to try and find if there are sources which better links such changes with changes in how Hasbara is described. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Public diplomacy of Israel → Hasbara – The name "Hasbara" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the public diplomacy of Israel. No reason not to use its name. See the ngrams 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 15:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2025

Hasbara is lies and schemes ~2025-32260-83 (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is it called "The public diplomacy of Israel" and not propaganda?

Any public display of positive government publicity is propaganda. Alexceltare2 (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I guess because World War I moved the word towards the negative end of the association spectrum. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I think using euphemism is a good example on itself of how we can be lulled away. Clickbait being the opposite psychological response. We might need to learn to detect this kind of modulation of the factual information. It is sad that we have to learn to view language as Orwellian by default nowadays. Dbague (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

because that was the old name of the article. See Talk:Hasbara#Requested move 9 August 2025 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2026

Please rename the article back to "The public diplomacy of Israel". The term "hasbara" in international discourse no longer describes an activity but functions as an accusation. It is a WP:NPOV loaded term whose purpose is to remove Israel from the normal category of states that engage in persuasion. Telecart (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Changing the article title would require a requested move discussion, which you cannot initiate as a non-extended confirmed user because the article relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a contentious topic that has been placed under an extended confirmed restriction by the Arbitration Committee. See WP:ECREXPLAIN. Day Creature (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

I was asked to explain the addiction of tags in the “AI and Digital Influence” section. I was referring to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft source. This article from Snopes is largely what led to my addition of the tags. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The negative connotation of "propaganda"

Until it was correctly removed just now, the article said "Before World War I, the term propaganda did not imply bias or deliberate deception." For the record, "propaganda" was a term used by the Zionist organizations well past WWI. The word appears multiple times in the minutes of every Zionist Congress published in German, which means the 19 congresses up to 1937. I only draw the line there because I don't have the minutes of later congresses to check. For example (19th congress, executive director of JNF speaking): "Zweifach sind die Vorbedingungen für die Erweiterung unserer Arbeit: Propaganda und Beschaffung neuer Mitarbeiter. Wir müssen vor allem unsere Propaganda erweitern und entwickeln." Zero^talk 04:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I found this secondary source from Cambridge Press with a better explanation: The modern usage of the term propaganda is heavily laden with negative connotations, as it is associated with the manipulative spread of falsehoods and harmful ideologies. However, in the 1920s and 1930s, propaganda was a positive term, and of great theoretical importance to the Social Democratic Workers’ Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, SDAP).

Also important to note, on the propaganda page it says: Non-English cognates of propaganda as well as some similar non-English terms retain neutral or positive connotations. For example, in official party discourse, xuanchuan is treated as a more neutral or positive term, though it can be used pejoratively through protest or other informal settings within China. Although China specifically is not relevant here, the point is that in other languages, especially in this time period, propaganda did not have negative connotations or connotations of deception.

If propaganda meant deception, then it was the exact opposite of truth. How can it be possible for Herzl to have said We show ourselves as we are: we simply speak the truth while at the same time promoting "propaganda." That would be a contradiction, so he obviously did not mean deception. By not giving this information to readers, we are misinforming them. Slava570 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Everyone who engages in propaganda presents it as the truth. Many who engage in propaganda believe it is the truth. There is no contradiction. Anyway we need to go with sources. Zero^talk 16:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

We are talking about self-identification, that's totally different. Take the scenario where a person believes they are telling the truth, but in reality they are engaged in deception.

In the modern day: I am engaged in truth; propaganda means deception; therefore, I am NOT engaged in propaganda.

In Hertzl's time: I am engaged in truth; propaganda does NOT mean deception; therefore I AM engaged in propaganda.

We need to explain this to readers. Otherwise, we are the ones engaged in deception. I just provided a secondary source, and that's corroborated by the online etymology dictionary, so we should be able to add this information. Slava570 (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the evolution of the connotations of the word "propaganda" is important, but we can't cover it by bringing in sources that have nothing to do with the topic of the article. That would be textbook SYNTH. Zero^talk 01:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of SYNTH is to prevent misrepresentation of sources. If this is the argument, it is being used to do the opposite of what it is meant for: to justify that misrepresentation.

In actual fact, the current wording of the article should be called SYNTH because it synthesises a current definition with a past usage, creating misleading meanings.

The thing about dictionary definitions is that they apply to all usages of the term. The secondary source above did not say the defiition of propoganda was only positive with regard to the specific examples she ws using, but in all uses of the term during that time period. I don't see how that's synth. The etymology dictionary likewise refers to all uses of the term. Slava570 (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

No, SYNTH is not about misrepresentation. It is about combining information from different sources into a conclusion not reached by either of them. Anyway, an account that it was positive once and then became negative is a great over-simplification of the historical evolution. According to this article on it, "Already in the early nineteenth century the term had acquired its present-day derogatory connotations. W. T. Brande’s Dictionary of Science, Literature and Art, published in 1842, says of propaganda: 'the name propaganda is applied in political language as a term of reproach to secret associations for the spread of opinions and principles which are viewed by most governments with horror and aversion.'" (Also quoted by OED.) And why use English dictionaries? It would be more correct to say that propaganda was a positive term to those engaged in it and negative to those it was aimed at. The only thing that really changed since then it is that propagandizing bodies stopped referring to their output as propaganda. Zero^talk 12:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

In the present day there is a legitimate distinction between propaganda and public diplomacy, public relations and public education. The term propaganda is a highly negative term that implies deliberate deception. The other terms don't imply that. It may be that a person thinks they are doing public education, but someone else thinks they are doing propaganda. That is an entirely different issue.

Here Herzl is saying he is doing public education/diplomacy. Others may call it what they want, but the current version of the article is saying Herzl is saying he is doing deception. That is 100% the opposite of what he is saying. Herzl is saying, he is speaking the truth. The previous version of the article at least had a direct quote from Herzl from the secondary source. Can we at least put his quote back in for now so that readers don't think he was promoting intentional deception? "We show ourselves as we are: we simply speak the truth" Slava570 (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with you, but I think you want to replace one quote that can be misunderstood by another that can be misunderstood. Herzl indeed said "Wir wenden dazu keinerlei Künste au; wir geben uns nur als das, was wir sind; wir sagen einfach die Wahrheit." in his opening address at the 2nd congress (page 6), but he was referring very specifically to relations with Christian Zionists. That is, he was talking about how to communicate with people already convinced of the Zionist cause. That's quite different from the task of convincing those (Jewish or non-Jewish) skeptical of the cause. It isn't right to present this quote as a statement more encompassing than it actually was. Zero^talk 01:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you suggest then? I think the best solution is to simply explain the meaning of the word propoganda in that time period, using the source I provided above (which is especially relevant since it deals with the German-language context). Slava570 (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

On second thought, I've just looked at the original speech. Yes, he mentions Christian Zionism, but in no way are Christian Zionists the main subject here. This quote directly speaks to his intentions with respect to the larger non-Jewish world, so it is actually quite relevant.

Here is the full paragraph: Wenn wir die Sympathien der nichtjüdischen Welt für unsere Bestrebungen herbeiwünschen, herbeirufen, so findet man auch daran etwas auszusetzen. Ja, dieselben Leute, die uns den Vorwurf machen, dass der Zionismus neue Scheidegrenzen zwischen den Menschen aufrichte, mäkeln daran, dass uns die Freundschaft christlicher Zionisten willkommen ist. Uns ist es aber nicht etwa eine niedrige Sache der Nützlichkeit, wenn wir die uns so freundlich entgegengestreckten Hände drücken. Es zeigt sich darin vor allem, dass dem Zionismus eine versöhnende Kraft innewohnt. Gedanken , rein von Hass , erstarken auf diesem Boden. Wir halten unverbrüchlich an unserem Judenthume fest und gewinnen dennoch Freunde von edelster Uneigennützigkeit. Ist das so schlimm? Wir , die angeblich neue Unterschiede schaffen, bringen durch einen milden Versuch die Menschen einander näher. Wir wenden dazu keinerlei Künste an ; wir geben uns nur als das, was wir sind ; wir sagen einfach die Wahrheit. (Anyone who wants to can put this into Google Translate, but I'm not going to post machine translation here).

Slava570 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It comes back to "what else would you expect him to say"? The fact that Herzl claimed to be speaking the truth is no information at all. Is he going to say "let's lie about ourselves" in a public forum? I propose removing the sentence from the lead section altogether, as the issue cannot be satisfactorily handled so briefly. Zero^talk 13:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The idea of telling the truth was a deeply held belief, not some excuse for something. It was important enough for Herzl to mention in his opening speech to the congress. Either way, it doesn't matter whether you or I consider this important because we should not be independently interpreting a primary source. What matters is that this was important enough for it to be mentioned in the secondary source. It also speaks directly to the topic of the article, which is Hasbara, or public diplomacy. Why shouldn't there be a short mention of how Zionist leaders thought about public diplomacy? All I'm asking is to explain to readers what they meant, not redefine their words with today's definitions. Slava570 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I find this quite unconvincing. What is the source for "deeply held belief"? Your argument could be made for every government and every organization that engages in public promotion of their interests. All of them tell us that they are just stating the truth. Nothing special about the Zionist movement has been established, nor is there any evidence that was something special about it. Herzl himself provided evidence to the contrary when he confided to his diary the famous words "Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word—which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly—it would be this: In Basel I created the Jewish state. If I said this out loud today, I would be greeted by universal laughter." The Basel Program was deliberately worded to avoid mentioning a Jewish state. Public pronouncements were designed for their effect, not for their candor. Zero^talk 01:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Whether deeply held or just held, I think it's more likely that he meant what he said, rather than meant the opposite of what he said. It's possible I'm misinterpreting, but it's also possible that you're misinterpreting, similar to how you misinterpreted his statement above as saying it was directed to Christian Zionists, when it wasn't. The main point is that you and I should not be interpreting primary sources at all. (I'm not only saying you shouldn't do it. I'm also saying I shouldn't do it.)

The reason why this quote is DUE in the lead is because it was quoted by the secondary source, and in looking at it again, I found new important info. Here is a larger quote: Although the first President of the Zionist Organization, and those who followed, habitually used the accepted term "Propaganda", in the Zionist context, an ethical element was added to that of persuasion, the desire to search for the truth and to set things right. "We show ourselves as we are: we simply speak the truth", declared Herzl at the opening of the Second Congress (1898), referring to the means of attracting well-disposed Christians [not Christian Zionists] to the Zionist project

Here we see this secondary source saying that Herzl was motivated by an ethical desire (I retract the adjective deeply-held here)... And importantly, we also see the source itself saying the term propaganda was "accepted." This makes it not SYNTH in any way to add information about the etymology of the word. Slava570 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Kouts is reporting what Herzl declared in a public speech, it is not an analysis of Herzl's truthfulness or motivation. Do you think I couldn't find a "reliable source" stating that Zionists hid the true extent of their intentions? There is a large literature on it, including quite a lot that quote Herzl's diary entry that states he is keeping important things to himself. We are supposed to present a balanced summary of what sources say, not just select one viewpoint (and Kout doesn't really say what you think). Zero^talk 12:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you think this is elegible for WP:3O, since only the two of us are involved in this discussion as of now? Slava570 (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure why you did not ping me, as I was the one who reverted the material being discussed. I agree with Zero's core point here. I removed your edit because it presented a selective reading of the sources and attached claims to them that they do not support.

The statement that Before World War I, the term propaganda did not imply bias or deliberate deception was not supported by the cited sources. Etymonline is a tertiary etymological reference work, not a specialist scholarly source for a disputed claim about the historical connotations of political language. Moreover, it says only that the modern political sense dates from World War I and was originally non-pejorative. It does not say that every use of the word before World War I lacked implications of bias or deception. The Cambridge chapter is a scholarly source, but it is not about Herzl or early Zionist usage. It concerns the positive meaning attached to propaganda by the Austrian Social Democratic Workers' Party during the 1920s and 1930s. Evidence about how one political party used the term decades later cannot establish what it necessarily meant in a Zionist context in 1898. Combining these sources to produce a categorical claim about Herzl's usage is WP:SYNTH.

The 1898 quotation was connected to a proposition it did not directly support. We show ourselves as we are: we simply speak the truth does not use or define the word "propaganda". It appears in a passage about attracting well-disposed Christians to the Zionist project. It should not therefore have been presented as the example of Herzl advocating propaganda. Later in the same passage, Kouts provides a direct example, writing that at the conclusion of the Third Zionist Congress in 1899, Herzl urged delegates: The time has come to act, to engage in propaganda and to work. I therefore corrected the date and used the quotation that actually supports the sentence.

When Kouts says that an ethical element was added to persuasion, he is offering his own characterization of propaganda in the early Zionist context and illustrates it with Herzl's public self-description. Kouts does not say that propaganda before World War I generally lacked implications of bias or deception, that Zionist propaganda was necessarily truthful, or that Herzl's assertion that he spoke the truth establishes the actual character of the communications. His analysis is substantially more qualified and critical. He describes Herzl's publicity methods as possessing relative innocence and amoral simplicity (p. 105), criticises Sokolow's tendency to "conform" reality to his ideological stance (p. 105), and later observes that Herzl's belief that misunderstandings could be remedied through a monopoly on the truth persisted (p. 128). Most clearly, Kouts writes that hasbara does not exclude propaganda, and it does not define itself as merely supplying "facts" (p. 129), states that "Our" hasbara as well is therefore disguised propaganda (p. 130), and explains that propagandists do not bother to try and define what the "facts" are, and only determine that a selection is possible of the facts contributing to the objective (p. 132). He adds that they do not intend to appeal to the rationality of the target public and instead display the wish to circumvent it while appearing as if they were addressing it directly (p. 132).

Zero is right that Wikipedia should report what the source establishes rather than infer from a movement's self-description that its propaganda was unbiased or non-deceptive, per the source itself. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It is clear that when Herzl was using the term propaganda to describe his own activities, he was not using it in a pejorative sense. The secondary source I provided, the Cambridge chapter, discusses the meaning of the word in general in the time period. It did not say that this meaning only applied to one example. Dictionary definitions apply to all usages of the term, by definition, so it's not SYNTH.

You say: The 1898 quotation [Herzl's quotation] was connected [by the secondary source author Kouts] to a proposition it did not directly support. This is clear original research. Kouts made the connection, not me, and Kouts is a seondary source, so it is a valid connection for our purposes. Full stop.

It also is common sense. Kouts called the term propaganda "accepted" and followed with the quotation of Herzl saying he speaks the truth. This is not MY connection, but Kouts's.

Your quote about "work" is not as relevant. This is an article about public diplomacy, not work. But more importantly, "engage in propaganda" is defined by Herzl (as per Kouts) in the sense of telling the truth. The article is misleading to readers by not defining what propaganda means here. Readers will think Herzl was advocating deception. The opposite is true (according to Kouts).

Finally, it may be that Kouts says that hasbara does not exclude propaganda. And the article alredy has plenty to say about this point. However, here in this specific sentence, we are talking about what hasbara means from the perspective of Herzl himself. From his own perspective, it means telling the truth. Slava570 (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't have time for a full reply, but your last statement is simply not true. "The perspective of Herzl himself" is not considered by Kouts at this place, but only the public assertion of Herzl. It has relevance to what Herzl claimed in public, but not to what he believed in private. And we've been around this circle before. Zero^talk 13:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

This is also original research as far I can tell. Your analysis above was based on your own interpretation of a primary source. There is nothing in the Kouts secondary source that indicates Kouts believes that Herzl was intentionally being insincere about what he said in public. The full Kouts quote that I provided above, says in the Zionist context, an ethical element was added to that of persuasion, the desire to search for the truth and to set things right. Nowhere here does Kouts say it seemed that the ethical element was part of what Herzl was advocating, rather that it was part of the context. I also don't see anywhere where he is saying this only applies to what Herzl claimed in public, and not to what he really believed. Slava570 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless I severely misunderstand you, you want to present a claim of truthfulness as a fact of truthfulness, even though Kouts did not make that leap. It should be obvious that this is unacceptable. In fact, even if Kouts had made that leap we would be obliged to balance it with a conflicting assessment. Besides that, you know from the diary entry (which is cited in multiple places) that Herzl was intentionally withholding a key part of the truth, so you seem to wish to make a statement in the article which you know to be wrong. My apologies if I have not understood your position. Zero^talk 00:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Kouts quote do I see any hedging or equivocation, or the word "claim." Kouts says "an ethical element was added..." This is enough to say this in the article in Wikivoice, unless another secondary source is found that contradicts it. The diary entry is a primary source. But if you have a secondary source that says that in reality Herzl believed in deception and not truth, then I totally agree that we can include both sources with attribution. Slava570 (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Rather cheeky for you to ignore the the fact that you failed to achieve a consensus here, and even wrote "For extended discussion, see talk page" without noting that you failed to convince anyone. WP:ONUS is policy; you can't just decide to ignore it. Zero^talk 23:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

As for Herzl's diary entry, there is no policy against citing primary sources (that's a wikimyth) but in any case that isn't necessary. Quite a few secondary sources cite it and more. For example there is Shlomo Avineri, "Theodor Herzl's Diaries as a Bildungsroman," Jewish Social Studies n.s. vol. 5, no. 3 (1999): 1-46. which considers a later passage even more telling: "At Basel, then, I created this abstraction which, as such, is invisible to the vast majority of people -- and with minimal means. I gradually worked the people into the mood for a state and made them feel that they were its National Assembly." This theme of moving the public towards an agenda which was not yet ready for public exposure is discussed widely. I don't think it should be in the lead either, one reason being that Herzl was one person in one period of time and doesn't stand in for the Zionist movement. Another explicit mention is in Penslar, Theodor Herzl: The Characteristic Leader (Yale Univ. Press, 2020), pp. 117–118: "There was a stark division between those attendees who wanted to pursue statehood, and to declare that goal explicitly, and those who preferred, for either substantive or tactical reasons, to speak only of a homeland. Herzl, who wanted to maximize his freedom of negotiation with the Great Powers, tended toward declaratory minimalism." This analysis from a well-known expert on Zionism is quite enough to show that quoting Kouts for something that Kouts doesn't actually say is a distortion. Actually I am certain that Kouts would agree with Penslar's statement since it is plain historical fact. Zero^talk 00:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Normally when people cite WP:ONUS it's because they are reverting to a prior version, but you made a bold edit to a new version that we've never had before. Having said that, I would rather move forward than move back, and I agree that your new version is better since it does not misleadingly include the word propaganda without defining what it meant in the time period.

I didn't say primary sources are never allowed, but you were trying to use a primary to disallow an assertion by a secondary source. That's not a legitimate use of a primary source. It's original research.

Your new version says: "Early Zionists wanted to persuade others to support their cause." Can we at least add to the end of that sentence "...and correct misconceptions about Jews and Zionists." This is directly and unequivically stated by the Kouts source, it's an important point, and I don't see how it could possibly be controversial. Slava570 (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

How is "correct misconceptions" different from "tell the truth", and how is "correct misconceptions" compatible with "declaratory minimalism"? Zero^talk 23:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)