Israel declares Jerusalem to be its capital, and has its seat of government there. However, the lack of international recognition is notable, hence the subtext was added "(limited recognition)" as the result of
this RfC. For further information see
Status of Jerusalem.
Israel is a
former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to
Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Readerships and mentions
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the
all-time Top 100 list. It has had 74 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the
Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in
2023, when it received 13,344,140 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report13 times. The weeks in which this happened:
@
Makeandtoss: your makes the sentence read as if the word "Israel" has less historical relevance than the other names, while it has been used to refer to the region not less frequently than "Canaan", and for a longer time than "Holy Land" or "Palestine".
Triggerhippie4 (
talk) 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It does have less historical relevance than other names, that's why the main article on the region is
Palestine (region) and
Canaan while
Land of Israel is about biblical heritage.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The name "Israel" is what the indigenous people called their land for centuries, and it has more historical relevance than "Holy Land."
Triggerhippie4 (
talk) 16:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Israel, as well as Judea, are not less historical than other names. They were the primary names at least since the early Iron Ages and until the
mid 2nd century. They are the most relevant names to the article, while there is still room to mention other names with the right historical context. But the problem is wider, most of the paragraph seems too insignificant to be mentioned in the lead. Israel is a Jewish nation state and its foundations based upon Jewish identity, regional history, culture, language and religion, and yet it is almost completely absent from the paragraph in favor of a generic regional description that teach almost nothing about the state's most relevant historical background.
Infantom (
talk) 11:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please verify that the Land of Israel was a common name for the geographic reason throughout recorded history per
WP:BURDEN.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
RfC: Apartheid in Lead
Procedural close, I have opened a
new RfC below given the recommendation of the closure review and the final comments at the bottom of this discussion. starship.paint (
RUN) 04:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion 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.
I think it's time for us to have this discussion.
I propose that the apartheid allegation be explicitly mentioned in the lead. This is an
incredibly well-sourced allegation, and I think the current lead which vaguely talks about "crimes of humanity" and "war crimes" is avoiding the core of the issue — precisely which crime is Israel being accused of? Apartheid is the principal one.
Specifically, I propose that the current version "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." be replaced with "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials."
JDiala (
talk) 00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A: Mention apartheid.
Option B: No change.
Option C: Other.
Survey
Bad RfC we already had a recent discussion regarding the language in the lead. No significant change has happened since.
FortunateSons (
talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I suggest we wait for an action by the ICC or the ICJ before discussing this issue again, as that will probably influence the situation drastically.
TucanHolmes (
talk) 18:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed, a binding decision by one of those could be such a significant change.
FortunateSons (
talk) 20:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A court decision by the ICJ supporting apartheid charachterization would turn the claims in to factual reality; i.e. Israel is maintaining an apartheid system, rather than Israel is accused of maintaining an apartheid system; i.e.
Israel and apartheid would be turned into
Israeli apartheid. In both cases this has nothing to do whether this should be mentioned in lede, because the lede is a summary of the body.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 13:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You voted in the wrong place, and you misunderstood my comment: As there is no significant change (and a decision would be such a change), there is no reason to re-open a discussion so soon.
FortunateSons (
talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong support of option A: this mention is long overdue and this is pretty much the elephant in the article. This is supported by the world's leading human rights organizations, including HRW and Amnesty International which are RS per WP. The lede is a summary of the body and given that we have a subsection on apartheid charges, then the least we could do is provide a simple mention of this.
WP:LEDE specifically says any prominent controversies should be mentioned; the charges of apartheid is obviously and most certainly a prominent controversy, which has its own WP article
Israel and apartheid, and is being mentioned in international forums including the ICJ genocide case. We are quite literally beautifying the horrors of this long-standing occupation and increasing settlement construction by not mentioning the findings (yes findings, not accusations) of major human rights groups.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 13:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A Per Makeandtoss.
JDiala (
talk) 08:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate you reformatting the RfC; would you be so kind as to actually do it by fully next time, by not excluding my vote? could you please include my vote next time?
FortunateSons (
talk) 09:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your snarky attitude towards honest mistakes is not congruent with policy. I refer you to
WP:GF,
WP:CIVIL.
JDiala (
talk) 11:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That wasn’t meant to be (overly) snarky, I just wanted my second correction regarding formatting to be less aggressive, I’ll fix the tone. :)
FortunateSons (
talk) 12:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
there should also be a reference to apartheid in its government type.
Gorgonopsi (
talk) 18:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That being said, just a technicality: it’s not an AGF violation (as no bad faith was assumed) and likely not yet a civility violation (those require a de minimis bar to be crossed that wouldn’t have been reached even if I had meant it in a mean way). However, I definitely could have gone for a nicer phrasing, and apologise for that.
FortunateSons (
talk) 12:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Bad RfC per FortunateSons.
Marokwitz (
talk) 20:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong support for A per Makeandtoss. I would have assumed the allegations of apartheid were already mentioned in the lead, it should absolutely be added.
Professor Penguino (
talk) 09:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A: sufficient weight for inclusion. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 03:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong support for option A: per Makeandtoss and Iskandar323. There is absolutely strong enough sources to support it.
A SocialistTrans Girl 08:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Modify slightly: Though, I think that the specific organizations should be listed with the phrasing ...including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations, including X, Y, and Z, as well as United Nations officials.A SocialistTrans Girl 08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay actually maybe different phrasing: I think it's better to use the more definitive phrasing suggested in discussion of what Israel is doing amounting to apartheid, as supported by the ICJ and Amnesty.
A SocialistTrans Girl 08:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A per Makeandtoss and Iskandar. Even if you remove from consideration activist groups like HRW, just plain old scholarship and journalism now mention apartheid often enough that it's
WP:DUE for the lead.
Levivich (
talk) 19:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Bad RfC. The previous RfC ended only a few months ago in December 2023, the initiator has not indicated what has changed to warrant a new RfC. Also, the RfC's wording is not neutral ("This is an incredibly well-sourced allegation") and so a new RfC should be opened, per one of the options suggested in the summary of the
closure review.
Alaexis¿question? 09:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Comment: as a compromise, I would support the wording proposed by DMH223344 on 02:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC):
“most human rights organizations consider Israel to enforce an apartheid system in the occupied territories."
This wording had received consensus from ~5 editors. I would oppose the wording suggested in this RfC.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 16:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
‘’’Support this’’’ as well as Makeandtoss’ reasoning. In order to employ more explicit wording there needs to either be a monopoly of sources or a high court judgement imo and we don’t have that at the moment
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 10:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment There is an upcoming
ICJ ruling on Israeli practices in the OPT. As per
The Implications of An ICJ Finding that Israel is Committing the Crime Against Humanity of Apartheid during the recent public hearings, "24 States and three international organizations made the further claim that Israel’s policies and practices amount to a system of institutionalized racial discrimination and domination breaching the prohibition of apartheid under international law and/or amount to prohibited acts of racial discrimination.". Personally, I would like to wait for the ICJ deliberations on this matter to conclude before addressing what should be in the lead (although it being in the body is straightforward).
Selfstudier (
talk) 15:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, from my perspective, apartheid is already a fact since Amnesty and HRW are reliable sources, without regard to what western governments are claiming. Given this contradiction we have chosen to treat these conclusions as allegations. But in either case, whether conclusions or allegations, apartheid as a fact or as a claim should be in the lede as a summary of the body. Currently, the least we could do is have it described as a claim. After the ICJ deliberations, if affirmative, I think we would all be inclined to treat it as fact. So I would view it more of how to describe apartheid in the lede for now and later as two separate discussions.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
When saying lede are you talking about the first paragraph or the third? The allegation of apartheid should be in the third if there are many reliable sources for it, it fits with what's already there in the same vein. If the ICJ concluded it was apartheid then it could be included as a fact imo
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 10:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:LEDE is the summary of the body that is present before the article's contents; i.e. the four paragraphs. The first lede paragraph is under
MOS:OPEN. Here I am referring to the third lede paragraph indeed. and I agree with your reasoning.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 11:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I actually like the ICJ wording. The ICJ was careful in how they worded it, and the wording is more accurate. Apartheid is linked to race, and "Palestinian" is not a race, so the apartheid accusation is not really accurate. The ICJ wording doesn't say "there is apartheid" but that the system amounts to apartheid. Human Rights Watch also used "amounts to" up in DMH223344's comment on 00:21, 22 March 2024.
The ICJ wording:
"Israel’s policies and practices amount to a system of institutionalized racial discrimination and domination breaching the prohibition of apartheid under international law and/or amount to prohibited acts of racial discrimination."
I would also prefer to wait for the ICJ deliberations. The current info in the Wikipedia Israel article about apartheid is not very good because it is basically "here is are bunch of organizations accusing Israel of apartheid.. a quote from a 2021 survey... these accusations were criticized by governments...here is a opinion by a Canadian law professor." Written like this, the content is not very lead-worthy, but content supported by more well-rounded/balanced ICJ deliberations and findings would make the apartheid accusations more lead-worthy.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 02:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Definition of race: a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 09:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t know. I use duck.com as a default browser on this device and when I typed in Is Palestinian a race it said “ Palestinian is not considered a distinct race. Palestinians are an ethnonational group residing in the Southern Levant, sharing broad religious, linguistic, and cultural practices with other Arabs, with variations unique to Palestine. They are part of the broader Arab world and encompass Muslims and a minority of Christians.”
Also ethnicity and race are not the same. Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity but not race.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 14:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes but no one in this discussion has talked about whether Palestinians are a race except yourself. It is imo not germane to the discussion.
Selfstudier (
talk) 14:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Apartheid is a system of racial segregation.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 14:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But according to the second definition in the American Heritage dictionary race is , “ A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.” So it could work if we go by that dictionary picking the second definition.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 14:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I may have gotten confused from looking at the US census race categories. Middle Easterners are supposed to fill in White as their race
[1]. The census definitions for race and ethnicity are different and more strict.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Apartheid has never been that cut and dry, by that argument,
Rhodesia wasn't an apartheid regime because it was largely wealth based voting, the apartheid comes from its treatment of the west bank, which it treats like a
Bantustan, infact a nickname for the west bank is "bantustan" it is Segregation...
Gorgonopsi (
talk) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not just a bunch, a lot of weighty opinions on the matter and over a long period of time, this is not going to go away. Btw, that's not the ICJ wording, that is the wording used by the JustSecurity source, you would need to look at the individual country submissions to see what wording they actually used.
Amnesty view is the most authoritative finding so far "The comprehensive report, Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime against Humanity, sets out how massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forcible transfer, drastic movement restrictions, and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law. This system is maintained by violations which Amnesty International found to constitute apartheid as a crime against humanity, as defined in the Rome Statute and Apartheid Convention."
I don't think the "amounts to" is significant, is there a source for that?
Selfstudier (
talk) 09:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
See, Amnesty is also using “amounts to “
“ and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law.”
JustSecurity used “amounts to “ twice, Amnesty used it, and Human Rights Watch used it. I was trying to figure out why they used “amounts to” instead of is. One definition of “amounts to” is adding up. So maybe that is why they are using it instead of the race thing.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 15:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
International law is named after the most famous example, separation of European/non-European peoples. So I suppose sources on Israel use ‘amounts to’ instead of ‘is’ for language reasons. I think they are saying it fits international law because the actions taken in South Africa and Israel are materially the same, even if it isn’t the identical groups undergoing separation.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 15:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We should get an uninvolved Editor to close this..... As of now it doesn't hold up to basic integrity to have it closed by the initiator..... That being said I don't disagree with the outcome.... Just doesn't look proper.....looks sneaky if you will.Moxy🍁 21:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
True. Then again, it appears to be unanimous and was open for five weeks.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 21:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Editors should do their best to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia..... this isn't it. Moxy🍁 21:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
On
WP:RFCEND, it is stated that "if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor may summarize the discussion" and "[if] the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable". I decided to close in light of this.
JDiala (
talk) 23:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I've reopened this RFC per the challenge at AN. I suggest that this be retried with a neutral RFC statement and widely advertised at Wikiprojects that may be interested in order to address the concerns of uninvolved parties at AN that this RFC did not gather enough participation and was not widely advertised.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 17:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Might I also suggest using {{
rfc}}, which would summon a selection of (hopefully) uninvolved editors and add it to RfC categories and lists.
AdamBlacktalk •
contribs 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Israel Hebrew Name
in the Hebrew name of Israel the vowels are very hard to read.
Rishypeasy (
talk) 21:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Bellow all the formal stuff we put on every country it mentions the names israel had been called historically, but it's missing some like Judea.
2A06:C701:9DA2:3100:1085:ACF8:8D6B:247B (
talk) 22:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not obvious what you mean by "missing". In the Classical antiquity section, for example, Judea is mentioned 4 times.
Sean.hoyland (
talk) 04:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
English
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add English alongside Arabic in the "recognized languages" section in the infobox. The sources I already gave.
MylowattsIAm (
talk) 08:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done: English is not a de jure official language in Israel as stated in your cites. The article text appears to cover this correctly.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Then why not add it as a de facto recognized language with these citations and footnotes explaining it? It's stared that it's use comes even before Arabic so it makes no sense to leave it out of the infobox.
MylowattsIAm (
talk) 14:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There are a very large number of languages spoken in Israel as can be seen in the article on this at:
Languages of Israel linked to in the languages section of this article. We cannot put them in an infobox. Please stop reopening this request.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 22:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
But English has a completely different status. One of the sources literally states "after Hebrew but before Arabic". It's not just another language used by someone in Israel, it is a working language of the state, a bit less important than Hebrew but more important than Arabic. Some articles use a row titled "working language" so perhaps we could use that here. I will reopen the request again for the last time.
MylowattsIAm (
talk) 08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd like to support this suggestion. More sources are needed to back the claim of English as the working language.
Ahri.boy (
talk) 21:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
English is used around the world, somewhat like French centuries ago. I've been to many countries in South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific and had little problem using English. {OK, some difficulty in parts of the US.) This is partly due the prevalence of tech related documents written in English, and partly due to pop music and movies, and partly due to the annoying American tourists countries put up with. Israel is a special case. But these factors still exist.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 22:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
References
^Spolsky, Bernard (1999).
Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. pp. 169–70.
ISBN0-87840-132-6. In 1948, the newly independent state of Israel took over the old British regulations that had set English, Arabic, and Hebrew as official languages for Mandatory Palestine but, as mentioned, dropped English from the list. In spite of this, official language use has maintained a de facto role for English, after Hebrew but before Arabic.
^Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava (2004).
"Part I: Language and Discourse". In
Diskin Ravid, Dorit; Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava (eds.). Perspectives on Language and Development: Essays in Honor of Ruth A. Berman. Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 90.
ISBN1-4020-7911-7. English is not considered official but it plays a dominant role in the educational and public life of Israeli society. [...] It is the language most widely used in commerce, business, formal papers, academia, and public interactions, public signs, road directions, names of buildings, etc. English behaves 'as if' it were the second and official language in Israel.
^Shohamy, Elana (2006).
Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Routledge. pp. 72?73.
ISBN0-415-32864-0. In terms of English, there is no connection between the declared policies and statements and de facto practices. While English is not declared anywhere as an official language, the reality is that it has a very high and unique status in Israel. It is the main language of the academy, commerce, business, and the public space.
User:Makeandtoss, who clearly edits with a pro-Palestine bias, has removed historically accurate information to perpetuate an inaccurate viewpoint. While the original article may have addressed the remaining territory, it's essential to note that the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza constitutes only 23% of the British Mandate for Palestine. This information holds significant importance for maintaining neutrality.
Compare:
The [[1949 Armistice Agreements]] saw Israel's borders established over most of the former remaining Mandate territory, which is not including the 77% which was previously used to establish [[Jordan]] on 11 April 1922, while the rest, the [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|West Bank]] and the [[Occupation of the Gaza Strip by the United Arab Republic|Gaza Strip]], were taken by [[Jordan]] and [[Egypt]] respectively.
I stopped reading at: who clearly edits with a pro-Palestine bias.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 13:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Why not simply examine his edit history to either invalidate or validate my claim?
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk) 13:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
He promptly archived my talk post, which called out his edits, indicating a clear intention to conceal actions that could be viewed as biased editing from initial viewers.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk) 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Please cease your ad hominem attacks immediately before action is taken against you. Archiving talk pages is within my right, which is even optional and not mandated by Wikipedia that even
allows blanking talk pages. As for my editing is supported by reliable sources and according to WP guidelines, unlike the last recent edit you tried to insert without a source. If it is an "indisputable fact", then I am sure it would be easy for you to provide a reliable source.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 13:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
80%, it's an obvious fact for anyone with any knowledge of history of the Levant, here's your reliable source.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk) 13:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I will gladly provide 100 more if you'd like...
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk) 13:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. And if it exists it is a fringe viewpoint in the literature. Doesn't belong in the lede as a summary of the body anyway.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It is a geographical fact, geography is not an opinion. The British Mandate for Palestine included both "Palestine" and "Jordan". Jordan constituted 80% of the British Mandate for Palestine. This is not an opinion, this is fact.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk) 14:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Here I have provided additional sources to support the geographical fact that Jordan comprised roughly 80% of the british mandate for palestine. Do you think this is satisfactory to update and correct the article?
it's essential to note that the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza constitutes only 23% of the British Mandate for Palestine. Rubbish, this is the propaganda nonsense that includes Jordan in the Mandate.
Selfstudier (
talk) 16:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Your response is completely unconstructive and baseless. Jordan was indeed a part of the British Mandate for Palestine, ummm
Mandate for Palestine.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk) 16:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And excluded from the Zionist provisions for nearly all of it, administered totally separately, and the border was not set until later so it wasn't even Jordan, it was just the other side of the Jordan.
Selfstudier (
talk) 16:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't understand the relevance between that and the fact I am trying to include for the sake of neutrality.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk) 16:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Me either, stop writing rubbish and I won't respond to it.
Selfstudier (
talk) 16:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The administration of the area that constitutes Jordan today does not alter the historical fact that approximately 77% of the land allocated under the British mandate was used to establish the state of Jordan. The timing of border agreements made by outside additional parties does not negate the established borders and the allocation of land. Your argument appears to rely on a strawman fallacy
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk) 16:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Please cite a reliable source showing this 77%. When you can't find one, let me know.
Selfstudier (
talk) 16:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It was a rhetorical question. They are obviously reliable sources.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk) 16:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You mentioned the
Mandate for Palestine -> "Whilst the Mandate for Palestine document covered both Mandatory Palestine (from 1920) and the Emirate of Transjordan (added in 1921), Transjordan was never part of Mandatory Palestine." and 4 reliable sources cited to that.
Selfstudier (
talk) 16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Awesome, from strawman fallacy to now changing the goalpost. :) I provide reliable sources, now they are not good enough. We're not talking about Mandatory Palestine, my edit CLEARLY said British Mandate for Palestine.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk) 16:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
British Mandate for Palestine was a document, but your edit falsely and misleadingly makes a geographic connection with the area size. This point is irrelevant as far as the literature is concerned. And it still does not belong to the lede.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 16:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
NPOV in the lede
Does anyone disagree with the content or the phrasing in this paragraph:
...exacerbated by British colonial policy of
divide and rule.
at the end of the sentence on intercommunal conflict
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 11:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you remove the cosmopolitan part in the lead OR add the corresponding info in the body as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body? Also could you please check the article length as this article was previously tagged as being too long?
Wafflefrites (
talk) 11:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That is a small paragraph summarising thousands of years of history, I think it is very concise, and smaller than a lot paragraphs in other ledes or even in this lede. Are citations included when discussing the article length?
Is that not a basic fact backed up by sources, therefore not needing to be in the body as per
WP:Lede? Regardless I agree it needs to be mentioned in the body of the article, I'll work on it now.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 12:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Alexanderkowal: Please revert first and seek consensus, rather than the other way around. As much as I agree with the framing of your edits, but this is really overdetailed. Lede should be as brief and factual as possible, without any analyses or the mention of multiple other things.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 12:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll shorten the final sentence to
...Arab population, a central component of what is known as the Nakba in Palestinian society.
Still overdetailed, especially the cosmopolitan and the whole Nakba thing.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
They're small one clause sentences. The cosmopolitan part summarises the effect lots of different ruling empires had on the region and links that sentence back to the region/rounds it off. The Nakba sentence is just a few words long to add a highly relevant page link. Furthermore, the paragraph still remains quite short.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm trying to think of a couple words we could add to imply previous Jewish migrations such as after the Spanish inquisition
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I am ok with shortening the sentence and don’t mind keeping the link to Nakba, but I will admit I my reasoning is completely biased, so I cannot really provide appropriate reasoning on that. Please see
WP:LENGTH for article length guidelines.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 13:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The guidelines are quite ambiguous, there might be a way to include the information in this paragraph with less words without killing the flow but I'm not seeing it
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It’s under
WP:SIZERULE. I can check the length later and trim appropriately if needed. I think I am ok with keeping the link to Nakba because the link was previously in the lead and seemed important to some editors, but that is pretty much the reason. Probably need additional feedback from others.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 13:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the part saying in Palestinian society is key to state the perspective
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Would it not be easier to trim the sections down a little rather than the lede?
Also would very cosmopolitan be lede worthy? The only reason I put fairly was because I only had two sources. I suppose the word assimilated alludes to this, idk, but it wasn't necessarily the various empires causing this but waves of migration
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 19:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I do really think this is key to the history of Israel/Palestine region and I'm amazed it wasn't already talked about in the article. Also, I don't understand why you referenced malaria
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 19:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I am not familiar with that part of the history. Is it in the Wikipedia article for Palestine (region)? I mentioned malaria because I am wondering how cosmopolitan the region was if malaria was endemic. Also I am wondering if the cosmopolitan part is not mentioned because this article is mostly focusing on the region when it was/is named Israel.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 21:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Wafflefrites how about rewriting the sentence that lists empires and replacing it with:
Located at a continental crossroad, the southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine empires, the Arab Caliphates, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks and the Ottomans, with its wide array of holy sites in various faiths attracting waves of immigration throughout history.
This leads into the next sentence well and flows well, and we could trim the 26 words from elsewhere.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 21:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I would remove “many” and “its wide array of” for concision
Wafflefrites (
talk) 21:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed, I suppose 'many' is rendered superfluous by the long list immediately after
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
What I'm seeing is mass changes by 2 new editors....... let's make sure we give good edit summaries. And let's make sure if there are reverts this is not taking personally....we can discuss things. Moxy🍁 03:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Obv the premise for discussion shouldn’t be me defending changes but rather multiple people contributing to a consensus on the changes
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The list of empires wasn’t random, it was a list of empires in the order of those that ruled over the region. I really don’t think it makes sense for this period of history to be entirely ignored here.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 05:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with the copyedit; naming the various empires is unnecessary detail for the lead; "many different empires" is better. Although, I think even better would be improved by mentioning (in some brief formulation) that the different empires included Jewish, Islamic, Christian, and "other" empires. The whole "crossroads of three continents" thing. It explains why the area is important to Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others.
Levivich (
talk) 06:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with that, although the many different empires refers to the time period after Judah. I think that would have to be in the first sentence of the paragraph
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 06:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
How about “… Holy Land, and has been controlled by Jewish, Muslim, and Christian polities throughout history.”
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 06:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
^Morris, Benny (1999).
Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001 (reprint ed.). Knopf.
ISBN9780679744757. The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well). Also quoted, among many, by Mark M. Ayyash (2019). Hermeneutics of Violence: A Four-Dimensional Conception. University of Toronto Press, p.
195,
ISBN1487505868. Accessed 22 March 2024.
@
Alexanderkowal: The recent edits are overdetailed and editorial, please summarize as follows:
From "Situated at a continental crossroad, the
southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as" to "The
southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as"
The point of the sentence on waves of immigration is to allude to it being historically ethnically diverse, and page link to a relevant page on social history of the region.
For the British policy one, maybe just page link to divide and rule through British colonial policy? I’m surprised the British empire page doesn’t have a section on their style of rule in comparison to other colonial empires.
The one about Arab citizens of Israel is key to clarify, although it is controversial due to the accusations of apartheid. I think it’s very open to discussion
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I fixed the Nakba one, not just known to Palestinians, to many.
Selfstudier (
talk) 13:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that sentence was key to stating the perspective, and it is predominantly and primarily known in Palestinian society
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My point is that the English Wikipedia reader is unlikely to have heard of it
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There are many things that an English reader might not have heard of, Aliyah for example, but both these things are explained in the text so not a problem.
Selfstudier (
talk) 13:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
the Aliyah page is linked to via "Jewish migration" precisely because an english reader is unlikely to have heard it.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Its loci is in Palestinian society, just like the loci for the much wider known holocaust is in Israeli society. Any remembrance of Nakba is focused on Palestinian society
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I thought you just made your point, is this another one? How many do you have?
Selfstudier (
talk) 13:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Alexanderkowal: As seen here there is no consensus for "in Palestinian society" so please remove it.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 08:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There also wasn’t consensus for him to remove it, but since I initially acted without consensus I’ll revert.
I have a really hard time knowing when consensus has been reached as people often don’t admit defeat in an argument when the outcome is binary
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 09:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I added it because I felt I’d totally refuted his points or argument, if I had left it a day with no response would that have been the time to change it?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 09:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I assumed your comment decrying my persistence was admission of refutation. I know Nakba is quite widely commemorated, especially in the Muslim world, however the loci is very important, Palestinians primarily commemorate it, if they stopped everyone would stop. The link you put also emphasises Palestinian society
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 09:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No-one disputes that Palestinians commemorate the Nakba. That was not the objection, it was the idea that Nakba is known only to Palestinians. In any case, that sort of detail is not necessary in the lead.
Selfstudier (
talk) 10:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
it introduces the perspective of the Nakba article, and page links to Palestinian which is necessary for Israel's lede. Note that it isn't linked elsewhere
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 10:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The
Nakba link is sufficient for the perspective. The reason that Palestinians are not linked anywhere is due to the practice of referring to them as Arabs "which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population" for example, that "Arab population" is Palestinian, and the vast majority of "Arab citizens of Israel" are as well Palestinian. But it is not crucial for this article, links to the conflict, the territories and the hr issues are sufficient imo.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No such thing as "defeat in an argument". On Wikipedia in particular decisions are made by consensus and consensus involves following the guidelines and making compromises. Also familiarize yourself with
WP:1RR.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
What if you're discussing something with someone and they don't reply
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 11:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Also you removed the bit on waves of migration without consensus, I do really think this
Demographic history of Palestine (region) needs to be linked to. I think putting
... and experienced waves of migration.
with waves of migration linking to the page. This leads into the next sentence very well
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 11:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but not only are you editing aggressively and without compromise, but also without regard to any WP guideline. It is you who inserted the waves of immigration bit without consensus. You have also violated -and continued to violate- 1RR multiple times despite being told to familiarize yourself with it. I won't be filing a complain at
WP:AE, but someone eventually will and AE will outright sanction you.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 13:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree I made an error in my first few edits and that this has wrongly changed the premise of discussion. However I started this discussion on the talk page and multiple editors have critiqued the edits and not stated opposition to certain inclusions, meaning there is a weak consensus, and I continue to engage in discussion. Can you please address my initial comment.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I hope any administrator would recognise that I am editing in good faith.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Gave a better wikilink for British policy.
Selfstudier (
talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In retrospect the ‘situated at a continental crossroad’ explains the succeeding sentence about why it came under the rule of lots of empires, but if you do still feel it’s too editorial than we can remove it
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The bit on the social history is context for the region having no real owner until the rise of ethnonationalism in the 19th century
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Ottoman Empire owned it for centuries, that's a real owner.
Levivich (
talk) 13:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My understanding is that it was more cosmopolitan than other regions, and the many series of migrations it saw meant that there wasn’t really an exclusive ethnic ownership
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't follow how migration or demographics means there wasn't exclusive ownership. The migrants didn't own or control the land. New York City is a cosmopolitan city with lots of migrants; it's still owned and controlled by the USA. Exclusively.
Levivich (
talk) 22:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It’s just my impression, it might be wrong. If New York City had changed hands 10s of times over the course of a millennium combined with waves of immigration and emigration I can imagine how strong ownership wouldn’t be felt. I suppose the Ottomans held onto Palestine for long enough for it to change.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 07:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t know whether the nominal ownership by Turkish, and the Arab population, would’ve negated sentiment of ownership
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I suppose they possibility of losing something doesn’t always make people loosen their grip
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 08:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In the next paragraph I think it should mention that there was immigration to Israel from people displaced by WW2 (and the holocaust)
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Alexanderkowal: Since the "with holy sites of various faiths attracting waves of immigration throughout history." has no consensus, please have it removed.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 15:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, can we discuss it? I can look through sources
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
[2] states "Typical of the cities of the Levant was a mixed population. ‘Levantine’ was an omnibus term used especially to refer to the Armenian, Greek, Italian and Jewish merchants...Conversions of individuals from one cultural environment to the next and back again were everyday occurrences. A new light is shed on minorities here. Neither marginalised nor treated as objects of tolerance or intolerance, in a social system based on communication and flexibility, they were the system's pillars and driving force." That's just in the abstract, I don't have access to the article
[3] states "Anyone who studies the material culture of Egypt and the Levant will agree that migration, trade, translation, and assimilation were common practice." unsure if this is talking generally or about the first millennium BC
[4] states "Migrants of various ethnic, religious and social origins made their way to Palestine, or crossed it while heading to other locations, or relocated their place of permanent residence, virtually in any given period between the mid-seventh century and the turn of the twelfth, as well as later on." I don't have access so can't see it talk about motives
[5] states "the westward migration of the Jewish merchants from Iraq [during the 10th century]...contributed greatly to the economic prosperity in Palestine and Egypt"
[6] states "This means that the peoples living here have an identity distinct from the neighboring peoples but they have nevertheless always had an ongoing exchange through trade, inter�marriage, migration, exile, and displacement with many of the other regional peoples."
It appears Arabs migrated for economic prosperity, so saying holy sites was wrong. It is a good page to link to though. I do think mention has to be made of migration from across the old world, or something referring to it being cosmopolitan and relatively diverse.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, that is not how WP works. When material is challenged, reversion first and then discussion per
WP:BRD. Even if true, it is not a unique piece of information and does not belong to the lede of Israel.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 15:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I only noticed now. I am not arguing against the factuality, but against the prominence of this to the summary of an article about Israel.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 09:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's context for the later Zionist migrations. Palestine was fairly cosmopolitan and was effectively built on migration with no real indigenous people compared to other regions.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 10:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see the connection with Zionist migrations. On the contrary genetic evidence has shown that Palestinians show a large degree of genetic continuity with Bronze era Levantines. Still not relevant to the lede of the state of Israel.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 10:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course it is relevant, it summarises the social history of the region. If you disagree with the phrasing then we can rework it, but the content is very relevant in my view.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 10:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
How would you summarise the social history of the region? I think the clause would have to refer to flow (migration) and stock (settled population), however I don't know where to place the emphasis. I think indicating ownership of the region by an ethnic group violates NPOV for this article and would also be
WP:Synth. Maybe talking indirectly about the population and stating the Islamisation of the region? I think that's a good compromise
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
"ownership of the region"? "social history of the region"? I really don't see any of this as due for the lead.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The social history of the region is discussed in the body and the lede and it’s incredibly relevant to the conflict. It doesn’t make sense to only start talking about social history from the 19th century when the periods before that are so relevant.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 12:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Palestinians were the indigenous people of Palestine.
Levivich (
talk) 13:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed, but it’s not as clear cut as other regions, and I think it’s natural for Israel’s page to have a slight Zionist bias. I’m more trying to correct for the lack of Zionist voices on this page, which I find surprising, to impale the content on the fence
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I’m more trying to correct for the lack of Zionist voices on this page Seriously?
Selfstudier (
talk) 14:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
? The only people I’ve engaged w on this page have been very anti-Israel, as much as I disagree with Zionism, particularly this manifestation of Zionism, in order to maintain NPOV Zionist arguments need to be involved and the grains of truth in them used, if what we’re trying to do is build a neutral encyclopaedia.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The other way of looking at it is there are a lot of pro Israel (not Zionist) editors at this page (there are) but they don't agree with you.
Selfstudier (
talk) 14:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I haven't received much disagreement, I'm surprised the Nakba inclusion didn't need an RfC. Also, see
WP:EnemyAlexanderkowal (
talk) 14:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I haven't received much disagreement except from the very anti-Israel people who have engaged with you? Think you better ease off with the them and us rhetoric, tbh.
Selfstudier (
talk) 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah you’re probably right, it’s just the topic is often very partisan. I wouldn’t say I’m an us, more an irrelevant bystander with no deep understanding
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
in order to maintain NPOV Zionist arguments need to be involved and the grains of truth in them used No, that's not
WP:NPOV. The "V" in NPOV is the viewpoints of reliable sources, not the viewpoints of the subjects of the articles.
Levivich (
talk) 22:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There are many RS that have a Zionist view or bias, including academic sources
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 07:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this article should mention the motives for the Arab migrations from the 7th to 12th centuries.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 10:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
because it's relevant detail and I think it's a question the reader might have. Just say for economic prosperity I think
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 10:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Makeandtoss I disagree with your reversion of my edit, the Islamisation of the region does summarise content in the body and is entirely relevant and lede worthy as it provides context for the current conflict. I don't understand your argument here, it seems a very common sense inclusion. Unless you think there's negative connotations with the term "Islamisation"?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Same applies to paganism, Judaism and Christianity.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 08:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It’s included there as context for the subsequent sentences. Would you rather it referred to Arab migrations rather than Islamisation?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 08:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I’d argue this is more lede worthy than the exodus from the Muslim world, it also page links to a relevant page on Jewish history
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 10:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You can’t have a summary of Israeli history without mentioning WW2
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 10:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Btw feel free to revert my edit about migration following WW2, I altered it so 1RR doesn't apply, but I should've discussed it first. Why don't you feel migrations should be included in the lede? It seems a central component of Israeli history
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 12:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
"It seems like..."? Respectfully, I think you should read/learn more about this before making or proposing changes to these articles. Like: how many Jews moved to Israel, when, from where, and according to what sources? There is a lot of literature on these topics, the answers are complex, and they may surprise you.
Levivich (
talk) 13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's valid, however my statement there is correct. The migration from Europe occurred largely from 1920 to 1953. The
Aliyah#Early statehood (1948–1960) section has a table that shows where they migrated from, and how many, from 1948-1953, with 338,000 total from Europe. Ofc there was migration to Palestine during the war and before, which I struggled to include in my edit without splitting it into two sentences in different places.
Bricha and
Aliyah Bet discuss this. My edit was based off of what I read on wikipedia, ideally I'd be more knowledgeable and accustomed with the topic.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's why I wrote "... and according to whom?" If you are reading things on Wikipedia articles and then changing other Wikipedia articles based on that, that's not a good approach.
WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that table, for example, is itself not very well sourced. Not terribly sourced, it's sourced to scholarship at least, but it seems to have one source, a paper, that's 20 years old. There are many entire books written about this, and history is always updated, so there are just better sources available for these numbers. And of course not all the sources agree with each other. And then there's context (which Wikipedia articles are particularly lacking in): 338k out of how many total? While there is no disputing that the Holocaust was very important to the history of Israel, IIRC it's also true that most Holocaust survivors did not move to Israel (many more went to the US, for example), and most Jewish immigrants to Israel were not Holocaust survivors.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that you're volunteering to improve these articles, but the best way to go about that is sources->body->lead, of the same article, as opposed to changing the lead (or body) of one article just based on what it says in another article. (Keeping in mind that main articles will often have better information than sub-articles, but not always, which is why one always has to check the sources.) And sources, plural, never depending on just one source. Sources from a variety of viewpoints, not just one American, Israeli, or Palestinian author. And preferably, best sources, not just "any" paper or book.
IMO, the best way to figure out what to write about immigration in the Israel article is to take a few recent books about Israel's history from the most reputable scholars from a variety of viewpoints, and see what they say about immigration, and then summarize that.
Levivich (
talk) 14:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay I'll do more research in the future, thank you. Yeah cherry picking sources isn't the best way to go about it. In the sources I gave, one was from an Israeli journal, and one was critical of Israeli exceptionalism so I thought it was a wide consensus.
Yup, and also, off the top of my head, one thing sources from the '90s may not accurately capture (as compared to sources from, say, the last 10 years) is the significance of post-Soviet Jewish migration to the current demographics of Israel. IIRC, more Russian Jews came in the '90s and 2000s than Holocaust survivors in the '40s and '50s. How much a Wikipedia article talks about one wave of migration vs another should be based on how the current best sources treat the issue. And seriously, thanks for volunteering to work on this, Wikipedia could use all the help it can get.
Levivich (
talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I'm surprised at the lack of active editors, no worries, I'll look into it. Thanks for the advice
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My impression does seem to be accurate, and I was very confident on it despite the weasel wording
[7] is a journal article with the title: Immigration is Israel's History, So Far
[8] is a book titled: Country on the Move: Migration to and within Israel, 1948–1995
[9] is critical of Israeli exceptionalism and states: Migration has been a major social issue in Israel for well over 50 years. Indeed,its centrality in the value context of the society goes back to well before the establishment of the state in 1948 (Leshem and Shuval (Eds), 1998).Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My edits on the word 'pre-emptively' were wrong and naive, I just wanted to counter the narrative that people flee their homes willingly
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t dispute it, I’m for its inclusion. Two people have stated either opposition or wariness.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a weak consensus at the moment to include it. On such a controversial issue, a strong one is infinitely better although the merit of this RfC would depend on a good facilitator and efforts to build a consensus from both sides.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You misunderstand me, where is the discussion where any editor queried the inclusion of the word nakba?
Selfstudier (
talk) 15:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It was reverted with a valid reason, I reinstated it due to weak consensus and started this RfC so as to hear arguments
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 16:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If all we are talking about is an insertion, a removal and a reinsertion without any subsequent discussion, then there is presumed consensus.
Btw, if the removal was for a valid reason, then it would have been better, although not compulsory, to have started the discussion per
WP:BRD.
But if there is no current discussion, then this RFC is not required and you should close it (remove the RFC tags).
Selfstudier (
talk) 16:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I’ll close it and maybe reopen it if there’s further disagreement
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 16:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
in order to make it clear that that article is written from the Palestinian perspective, and frame it. If this were done, would you support its inclusion in the lede here?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 18:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
that article is written from the Palestinian perspective If that's true, add some other perspectives so that it isn't.
Selfstudier (
talk) 18:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I have stated that the Israeli perspective on the Nakba, current and past, should be included in the body and the lede of the article. It's too intense a topic for me to write on it without a deeper understanding. Until then, I do think it'd be good to frame the article here. This also clearly differentiates it from the expulsion and flight article, so the reader understands why we included them both.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nope, you can't frame the article as not being NPOV merely because it hasn't been edited to your satisfaction, that's not the way it works.
Selfstudier (
talk) 18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course you can, this is entirely how it works, via consensus of editors. If multiple editors question the NPOV of an article, it gets an NPOV banner until that is addressed. I think the Nakba article is very good article, and it's right that the bulk should be written from the Palestinian perspective, but there also needs to be a bit from the Israeli perspective, that isn't just apologia.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 18:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
this is entirely how it works, via consensus of editors. If multiple editors question the NPOV of an article, it gets an NPOV banner If that was the way it worked, every contentious article would have a permanent NPOV tag.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no neutrality tag at the Nakba article, therefore it is NPOV and not written from the Palestinian perspective only. If you add such a tag, then go to the article and explain what needs to be fixed there and it will get fixed, either way it is not "Palestinian".
Selfstudier (
talk) 18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll move discussion to that page and clarify my argument.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 18:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
References
^Morris, Benny (1999).
Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001 (reprint ed.). Knopf.
ISBN9780679744757. The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well). Also quoted, among many, by Mark M. Ayyash (2019). Hermeneutics of Violence: A Four-Dimensional Conception. University of Toronto Press, p.
195,
ISBN1487505868. Accessed 22 March 2024.
^Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Separate section for "Criticism (of Israel)"?
In the
Government and politics section, there is a "see also" link for the
Criticism of Israel. I wonder if there should be a separate section altogether for that, especially considering some of the criticism for the state is not entirely about "government and politics" (examples: islamophobia, antisemitism, etc).
Josethewikier (
talk) 03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not what we are looking for...
WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure..."
WP:CSECTION " Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. " Moxy🍁 03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The page states that Israel is located in the historic Canaan and “Palestine” areas. This is supposed to be “Judea” as historically “Palestine” only existed as a British Mandate from 1918-1948. Please update this language to be historically accurate as Canaan and Judea are the correct terms for this point in Israel’s history. Canaan does not exist today, and the land of Judea is where Israel currently exists. (Submitted by a Middle East historian)
98.246.173.176 (
talk) 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Alexanderkowal: The lede is a summary, and your recent edits do not treat it as such.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you specify which edits? The sentence about migration after WW2 has a paragraph on it in the body. I admit my incentive to edit was not to summarise the body but make a good summary of the topic, and that that is problematic. There should be a paragraph about the rise of antisemitism in Europe which gives context to the climate that Zionism was born in and popularised in. Whether I can write that and do it justice, idk, although the research is easy
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Map: add main towns, Isr. settlements outside Isr.
Maybe it's not the best place to open the discussion, but let's have it started.
Regarding maps of towns & regions:
It is important to have the main features on the map also on the other side of border or armistice lines. For the PA these are Palestinian towns & Israeli settlements, elsewhere Lebanese etc. towns, trans-border roads etc. Why? Because white surfaces aren't informative. There is peaceful and violent interaction across those lines - main roads into the West Bank, border crossings, common industrial zones, border incidents (shooting, terror attacks, IDF incursions, historical battles), ecological issues, and so forth. One comes here for inf. and gets - hic sunt leones.
Use a different colour, of course - keep the white or whatever - but border or armistice lines are porous, not the ultimate confines of
Flat Earth. We should only add important features, but those are needed. If a selection or graphic alteration is too difficult to achieve, technically or otherwise, then keep all there is, but in pale grey.
Arminden (
talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Concrete example. One reads about shooting from
Tulkarem toward
Bat Hefer. Going to B.H. page, there is no Tulkarem on the map/location plan. Current solution:
go to coordinates
choose type of map
figure out places, often spelled differently.
Tulkarem is a big town, should be on that sketchy map/location plan.
Arminden (
talk) 10:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Minor wording change in lede
Hopefully this is uncontroversial and accurate, but I am open to guidance if mistaken.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
When discussion has
ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Noting the existence of the subsection
Israel#Apartheid accusations in the body of the article, should the text that has been bolded below be added to the lead of this article? Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing
war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the
implementation of policies that amount to apartheid, against the Palestinian people by human rights organizations and United Nations officials.starship.paint (
RUN) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A: Include as proposed. Option B: Do not include the bolded text. Option C: Other.
Survey (new)
Option A. The accusation of apartheid is very important and should absolutely be in the lead.
Professor Penguino (
talk) 05:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A - the content is relevant to Israel, important enough to draw international coverage and
scholarly discussion, and reliably sourced. There is an abundance of content, so much so that a whole sub-article,
Israel and apartheid was created over it, and it currently has almost 350 references. Given this, the accusation is simply
WP:DUE. starship.paint (
RUN) 07:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This accusation is in fact a mainstream academic viewpoint. The Washington Post surveyed academic experts on the Middle East ... 557 scholars responded ... the percentage of scholars who describe the current situation as “a one state reality akin to apartheid” grew even faster, from 59 percent in February to 65 percent in this latest poll dated September 2021. starship.paint (
RUN) 09:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B - The lede is a summary of the article and generally shouldn't go into specifics; at the moment we appropriately summarize this accusation under It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Adding additional details would be
WP:UNDUE - I note we don't even include highly relevant details around the background to the formation of Israel, such as the
holocaust.
BilledMammal (
talk) 07:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I’ll add a page link to the holocaust in the lede
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 08:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This has nothing to do with the subject of this RFC. Kindly stay on topic.
Selfstudier (
talk) 08:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A(
Summoned by bot) mention of the apartheid accusation, the accusation is simply WP:DUE per Starship.paint. But one semantic quibble, is apartheid generally considered a 'war crime' or a 'crime against humanity', which the word 'including' implies.
Pincrete (
talk) 08:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A per nom. We’ve got to be wary of too much detail, however this seems appropriate
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 08:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B, The lead is already overloaded with every accusation ever made against Israel. Adding more is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. You don't see this level of scrutiny for any other country. We have to stop politicizing Wikipedia...
HaOfa (
talk) 09:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Feel welcome to bring it up there. —
kashmīrīTALK 11:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Plainly untrue as China features references to the Great Chinese Famine, the purging of Maoists and the Tiananmen Square massacre all while having significantly more history to get through in the opening.
Galdrack (
talk) 23:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I was talking about the lede. There’s no mention of the Uyghurs or that other religious group I can’t remember their name
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 06:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A Widespread legal, political and scholarly support for this allegation. Among the most well-known allegations of a crime against humanity by a state in the modern era. Without any doubt, this is lead worthy.
JDiala (
talk) 09:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A The characterization is widespread and over a long period. It is also the root cause of most of the other criticisms of Israel. Apartheid permeates every aspect of life.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 10:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B trying to put aside my own personal opinion on the matter to be objective and think of this in terms of Wikipedia policy, I do feel inclusion would be
WP:UNDUE. I agree with
BilledMammal - I think we do already summarise the most serious accusations against Israel in It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.AdamBlacktalk •
contribs 11:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A/C, as the matter is undoubtedly pertinent to the country, however the wording could be tweaked further, from focusing on Israel being accused to focusing on its policies and practice. Perhaps along the lines of: According to UN bodies and human rights organisations, Israeli policies towards [or: treatment of] the Palestinian minority may have at times amounted to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and apartheid. —
kashmīrīTALK 11:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
the war crimes are not only against the Palestinian minority in Israel. Tbh I oppose the inclusion of war crimes in the lede, this is not done for other countries guilty of war crimes
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 11:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fairness is not the standard. The question that needs to be asked is, as a ratio of all of
WP:RS material about a given state, what proportion of that material pertains to war crimes? In Israel's case (as with some other rogue states e.g., Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan), that ratio is exceptionally high, higher than other states. For Israel, war crimes are a sine qua non, a core aspect of its existence. For instance, consider that in the words of Israeli historian
Benny Morris, "transfer", a euphemism for the recognized crime against humanity of
ethnic cleansing, was "inevitable and inbuilt" into Zionism. Other states like America, China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies, with large economies, deep histories, and immense global influence beyond their militarism, and this richness is reflected by
WP:RS.
JDiala (
talk) 11:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree, but I'm also mindful of the fact that the process of carving out a new country nearly always involves population transfers, and theorising about it is not a crime in itself. Redefining the borders of Germany, Poland, Soviet Union, etc., after WW2 also involved transfers of millions of people – yet can we argue that it was automatically a crime against humanity? The matter is quite nuanced in my view. —
kashmīrīTALK 11:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That’s nonsense, America, China, and Russia have all had population transfer as a core aspect of their history. Just because you don’t find Israeli history or society interesting is of no relevance here. There is depth to Jewish history, which Israel is a part of
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 12:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Both China and Russia have references to their Authoritarianism and famines triggered by state policies, it's actually the US that's the major outlier.
Galdrack (
talk) 23:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Perhaps, I don't object. As I wrote, the wording needs to be tweaked further. E.g., "...towards ethnic minorities, including in particular the Palestinians". —
kashmīrīTALK 11:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option BThis subject is highly controversial, many countries do not agree that there is Apartheid and various organizations including the UN who support such allegations, are sometimes accused of bias against Israel. There is no place for such a suggestion. I agree also with BilledMammal
Owenglyndur (
talk) 12:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"This subject is highly controversial, many countries do not agree that there is Apartheid and various organizations including the UN who support such allegations, are sometimes accused of bias against Israel." Does that really matter though? The implicit suggestion that you are making is that the UN is wrong and has an anti-Israel bias. I'm not accusing you of anything, but think of it this way:
Option 1: We exclude the accusations of apartheid from the lead section. Because of this, we exclude a very important accusation against the article's subject, with the reason being simply that "it's controversial" and "it may not be an apartheid state".
Option 2: We include the accusations of apartheid in the lead section. We include a very important accusation against the article's subject, without taking sides and simply stating the fact that Israel has been accused of apartheid.
B'Tselem is often associated with Israel's hard left. I'm not sure about their end vision for the conflict, but I can imagine some people will view their opinion as biased.
ABHammad (
talk) 06:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A per Starship.paint. Having said that I find the second sentence unnecessarily wordy. It has been accused of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and implementing policies amounting to apartheid would do.
DeCausa (
talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Prefer starship's original wording as apartheid (and policies amounting to it) are in fact crimes against humanity. So it's better to use a word like "including" rather than "and."
JDiala (
talk) 13:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have a preference on 'and' v 'including'. It was more the words at the end of the sentence I was referring to as not needed.
DeCausa (
talk) 14:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A and/or Option C although I think the phrasing is too long for the lede, so I would propose this shorter one instead:
A/C - The proposal is fine, something shorter like "has been accused of war crimes and apartheid" would also be fine. Any reasonable mention in the lead would be fine. Israel's treatment of Palestinians as second-class citizens is an important aspect of Israel according to RS these days, making it WP:DUE for the lead. Being formally accused of apartheid before The Hague is significant, there's really no way around that.
Levivich (
talk) 17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B, I think this is undue for the already bloated lead, which doesn't present much more important details about the country, such as its economy and major historical events. This is turning into an article on the conflict rather than on Israel itself.
ABHammad (
talk) 05:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B We already have extensive language in the lede about Israel's alleged war crimes, under which alleged behavior that results in a similar effect to apartheid already falls under the umbrella. It should summarize, not act as a catalogus malorum and the extensive details of the alleged war crimes are quite covered in full where they ought to be, the body.
CoffeeCrumbs (
talk) 07:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B while the article does sufficiently cover it, there is no reasons to specifically included in the lead, instead leaving it to be covered by the categories already included after the last RFC. In addition, it would create an (even more) overweight lead regarding criticism, particularly compared to other democratic contemporary countries. We also have to be careful of systemic bias, as at least some of those involved have been accused of perpetuating a
systemic bias. If it were to be included, it must focus on accusations, not actions, to represent RS coverage.
FortunateSons (
talk) 14:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What would you add to the lede so it wasn't criticism heavy? I think removing the previous sentence would make room for this addition.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Germany seems to me like an appropriate example of due weight for the lead, but no country is fully analogous. But on a quick read, even
Iran seems to be friendlier, despite the plethora of human rights violations in recent history, with: The Iranian government is authoritarian and has attracted widespread criticism for its significant violations of human rights and civil liberties.FortunateSons (
talk) 15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Good point, I'd argue for crimes against humanity to be replaced by accusations of apartheid, and war crimes to just be a page link, with it all in one sentence
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Even Iran seems to be friendlier I'm not at all surprised. By all accounts, Iranians in Iran have incomparably more rights than Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. An encyclopaedia ought to reflect that. —
kashmīrīTALK 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Which RS coverage would you describe as generally friendlier, Israel or Iran?
FortunateSons (
talk) 16:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You mean tabloids or expert analyses? —
kashmīrīTALK 16:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean: what do Newspapers of Record (to not bring us into the situation of analysing scholarship) write about them comparatively?
FortunateSons (
talk) 16:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A per starship.paint and others. Given its importance and how well it's covered in the scholarly sources (more than enough to dedicate an article to it), I'm amazed it's not already mentioned.
M.Bitton (
talk) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B per
BilledMammal,
CoffeeCrumbs, and
FortunateSons. The current paragraph on the conflict already overburdens the lead as it is. Israeli culture isn't covered at all.
Ltwin (
talk) 15:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A per nom. It's absolutely vital to include the apartheid accusation in the lead considering the extensive legal, political, and scholarly support it has garnered.
Skitash (
talk) 16:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A: As mentioned in the prior aborted RFC, there is definitely sufficient due weight for this to be mentioned, and the weight has only become more pronounced over the past eight months as the state's racial prejudice, legal inequality, injustice and persecution have become more pronounced. (Indeed, the state's mask has truly slipped and the crime of apartheid is no longer even the worst of its iniquities.) Even before this, in August,
a former head of Israel's northern command was calling apartheid. HRW also released a
December update on the topic. And now we have the thousands of additional administrative detentions underscoring the depravity of the military court system imposed on Palestinians in the West Bank, among the
litany of other abuses, including unlawful killings without investigation or arrests, let alone charge. A month past, there was even a
dedicated conference on the topic of the apartheid. For want of more established material, try one of the many journal pieces written already in 2024 alone on the topic.
This particular journal paper, from January, outlines the apartheid in South Africa, Israel, and Myanmar as the three exemplars of the crime – the scarcity of cases underscoring the very rarity that makes this charge so worthy of mention.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 19:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B/C. The lead is already bloated with this, as already noted above. Option C is merited because it is covered in the article with a subsection, so assuming that is due (a different discussion) it should be mentioned at least in passing in the lead too (the lead being a summary of the article). Option B in a binary here however, as this specific proposal is just further bloating an already overwrought sentence and paragraph.
CMD (
talk) 04:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A. Per starship.paint, Iskandar323, and others.
Bogazicili (
talk) 05:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B.
MOS:LEDE should summarise the
article. The proposed wording does not do it satisfactorily. It only mentions the accusations but doesn't mention those who dispute them (per the WP survey, if 65% of scholars think that the situation is "akin to apartheid", then 35% think that it's not). I'm open to considering alternative wordings, but it might be that it's too much nuance for the lede, which already mentions the accusations of crimes against humanity.
Alaexis¿question? 09:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How about replacing crimes against humanity with accusations of apartheid?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 09:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Apartheid is not the only crime against humanity that Israel is accused of.
Selfstudier (
talk) 10:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed, however it is the most notable one, the others are much less notable and don’t need to be referred to in Israel’s lede imo. I’d personally like the US’ lede to refer to the use of MNC’s and state capture in developing countries, but that apparently isn’t notable enough
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 11:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
We are not referring to the individual crimes other than apartheid. The phrasing in regards to crimes against humanity was already agreed in
this prior RFC. The discussion here is not whether to amend that (which would require another RFC) but whether to mention the apartheid accusation specifically.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It is possible that the crimes against humanity would be better switched out in favour of apartheid at this stage, but this also seems like a discussion for another day. The present topic is a simple one: the proposed inclusion of exceptionally due information, and, not least within the precepts of
MOS:LEAD, a highly notable, if not the single most notable controversy (the occupation, while being controversial, being more of a status quo than an active controversy, and the genocide still being in its infancy in terms of scholarly source build up).
Iskandar323 (
talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a good question. I don't see any *other* crimes against humanity discussed in the body of the article, so the proposal may have some merit.
However, this does not address my concern that the accusations are not universally accepted and there is a large share of scholars and states which do not agree with them. Since this is an RfC and it's too late to add new options, my vote stays the same.
Alaexis¿question? 22:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The proposed changes aren't adding "Israel is an apartheid state", it would just add that Israel is accused of apartheid by many notable and trustworthy organizations. If the only people accusing Israel of apartheid were some fringe pseudo-intellectuals, it wouldn't be an issue. The accusation certainly notable when multiple human rights organizations and professors argue it.
Professor Penguino (
talk) 22:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Alaexis: All scholarly fields contain dispute (it is the nature of academic discourse), so for a thumping 65%, almost two-thirds majority of subject-matter experts to agree on something is actually a resounding vote of confidence. Beyond this, you may wish to amend your extremely rudimentary logical fallacy. You've concluded that 35% think the exact opposite, when the information provided to you tells you nothing of the sort. Neither you nor I know exactly what the questions or answers were, but even the most simplistic yes/no survey tends to also have an option along lines of "not decided". Your second error is to conflate the statement that accusations of apartheid have been made with value judgements pertaining to the veracity of the assertion. That the accusations exist, and as the proposed text merely affirms, is empirical fact, no more, no less. There is no balance to be had. No one quoted on any page on Wikipedia holds the stated opinion that the accusations do not exist, because such an assertion would make any such actor an unquotable, reality-denying lunatic. In summarising the page, there are currently two major sections here with expanded child pages: war crimes and apartheid. Based on this alone, both are due equal mention. It is the vaguer "crimes against humanity" that does not currently pertain directly to an existing section, although I believe that exact wording does pertain to a prior RFC (but that's another matter).
Iskandar323 (
talk) 13:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, you're right about the remaining 35%, I should have been more precise and should have written that 35% of the surveyed scholars did not answer that the situation is "akin to apartheid".
Regarding your second point, I don't think there was an error on my part. The accusations are a fact, and the denials are also a fact. We cannot include all the facts in the lede, and it seems that only stating that there are accusations runs counter to both MOS:LEDE and WP:NPOV.
Alaexis¿question? 22:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think just as long as the sentence is worded so that it can be contested by the reader
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 22:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That something is an accusation assumes that someone (likely the accused) denies it or is liable to deny it. If something was undeniable, it wouldn't be an accusation; it would be an uncontested statement of fact. The whole reason why
MOS:ACCUSED generally discourages the language of accusation is because it implies inaccuracy or uncertainty, which is appropriate "when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined", but not elsewhere.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 14:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B Agree with BilledMammal's explanation for WP:UNDUE. Disagree that notion is due because of significant coverage, there is significant coverage of numerous subjects, not all is due, especially not controversial subjects that imply something that may not be true according to other sources, best not include in lead. Agree with Chipmunkdavis that paragraph is very long and too long. I think paragraph should be cut down.
O.maximov (
talk) 14:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It is common for accusations to appear in the lede even when there is a chance they may not be true so long as they are framed correctly
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
O.maximov: It is due on two counts per
MOS:LEAD: it has a substantial dedicated section on this page that should be summarised in the lead. (This incidentally in turn links to a gargantuan child article that exists precisely because the subject is so vast and weighty that the material's direct inclusion here would drown the page.) Secondly, MOS:LEAD specifically alerts editors to the need to include notable controversies.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 15:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B Unnecessary politicization of a complex article anyway. It is wrong to add such controversial information rejected by most of the world.
Besides, since Arabs in Israel are full citizens with equal rights, it is wrong to add the word apartheid
Besides, #2, For every person who claims that there is apartheid, there are many others who answer that there is violent and deadly terrorism from the other side, and the limitations that Israel has placed, stem from deep security challenges.
Eladkarmel (
talk) 07:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It isn't rejected by most of the world? The UN represents the global community
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 08:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no policy basis to exclude material by deeming it "political." Climate change and trans rights are also "political" yet our stance on those matters is clear.
JDiala (
talk) 09:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There are plans to add a culture paragraph to the lede and trim down the history section
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 09:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You haven't actually provided a reason as to why the lead shouldn't summarize the information that is already on the page, as it is supposed to. Your comment instead consists of firstly a demonstration that you have either not read any the reports on the apartheid, or any other literature on Palestinian rights in Israel. "In Israel, which the vast majority of nations consider being the area defined by its pre-1967 borders, the two tiered-citizenship structure and bifurcation of nationality and citizenship result in Palestinian citizens having a status inferior to Jewish citizens by law. While Palestinians in Israel, unlike those in the OPT, have the right to vote and stand for Israeli elections, these rights do not empower them to overcome the institutional discrimination they face from the same Israeli government, including widespread restrictions on accessing land confiscated from them, home demolitions, and effective prohibitions on family reunification.[10] And then, some sort of off-topic rambling suggesting you believe that there is some sort of issue pertaining to false balance. The proposal in discussion, however, is about the lead summary, and the proposed edit merely an addendum of an already on-page accusation to the existing statement on accusations in the lead.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 13:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Unnecessary politicization of a complex article anyway." This isn't a reason to exclude it from the lede. "Besides, since Arabs in Israel are full citizens with equal rights, it is wrong to add the word apartheid". How about equal treatment? How many settlers have been charged for extrajudicial killings of Palestinians in the West Bank? Soldiers participate in the violence. An example just from a day or so ago:
[11]. "For every person who claims that there is apartheid, there are many others who answer that there is violent and deadly terrorism from the other side, and the limitations that Israel has placed, stem from deep security challenges." Read
WP:FALSEBALANCE.
Professor Penguino (
talk) 22:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B . I share the view that this would be
WP:UNDUE and an unnecessary politicization of the article.
Hogo-2020 (
talk) 08:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Hogo-2020: What exactly about
WP:UNDUE? That is about the inclusion of material on page. But this material is already on page. The proposal is merely about better summarizing prominent extant material in the lead.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 13:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The lead section should include a summary of the most important contents, and these controversial politicized accusations are as such
WP:UNDUE there.
Hogo-2020 (
talk) 07:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a section on the apartheid accusation in the body
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 08:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, you are correct. But this remains a disputed characterization. It looks more like pushing a particular POV if we just mention a list of accusations, and if we go into specifics, then there is too much detail in the lead.
Mellk (
talk) 08:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree, I think crimes against humanity should be replaced by apartheid personally, and the wording might be able to be improved
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 09:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Idk why you are mentioning that once more, we discussed that already, the existing wording was recently agreed in another RFC and that would require another RFC. The choice is only whether to specify apartheid in addition.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The prior consensus cannot be changed as a part of this RFC because it is not an option in this RFC.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relevant consensuses can be built adjacently?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sure, if they are directly related to the subject of the RFC, the topics you are raising are not. And we have already discussed this as well, below.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:LEAD, the lead includes mention of significant criticism or controversies. The apartheid accusation is a significant criticism/controversy, there is not any doubt about this.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would say it is possible to mention the separation policy, but this is probably for a different discussion. Since we already have the mention of accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, I would say this becomes undue IMO.
Mellk (
talk) 11:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The
separation policy is something else, this is about apartheid accusations which go far beyond anything that is Hafrada.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I mentioned this as it is not already mentioned (to describe official policy), but yes, this is not the focus of the RfC.
Mellk (
talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option B per above. We do not need to overload the lead with more accusations.
Mellk (
talk) 05:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a wish to add a paragraph on culture and trim down the history part
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 06:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Addressing people’s concerns has nothing to with the RfC??
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 11:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This RFC is about whether to specify apartheid in the lead, choices are A, B, and C. If you want to specify an Option C (other), go right ahead, if enough other editors also specify that same option, then that is a possible outcome. Since most !votes up to now are not C, that won't get very far.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
But can we not concisely discuss people’s objections and whether there is something addressing them?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 12:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
To what end? The choices will still only be A, B or C? If you want to open another RFC, one that does not conflict with this one, you can do that. Or you can wait for this one to finish and open another one. But raising up extraneous issues such as culture/history that are not the subject of this RFC is just a distraction. For that matter, you may also just edit the article, if you are not reverted, then perhaps people agree with you.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay thanks, I might continue just putting the above comment as it communicates that their concerns are being taken seriously and directs them to other discussion where input is needed
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 12:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yep, opening a new section to discuss other matters is indeed to be preferred.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Option A per nom and others. -
Ïvana (
talk) 01:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Discussion (new)
New RfC has been started due to
the result of the closure review of the previous RfC and the recommendation
above. Also there were concerns that the previous RfC initial statement was not neutral and the previous RfC was not widely advertised. I intend to remedy that so that the outcome of this new RfC will be less controversial. starship.paint (
RUN) 04:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would note that there wasn't actually consensus that the previous RFC was bad, and that its opening statement could have simply been tweaked for neutrality in cooperation with the poster, and then more widely advertised. As it is, no one is going to read the previous arguments, and everyone is just going to have to copy and paste their answers over.
WP:BURO strikes back.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Starship.paint:is completely out of line making this. (voluntarily removing this line as it strays outside of
WP:GF) There was no consensus on
WP:AN that the previous RfC should be discarded entirely and a new one made, as was pointed out above by Iskandar123. There was merely consensus that my closure decision was ill-guided. This is a unilateral and extreme decision taken bereft of any consensus.
JDiala (
talk) 09:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It has not been discarded. The consensus from that RfC is still the status quo
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 09:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Alexanderkowal: - the previous closure was overturned, so there is no consensus from that RFC. starship.paint (
RUN) 09:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
After having dwelled on this for the past many hours, I think it is best at this point to acquiesce to the "facts on the ground" (
as per the classic Israeli parlance for stealing Palestinian land) and avoid litigating the procedural aspects further, especially since this new RfC has gained significant traction and yet another switch-a-roo would be another headache. Thus please feel to disregard my allegation against @
Starship.paint immediately above. We shall stick with this RfC.
JDiala (
talk) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
We shall stick with this RfC
Under what authority do you get to determine whether an RfC is valid or not, beyond expressing your personal opinion? At least you've granted us the ability to disregard your allegation against @Starship.paint; I was already going to and I was unsure whether I was on firm ground. Do you still want to remain on the record that you think that this RfC is being justified on similar rhetorical grounds as the alleged Israeli war crimes? I want to make sure I'm able to disregard that allegation, too.
CoffeeCrumbs (
talk) 07:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Nonsense, he was just saying he’ll cooperate
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My allegations against starship.paint are still entirely merited. I've just voluntarily chosen to withdraw them because it is in the interests of the community. It is bizarre that you are getting so antagonistic over a desire to cooperate.
WP:CIVIL please.
JDiala (
talk) 18:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment An
ICJ ruling on Israeli practices in the OPT is due in the near future.
The Implications of An ICJ Finding that Israel is Committing the Crime Against Humanity of Apartheid says that during the recent public hearings, "24 States and three international organizations made the further claim that Israel’s policies and practices amount to a system of institutionalized racial discrimination and domination breaching the prohibition of apartheid under international law and/or amount to prohibited acts of racial discrimination." It seems the only question is whether it is now or later.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You mentioned this on the other RfC too. I don't really see the policy basis for waiting for the conclusion of the ICJ proceedings in this case when the accusation already has more than adequate merit to include based on
WP:RS. Furthermore, to my understanding the request here is just for an advisory opinion, not a binding ruling.
JDiala (
talk) 13:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The related crime against humanity of persecution is already within the ICC list of crimes but not as yet apartheid. Perhaps the ICC too, is waiting on the ICJ, idk. See
this discussion. At any rate it's not a policy question, I'm just humming and hawing, if you like.
Selfstudier (
talk) 14:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Wikipedia reflects the world we live in and Israel has been accused of apartheid by plenty of notable people and this has been covered by plenty of notable sources. This is just one in a list of long allegations against the state. Colonisers, genocide, apartheid. Use whatever catchphrase you can find to demonise it. What's happening on this page and with other articles on Wikipedia is an online pogrom.
MaskedSinger (
talk) 05:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have to say I agree. I've never been a fan of Israel, but I'm noticing a notable shift towards narrative-based rather than fact-based content about the country, with extremely undue weight given for fringe views in almost every related article. This trend is gradually destroying Wikipedia's credibility IMO. We're approaching a point where Wikipedia might no longer be considered a source for content related to Israel.
ABHammad (
talk) 05:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
extremely undue weight given for fringe views in almost every related article. Luckily this content is not fringe.
Washington Postpercentage of scholars who describe the current situation as “a one state reality akin to apartheid” grew even faster, from 59 percent in February to 65 percent in this latest poll.starship.paint (
RUN) 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Exactly! You can disagree with the scholars, but calling the apartheid accusations "fringe" is ridiculous.
Professor Penguino (
talk) 07:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What's happening on this page and with other articles on Wikipedia is an online pogrom. This is a really unhelpful approach. There are people who disagree with you, and you need to collaborate with them to improve the project. Using language like this only alienates.
Zanahary (
talk) 02:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Many people seem to feel the lede of this article focuses too much on the conflict rather than the country of Israel, and I have to say I agree. I think there does have to be another small paragraph, at the end of the lede, which summarises the culture section, although I'm not in a place to write it so if people agree I hope we can make one. It's also positive and offsets the negativity from the previous paragraphs so that the article is more in line with
WP:NPOVAlexanderkowal (
talk) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for taking my concerns seriously!
FortunateSons (
talk) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This should not be considered part of NPOV, but the basics of writing a proper
WP:LEAD. It's not just Culture, the final paragraph squashes up Government, Economy, and Demographics, 3 of the 7 main sections (although there is a slight bit of coverage in the first paragraph too). These could all along with Culture use more fleshing out, currently everything is lopsided towards one section (History) taking up two paragraphs (including one massive one).
CMD (
talk) 04:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It's just such a contentious and contemporarily relevant subject. I can start a new topic and we can work on trimming it down without ignoring the relevant content?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 07:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think it's a productive use of anyone's time to start a new discussion on trimming when there is an active RfC looking to expand. Better to craft a new paragraph on Culture and other items.
CMD (
talk) 07:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
MOS:LEADLENGTH, we can only have four paragraphs max, so adding another whole paragraph is not a good idea. I also think maybe the Culture section of this article or all the Safed quarter subgroup communities could be trimmed if an editor once again decides to tag this article as being too long. Trimming the history was contentious, the other suggestions may be less controversial.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
We should add it into the 4th paragraph then, I was thinking something a little smaller than the second paragraph
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 07:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I do agree the Safed bit in the history section can be trimmed, however I really like the list of different communities. I think the sports section can be trimmed, otherwise the content of the article seems appropriate imo idk
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 08:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My thinking for structure is to have a couple sentences summarising
Jewish culture and the diversity/variety of traditions, and a few summarising or referring to the literature, music and dance, cinema and theatre, arts, architecture, cuisine, and sports sections
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 09:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The four paras is not ironclad, it can be five if justified.
Selfstudier (
talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed, Wafflefrites says only 4 paragraphs. So cut down from paragraph 3, it is the size of all the rest combined.
O.maximov (
talk) 14:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a wish to trim 3 down, however that'd be after the RfC
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
We can obviously expand paragraph 4 to include culture. I would suggest each editor propose just one sentence to be added, we collate the proposals, vote on them and include the top one or two agreed upon sentences. starship.paint (
RUN) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not the best placed to write this, but my proposal would be:
Israel's culture is synonymous with
Jewish culture, with elements coming from within
Judaism and also from interactions with various previous host populations, and others still from the inner social and cultural dynamics of the community. Israel has a diverse cultural mix, with cultural traditions present from from various Jewish diaspora communities intermingled with Arab influences.
That does not read as a summary of the relevant section. To be fair, the relevant section is bleakly short (in full: "Israel's cultural diversity stems from its diverse population: Jews from various diaspora communities brought their cultural and religious traditions with them. Arab influences are present in many cultural spheres, such as architecture, music, and cuisine. Israel is the only country where life revolves around the Hebrew calendar. Holidays are determined by the Jewish holidays. The official day of rest is Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.") before it gets into specifics too detailed for much summary. Nonetheless, working with that, you'd add something like "Israel has a diverse cultural mix, with cultural traditions present from from various Jewish diaspora communities intermingled with Arab influences." Ideally there would also be a word or two for each subsection, but that assumes they have been crafted with due weight and as with the lack of development in the broad coverage the subsections don't appear to have been carefully curated. That said, if there is something which talks directly about general Jewish culture (instead of alluding to it regarding holidays) that should be added to the Culture section and could be considered for a better lead.
CMD (
talk) 02:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay I'll add that to the proposal. I'm not sure how best to summarise each subsection
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 08:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The
Jewish culture article needs to be summarised at the start of the culture section, and discuss traditions in Judaism, particular features from the diaspora, and national holidays imo
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 08:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I oppose any such mention as this does not summarize the lede, is too detailed in the body, and is never mentioned in any country WP articles. Again, the lede should be made of four well-composed paragraph per MOS:LEDE. The recent expansions are entirely out of place, and further expansion will only add to the current chaos.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 11:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Are you talking about culture? If so, many people disagree with you. Of course the culture section should be detailed in the body, if anything the opening paragraph in the body isn't detailed enough. MOS:LEDE specifies that the lede should summarise the body; the lede currently gives undue weight to the history section. Anything that we agree to add here to the lede will then be expanded on in the body and some of the subsections trimmed. To be clear, we are not talking about the history section here, but the culture section and how best to summarise it/have it.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 11:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The
WP:LEAD is a summary and concise overview of the article. We have one entirely unrepresented body section, Culture. There's no reason why we cannot have at least one sentence on Culture. Lead paragraph 4 is short and there is space there. In fact, by failing to have any lead content on Culture, we would be giving credence to the notion that the lead lacks balance and fails
WP:NPOV. starship.paint (
RUN) 12:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
NPOV relates to different positions, not balancing positives with negatives. If Israel had wars and controversies for the entirety of its existence, then that's just how its WP article and by extension its lede will be. It's not up to us to do such "balance". Again, this is not done for any other country, and would overstretch the already overstretched lede.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 13:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No other country has half of their lede dedicated to controversy
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Possibly because other countries do not have a 75 year record of controversy. In any case
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument.
Selfstudier (
talk) 17:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There are many countries that have 75+ years of controversy, but not reaching a point of climax today
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 17:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This may not be a good idea, but maybe we shouldn't discuss the wars or history in detail in the lede and instead go into detail in the body and in the lede just use pagelinks (including the nakba pagelink) and go into detail about the migrations in the body
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that's trying to do too much at the moment. We should simply focus on adding a sentence or two on culture. starship.paint (
RUN) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I easily managed to find examples from every continent where their nations had content on culture in the lead. Sometimes it was one sentence, sometimes more.
Mexico's large economy and population, global cultural influence (particularly in cuisine, media, and art), and steady
democratization make it a
regional and
middle power
Thus, discussing culture in the lede has wide precedent. There should not be any issue to have at least a sentence. starship.paint (
RUN) 13:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Only
Culture of Israel is currently in the body of those, although again the body does need significant improvement in that respect. I am going to add the
Arab citizens of Israel#Culture link now, there is an obvious place for it already.
CMD (
talk) 13:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You did great, CMD. My current thinking is to have this in the lede: Israel is the only country to have
Hebrew as an official language.
Jewish culture is dominant in the culture of Israel, while
Arab cultural influences are also present.starship.paint (
RUN) 14:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Better than mine, although it should mention traditions and holidays within Judaism
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Idk whether your edit is correct, the Arab influence would’ve come from the Arab host nations and Arab/Muslim controlled Palestine, not from the remaining Arab citizens
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It's the history section that is, and always has been, the main inappropriate hogger of space. The history section should begin with the rise of Zionism in the 19th century and mirror that in the lead.
State of Palestine shows you how it's done. Everything before that is only present due to POV-pushing by editors along
manifest destiny-type lines, but is actually the history of the region, not the modern nation state. Until this is adequately resolved, the lead will forever be a skewed summary. The description of all the bordering territories should also be heavily simplified.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 14:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed. We can start a section on how to better organise this article after the RfC, however we need to include people of diverse opinion
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree with most of that. The historical significance of prior cultures and countries (particularly jewish ones) is of great importance to modern Israel and it's self-perception, and reflected in both the (claimed) founding motivations and the RS coverage of the history. This is, among other, exemplified by the debate around borders and the status of groups as indigenous.
FortunateSons (
talk) 15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes but surely the history before zionism can be summarised in a small paragraph, with pagelinks to the articles
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Good, but I think “elements of Arab culture”, so the two aren’t separated as culture can’t be compartmentalised
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support as well, I really like this proposal, but I'm not Israeli, so...
I'm guessing that no-one wants to re-open the can of worms that is the question of "only jewish-majority country"?
Minor question: not being a native speaker, the first half of the second sentence in the suggestion sounds slightly clunky to me (double reference to culture). Is that just me?
FortunateSons (
talk) 15:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My English isn’t the best! Anyone can propose a better version. We could always send it to the copyedit squad on-wiki. Jewish-majority country… that isn’t culture though? Its demographics? starship.paint (
RUN) 15:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It’s kinda both (with the overlap being the demographic impact on culture, through Jews who continuously lived there combined with the immigration, expulsion and flight of Jews from the diaspora to Israel), but yes, I’m guessing it’s closer to Demographics.
Your English is great, it’s quite plausible that it’s just me, don’t worry.
FortunateSons (
talk) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The first sentence is reasonable, the second sentence isn't special as Arab culture is dominant in the culture of Saudi Arabia, it doesn't add anything of value really. I would support the first and oppose the second.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Do you have a suggestion for an alternative second sentence?
FortunateSons (
talk) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe: Israeli culture is often synonymous with Jewish culture with elements of Arab culture from citizens and previous host nations, also involving cultures of other ethnic minorities. (clause on Judaism, Islam, Druze etc., clause listing the subsections)Alexanderkowal (
talk) 16:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The statements on culture are not at all ok to me. If anything, they already mildly fallacious, and at minimum, generalising.
Israeli culture isn't the same thing as
Jewish culture, and obviously we don't need a sentence saying Israel is dominated by Israeli culture. The ethnic division version is even weirder. Why would we follow the Israeli government's racialised dividing line of Jews and Arabs?
Iskandar323 (
talk) 15:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Now if you said something along the lines of "Israeli culture combines elements of European and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture" then you might actually be getting somewhere, while avoiding the subject of cultural appropriation.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 16:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That’s probably nitpicking, but there is also non-European/ME Jewish culture with some pretty significant influence.
FortunateSons (
talk) 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's much better tbh, but needs to include the culture of the ethnic minorities, see my proposal above which has a bad start
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 16:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Israel is the only country which follows the
Hebrew calendar and has
Hebrew as an official language. Israeli culture combines elements of European, African, and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture. I am not so sure if we need to mention the
Druze in Israel,
Circassians in Israel or
Armenians in Israel and Palestine. The Circassians and Armenians number at around 5,000 each, very few. not lede-worthy in my opinion. The Druze are much more (140,000+), but according to a survey from 2016, 71% of Druze identify as ethnically Arab. By mentioning Arab culture, we've in a sense already included the Druze. starship.paint (
RUN) 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How about mentioning that Israel includes lots of holy sites of different faiths?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 08:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You want it? You word it. I'm not sure how to. starship.paint (
RUN) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would also be opposed to mentioning this part about holy sites as it would be factually inaccurate and misleading, given that the Dome of the Rock and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are within the occupied and annexed territory of East Jerusalem, and not within Israel, according to international law and the international community.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 15:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If you look at a featured country article, like
Japan, the way that the culture section is usually done is mainly as a list of culture, cuisine, music, etc. linked to the child articles. As you see, this allows for a summary of the culture without a granular focus on every separate aspect.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 18:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not western religions; and as mentioned before many of these sites are not located within Israel, so this would be misleading. Furthermore, it would be unbalanced to mention Israeli cuisine without mentioning the cultural appropriation controversies which has been extensively discussed by RS. So I would also oppose both of these sentences, and support the one about the Hebrew calendar.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 19:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
They are western religions? See
western religion and
eastern religion, the difference in nature is really interesting. It isn't misleading, look at the page linked to. I wasn't aware of such controversy, however the statement is still correct. The body can discuss the controversy.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 19:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As mentioned in the
western religion article they are more accurately called
Abrahamic religions; and again there are no prominent Christian or Muslim holy sites in Israel anyway, as the Dome of the Rock and the Church of Holy Seplechure are not in Israel. The lede should too as it is a summary of body including any prominent controversies per
MOS:LEDE.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How about Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories ? I think that works
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 19:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article geographically is about Israel and not the occupied Palestinian territories which has its own standalone article. The mention of occupation in this article only comes from the aspect that the Israeli state is the perpetrator.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article is about the state of Israel, which controls the occupied territories
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 19:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You are right indeed, it controls it, but does not encompass it.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 20:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed, which is why the distinction is made
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 20:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this is the point were we are at the “which parts of Israel does this article include” moment of the discussion again. It isn’t ideal that we consider it as covered for the claims regarding apartheid but not for the cultural parts, and would prefer if we did either both or neither.
FortunateSons (
talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As already argued, the mention of the occupied territories and apartheid comes from the fact that the Israeli state is perpetrator, not from the perspective that the occupied territories are geographically part of the Israeli state. And again, by Israeli state, here we mean the 1948 borders, according to RS and international law.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That’s not entirely true; while a minority opinion, some argue that the apartheid is between Israel proper and the occupied territories too. However, as this is indeed a view not supported by the overwhelming amount of scholarship, the outcome does remain the same.
International law does not make a conclusive statement on any specific borders (instead likely deferring to negotiations over the return of occupied territories), but this would go beyond the depth wanted for this article anyway. However, a majority of RS do, so this point is moot anyway
FortunateSons (
talk) 20:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Given that apartheid is also being used to describe 1948 Israel, of which the Israeli state is perpetrator, this is actually an additional point on why this should be mentioned here. International law is clear in saying that acquiring new territories by force is prohibited. Anyway, the point is clear: Israel article is about the Israeli state which officially exists geographically on the 1948 border and exercises further powers beyond to the 1967 occupied territories, which it controls but it does not encompass.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 20:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That’s technically true, but not really the point here, as the masterpiece that is
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 is not clear on anything. In addition, the RS who consider Apartheid to apply to Israel proper are a small minority.
But as this is a question of article scope and not law, the actual point is the RS coverage, meaning: are some or all of the holy sites unambiguously considered part of Israel proper, to which I believe the answer to be no, instead being part of the West Bank and not Israel proper.
Regarding including the religious and cultural places, the question would be if long-lasting effective control is enough to include, along the lines of The territory controlled by Israel contains a plethora of places with great religious significance to all three
Abrahamic religions. or something similar.
FortunateSons (
talk) 21:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe Abrahamic instead of western would be more appropriate
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 19:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the apartheid section needs to specify which laws amount to apartheid, or discuss the nature of it a bit, and then just summarise the accusation part
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 07:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it should probably focus on the substance of the allegations, rather than mostly on the legitimacy of the claims, I think that paragraph might be better as a list of bodies that affirm it, with preceding information on the specifics of Israeli law and enforcement.
might be good, from the main article's lede. This article
Israeli law needs a section on the relevant apartheid allegations, and the other articles on politics and security
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 11:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I will leave you to fix other articles, I am only interested in this one and I am not that clear what it is you want to add, specifically.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I am not sure about including cuisine, I think that’s too much. As I showed above, even “cultural superpower” Japan only has 32 words for culture in the lead. We really want to stress only the most significant points. Israel is the only country which follows the
Hebrew calendar and has
Hebrew as an official language.
Israeli culture combines elements of European, African, and Middle Eastern
Jewish culture and
Arab culture. The territory controlled by Israel contains many places with great religious significance to all three
Abrahamic religions. 49 words, would probably be on the higher end of any nation’s lead on culture. The second sentence in a sense covers cuisine already. starship.paint (
RUN) 01:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed, but there are more than 3 Abrahamic religions, just 3 major ones
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure about the first sentence. A large number of countries can be described as "the only country having X as an official language". Using the Hebrew calendar is indeed unusual but it's not that consequential, after all it's mostly used for religious purposes and holidays.
Alaexis¿question? 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What's the controversy with saying it's the only Jewish-majority country? This implies other minorities
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 11:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure about the import of an
Official language. "On 19 July 2018, the Knesset passed a basic law under the title Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, which defines Hebrew as "the State's language" and Arabic as a language with "a special status in the State" (article 4). The law further says that it should not be interpreted as compromising the status of the Arabic language in practice before the enactment of the basic law, namely, it preserves the status quo and changes the status of Hebrew and Arabic only nominally.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article's geographic scope is about Israel and not the territory controlled by Israel. So again, I would oppose mention of religious sites in lede here. As for the sentence regarding culture, it does not add anything of much value.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 14:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think the article has a geographic scope, it is on the state of Israel, and the Palestinian territories are occupied and governed by the state of Israel
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 14:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If we are going to divide Jewish culture, then it is best to use the more appropriate adjectives: Ashkenazi and Mizrahi/Sephardi. African Jews (from sub-Saharan Africa) are an extreme minority in Israel, and Jews from the Middle East and North Africa are basically the same. But since the different Jewish cultures in Israel are merging into one, the division only makes the sentence longer than necessary.
Mawer10 (
talk) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is discussed in 'Demographics', but it should be discussed in the context of culture as well imo
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 21:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The Ashkenazi/Mizrahi divide isn't a proper classification of Jewish culture, but an ethnic classification created by the Israeli state. Usage of the term Mizrahi Jews
only arose prominently from around the 1980s. It's quite unlike the term
Sephardim which actually has a long and well-defined cultural history. Mizrahi Jews is just a proxy term for all of the different and quite varied Jewish groups that came from across the Middle East, including Sephardim. It is therefore of little use in actual cultural classification, and aside from being a POV label, is in fact a poorer and less natural descriptor that basic geography.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 06:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ethnic classification terms can also refer to culture. Mizrahi is not an invalid term because of its origins, it is commonly used in various sources discussing things about Jews, especially those from Israel. The concept makes more sense than the American terms "Latino" and "Hispanic", for example. We even have Wikipedia articles about Jews using this division extensively, like
Mizrahi music,
Mizrahi cuisine,
Sephardic cuisine and
Ashkenazi cuisine.
Mawer10 (
talk) 21:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It remains less natural descriptively than geography, and anachronistic. If no one was talking about something before Israel was created, Israeli culture can hardly be blended from it. Whatever terms Israel has invented since is its business, but that doesn't redefine the past. That's revisionism.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Map issue
can the globe map near the top be fixed to not include illegally occupied Palestinian land?
90.204.86.169 (
talk) 19:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The current map is appropriate. The occupied territories are coloured in a lighter green, clarifying both the ‘67 line and the areas usually considered occupied.
FortunateSons (
talk) 20:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The green/light green map is terribly small. It is hardly visible! starship.paint (
RUN) 14:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The circle in the bottom right could be made much bigger to partly cover the Indian Ocean
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 21:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It is really quite small. Most articles about European countries use offer locator maps for the continent they're on, e.g.
United Kingdom has a globe map and a Europe map. Perhaps a request could be made for similar maps for the region around the Eastern Mediterranean and Arabian peninsula to be created. Other countries in the region, such as
Jordan,
Lebanon and
Qatar have a similar problem to Israel, where they appear quite small in the locator maps and it's difficult to make out the detail.
AdamBlacktalk •
contribs 21:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In the second paragraph from the top, in the middle of that paragraph there is a misspelling of "Gaza Sctrip" should be "Gaza Strip".
Wasphilux (
talk) 05:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Why does the lede now jump from 1,000 BC to 1896? 3,000 years of the ancient and modern history of the Palestine region summarized in 8 words of "subsequently came under the rule of various empires."?
Makeandtoss (
talk) 15:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Because the ancient history is relevant to zionism, the founding ideology of the state of Israel. I'd personally like another clause adding to it that it involved many different cultures also?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The purpose of lede is to summarize the body, not to highlight history relevant to Zionism. Ledes should not be biased by giving more prominent weight to 3,000 year defunct civilizations at the expense of Palestine's 3,000 year most recent and relevant history.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 15:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Definition of a state: a political entity that rules over a territory. The history of that territory is the history of the state.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 15:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree. For example, the history of the United States doesn't involve telling the history of the indigenous peoples the United States took land from. Mention it, yes, but not in detail.
Levivich (
talk) 15:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Alexanderkowal: Also, again, when your edits are reverted, you are kindly mandated to discuss them, not re-insert them. This has happened multiple times now, so you are kindly requested to again read
WP:BRD and
WP:ARBPIA, and conform to these guidelines.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 15:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I never make the same edit twice, if I feel a proposal has been changed to address concerns raised, I then apply it as a different edit, which people can of course revert whilst adhering to the 1RR, and continue discussion, if people think I acted improperly or too hastily in a particular instance please tell me
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
An insertion is one edit, a reversal of its removal is another edit. That's two and that is contrary to
WP:BRD.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 15:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If I've changed it considerably in tone and content, is that still a reversal of removal, especially if I didn't apply it in the first place?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It is, since the removal was based on the whole mention of this.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 16:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
So should I have instead started a new topic on the proposal?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 16:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Lede too long tag
The lede has been recently expanded in a way that goes into excessive details, against four well-composed paragraphs recommended by
MOS:LEDE and the 400 word ideal maximum by
MOS:LEADLENGTH.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 15:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What do you identify as excessive detail?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Mentions of the Holocaust, European antisemitism, Jewish immigration from Arab countries, Jewish immigration from Europe; all of this is irrelevant to the article, does not summarize the body proportionately, and is overly-detailed.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 15:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree that it is irrelevant, however the history section needs to be edited to go into detail about migrations, it is a core part of Israel's history. The body also needs to discuss the climate Zionism was born in, in the
Rise of nationalism in Europe in the 19th century and the accompanying rising antisemitism.
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree with all of that as well. That's all relevant to the topic "State of Israel."
Levivich (
talk) 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not relevant enough, nor featuring in body prominent enough, for it to be added to the lede, a summary of the body, in this way.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 15:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If other people agree with you, I'd be okay with removing the sentences on immigration until the body is edited
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 15:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it's absolutely nonsense to suggest that European pogroms, the Holocaust, or immigration to Israel, are not significant aspects of Israel. I think basically any book or article about Israel is going to mention those three things. We can compare sources if there are any that back up your view?
Levivich (
talk) 16:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think his point is that if these are significant to Israel, why are they not more prominent in the body
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 16:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The body is a giant mess. Just look at the history section, for example. But even still, in the section "Modern period and the emergence of Zionism" there is an entire paragraph about immigration and pogroms. The next section, "British Mandate for Palestine," has two paragraphs about immigration and demographics. The next section, "Establishment and early years," has a paragraph about the Holocaust (which is also mentioned in several other places). But more to the point,
WP:ASPECT and
WP:DUE are measured against sources. The body needs to be recalibrated to match the sources. I maintain that there literally does not exist a scholarly summary of Israel or the history of Israel that omits pogroms, Holocaust, and immigration. The pogroms and the Holocaust are foundational events leading to the creation of Israel, and immigration is a significant aspect of any country, for obvious reasons, namely that demographics are a significant aspect of any country, and immigration is like half of demographics (the other half being native-born residents).
Levivich (
talk) 16:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think we need to work on that collaboratively with a wide range of editors after the rfc is finished
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 16:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That RFC is finished :-) The even split between A and B is unlikely to change. But, yeah, I agree with you. The right move is to collect some top sources about Israel and examine them to see what are the significant
WP:ASPECTs and
WP:DUE viewpoints, and then edit the body and the lead accordingly. Although it's usually "body first," there is something to be said for taking the "lead first" approach here (because the body is a giant task).
Levivich (
talk) 16:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, later today I'll try and compile some works on Israeli history here and once we have a sort of syllabus we can start a new topic, and notify wikiprojects
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 16:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I am sure that you agree that a disagreement in opinion should not lead to uncivil remarks about absolute "nonsense". And yes, they are not significant aspects of Israel. The
USA, the world's largest and most notable immigrant nation, does not mention immigration anywhere in its lede. European pogroms and the Holocaust are European history, not Israeli history. Why are we giving 4 years of European history more weight than 3,000 years of Palestinian history?
Makeandtoss (
talk) 16:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Saying an argument is nonsense is not uncivil. The reason we would give more weight to the Holocaust than to Palestinian history is because the sources do.
Levivich (
talk) 16:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sources discussing Israel and the Holocaust does not mean the Holocaust is central to Israel. There are plenty of sources giving more weight to Israel's 1982 and 2006 invasions of Lebanon and the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. Why is the Holocaust, on European territory, more important than those that occurred on Israeli territory?
Makeandtoss (
talk) 16:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't say "sources discussing Israel and the Holocaust." I said, above, "top sources about Israel." In other words, the
WP:BESTSOURCES for this article. Namely, we're looking for summaries of Israel, such as other encyclopedia articles (see
WP:TERTIARY: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.), scholarly books about the state of Israel (particularly their tables of contents and introductions), articles in journals that provide an overview of the state of Israel. These are the WP:BESTSOURCES for this article, and what we should look at when determining questions of due weight (WP:DUE) and significant aspects (WP:ASPECT). The problem with this article, for years, is that everybody wants to argue about Israel but nobody wants to do the work of pulling the books and reading. One possible starting point would be a Table of Contents Analysis (like
this or
this). Another is to look at other encyclopedia articles (as was done
here).
Levivich (
talk) 16:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comparison with other tertiary sources is a great way to see if we're on the right track, balance-wise. Happy to see you dig up that analysis of yours from last year. Most of the six encyclopedias you checked (at a glance, 5/6) have a brief mention of the Holocaust, not always referencing that term exactly. The current line seems about right.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 16:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Current line seems about right to me, too; or in other words, a one-sentence or less-than-one sentence mention seems like the right amount.
Levivich (
talk) 19:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think the lede can possibly exclude Jewish immigration from Arab and European countries (and I don't understand how you can argue it's "irrelevant to the article").
Zanahary (
talk) 03:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
current: Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanitecity-states, and later, Israelite and Judahite kingdoms, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.
suggested edit:
Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, the Holy Land, and the Land of Israel.
‘Canaanite city states’ is redundant with ‘historically known as Canaan’
‘Israelite and Judahite kingdoms’ is redundant with Land of Israel
Even ‘in antiquity’ is redundant with ‘historically’
It feels odd to go out of our way to say it’s known as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition, but not mention that ‘the Holy Land’ is primarily from Christian tradition. Since we’re trying to trim the lede, better to remove the lone line about Jewish tradition than add extra words explaining the traditions of the other names.
2601:80:8600:EFA0:918E:34E3:B31B:62A0 (
talk) 16:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with those edits apart from removing the "Israelite and Judahite kingdoms" bit, as it is a short clause and is central to zionism, the founding ideology of Israel
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 17:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In response to edit requests from non EC editors, either fulfill the edit request or do not, discussion is not required as non EC editors cannot engage in it anyway.
Selfstudier (
talk) 17:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How about "Land of Israel in antiquity" so it's clear it's a very old name?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 17:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure if
Holy Land is primarily Christian, but in regards to “Land of Israel” or specifically “Israel”... the Quran mentions Banī Isrāʾīl(
Arabic: بني إسرائيل,
lit. 'The Children of Israel'). Not sure if the Isra’il in the Quran is referring to a name for the region or the name of
Jacob.
Wafflefrites (
talk) 18:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
When discussion has
ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
How should the Nakba described?
The Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.
The Palestinians were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.
The Nakba should be described. But neither of the sentences above should be used.
The Nakba shouldn't be mentioned.
Which version should be included in the lead?
KlayCax (
talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In both version 1 and version 2, the first comma is unnecessary and interrupts the flow of the sentence. I'd prefer version 2 wihout "made to flee" or the comma. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 03:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Like LaundryPizza, I'd support Option 2 without "made to flee" or the comma, followed by Option 1 without the comma.
Loki (
talk) 03:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
'Expelled' and being 'made to flee' are not the same thing even if they may be inseperable parts of the same operation. In this instance, as in many similar mass movements of people in response to political events, if you 'expel' a relatively small number of a target group sufficiently violently, very large numbers of the remainder of the target group, will prefer 'flight' to 'fight', knowing that the odds would be stacked against them if they did fight. To that extent ethnic cleansing is an accurate description, but is less clear and simple and borderline euphemistic.
Pincrete (
talk) 06:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Are there any options without an entirely redundant "an explusion known as the Nakba", verbiage that could easily be a pipelink: "...Palestinians were
expelled or made to flee...".
CMD (
talk) 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If we take the wider definition of Nakba as the primary definition, then both Version 1 and 2 are misleading as they provide it as an alternative name for the 1948 expulsion.
CMD (
talk) 07:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
True, although the other components of the wider definition are seen as consequences of the expulsion. Maybe “core part of the Nakba”?
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm wondering how correct the article is that the wider meaning of Nakba is the primary one, the concurrent RfC at
Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples also uses Nakba specifically as a name for the events of the 1948 war.
CMD (
talk) 05:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Version 2/3 2 might be too much detail although I don’t know what “paramilitaries and the IDF” can be replaced by
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 07:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Israeli forces" or just "Israel." One quibble I have with specifying paramilitary/military is that civilian leaders were also responsible for the Nakba. Some people say we shouldn't call the
Yishuv "Israel" before Israel's independence declaration (14 May 1948) though I don't think it's a problem, still another option is "by the Yishuv and later Israel".
Levivich (
talk) 13:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"By Zionists" is another option but today's lay reader may perceive that word as
loaded language, like some kind of insult.
Levivich (
talk) 13:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah that's why I didn't put 'zionist paramilitaries'. Maybe just Israelis? I agree it would be pedantic to oppose saying Israel or Israelis just before declaration
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 13:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support the way it is now (Version 2) and this is a wholly unnecessary RFC, the previous discussions on this page show no disagreement with this by anyone other than opener.
Selfstudier (
talk) 09:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the issue was that my edit was made without prior discussion, and this is to ensure wider input
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 09:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Edits do not require prior discussion any more than post discussion, unless they are subject of a dispute. This is just a waste of editor time.
Selfstudier (
talk) 09:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Idk I'm very on the fence about whether
WP:BRD should apply to contentious edits on contentious topics, it feels wrong
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 09:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing to do with BRD, which addresses an edit in dispute, not the case here.
Selfstudier (
talk) 09:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Meant bold editing for controversial edits
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 09:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It's only controversial if it's disputed.
Selfstudier (
talk) 10:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree, people can assume what is controversial based on arguments seen elsewhere, I remember reading that in policy but can't find it
Alexanderkowal (
talk) 10:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The entire topic area is a CT, if that's what you mean. And no, you cannot assume a particular something is controversial without any evidence or we would be having RFCs all day long.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure about the need for this RfC as opposed to just a discussion or regular bold editing about how the Nakba should be covered in the lead. But if I had to pick I'd say #3, and there are a few problems. The status quo sentence is fine with me at least for now, as a start. But it probably should say that the expulsion was "part of" the Nakba and not "known as" the Nakba, as pointed out above. I don't think "made to flee" should be divorced from "expelled" because those two are so often joined in the literature. A much larger problem with the status quo IMO is that because of the sentence's placement, the lead incorrectly implies the Nakba happened after May 1948, when it actually began earlier. Thus I don't think this RfC is asking the right questions, and it's probably more productive to just have a more open discussion, and if really needed, an RFCBEFORE before launching any RfC.
Levivich (
talk) 13:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
(3) or (4). (1) and (2) seem oversimplified and misleading: "The Palestinians" is overbroad, ignoring those who stayed, and "an expulsion" ignores the flight component of the
1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. More nuance is needed if this is to be included in the lede. —
xDanielxT/C\R 05:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
4 This is an article about "Israel" and not about the Nakba, so there is no reason at all to refer to it in the "lead" of the article.
Eladkarmel (
talk) 08:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply