Talk:Israel

Putting in American financial support for Israel in the very first paragraph of the lead

Would it be appropriate to put in American financial backing for Israel over the years in the very first paragraph of the lead? I don't think so, but one user appeared to support the idea[1], so I thought to start a discussion. Pinging (RCSCott91—Selfstudier—ABHammad—Eladkarmel—Czello—Galamore—האופה). VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent, no, I do not think so. The article is not about the United States, and such prominent characterizations of bilateral support or dependence are best reserved for historical polities where the book is closed and the motor of history has moved on. Remsense ‥ 论 17:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

My comment was tongue in cheek response. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No, WP:UNDUE. — Czello ^(music) 18:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No, that simply is not due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course not, the US provides aid of all kinds to tens of countries. Israel is a US Ally and so get military aid just like many NATO countries Fyukfy5 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fyukfy5: the point is that without the weapons sent by the US, Israel would probably have lost the war immediately (and there would probably have been fewer deaths). In my opinion, it's essential to include the information proposed by the OP; however, I will vote neither yes nor no. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Link to Gaza genocide

If you look at the List of genocides: every state which has been accused of committing a genocide, the gencide it had been accused of committing is linked from that states wikipedia-article, with one exception: Israel.

Son course, I could have added "Israel has been accused of committing the Gaza genocide<refs>", but I suspect some of the "watchers" of this page might not like that. So, I want to hear first: what argument are there against it? cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, if I don't hear any arguments against it in the next couple of days, I will add it, Huldra (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't heard any protests, so I am adding it. Hope I don't end up like Hugh Despenser the Younger, Huldra (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You may not have heard anything because we've had this conversation before. Ideally, you should've done a cursory search of the archives before deciding you had implicit consensus for this. Remsense ‥ 论 21:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense: I did search for Gaza genocide in the archives, and got 0 hits.... Has there been a RfC about it? Huldra (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ideally you would provide a reason for your revert on the talk page. nableezy - 22:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

a link would have be nice.....Huldra (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense: Second time: has there been a WP:RFC about it? If not, I might start one, Huldra (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy collecting the links below. I would support that, it seems of crucial importance. Remsense ‥ 论 22:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not expressing my opinion on whether it should be included—I'm also going to be intellectually honest and express my opinion based on what I've read over the past year that it's all but certain to be DUE in the lead in the near future if it isn't already now—I am only pointing out that there is no consensus for it to the best of my understanding as an observer. See discussions within α93 § 2nd paragraph up to 1948 (continued), α102 § RFC on human rights language in lead, α107 § Lede summary proposal 2 that all indicate to me that this needs to be discussed beforehand at the very least. Remsense ‥ 论 22:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, User:Remsense perhaps we should take this in 2 steps?

• • First: should a link to Gaza genocide be included in this article?
  • if yes: where should a link be included

And this is unlikely to go away anytime soon, Huldra (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably in the same place where we mention that a sitting PM is subject of an arrest warrant for using starvation as a weapon of war. Selfstudier (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2024

As of June 2024, the State of Israel is recognized as a sovereign state by 164 of the 192 member states of the United Nations. Northernheathen (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Please be more specific, where are you proposing this text go? 331dot (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC

Should the article Gaza genocide be linked from this article, and if yes, where?

Possible answers:

• No, it should not be linked
• Yes, it should be linked in the lead.
• Yes, it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph)

cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Polling (RfC)

• Yes, it should be linked in the lead and the body of the article, attached to content similar to that Selfstudier developed above, and content similar to that Huldra developed in [2] would serve well in the lede. It's obviously something readers are going to be coming to this page to learn more about, and the information exists on the encyclopedia, the conversations about whether it belongs here or not have laready been had, so there's no reason this page should not serve reader needs. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph + add a single sentence to the end of lead like this, Huldra (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand why it would be necessary to add it as a completely separate paragraph (if we were to add it) instead of just putting at the end of the third paragraph, which is far more related, and less abrupt. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph and add a single sentence to the end of lead per Huldra, but I would modify their suggested text ("In 2024, Israel was accused of committing the Gaza genocide)" to "In 2024, Israel was accused of committing genocide in Gaza" or similar. My logic for the change is that the accusation/dispute centres on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide (or are legitimate self-defence/similar), rather than whether the 'Gaza genocide' is being committed by Israel (as opposed to some other State or body) which Huldra's text otherwise implies.Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree with the inclusion in the lead. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to Selfstudier's suggestion in the body per the weight of reliable sources given (I'll leave to others to determine where), with a summary in the lead. Only suggestion is to add the arrest warrants on. TarnishedPath^talk 09:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes it should be included in the lede and in the body text.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes similarly to how self has suggested DMH223344 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• No Not until a new article about Palestine's genocide against Israel is linked to the Palestine article.Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:OTHERCONTENT and then perhaps think about making a policy based argument or your !vote will likely be ignored by whoever closes this RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 02:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• No Given that there is no actual genocide. Very much not. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• No The article "Gaza genocide" presents claims that lack broad consensus within the international community and are subject to significant dispute. Linking to such an article may mislead readers into perceiving these claims as established facts rather than contested allegations, thereby compromising the integrity of the host article. Eladkarmel (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• No per MaskedSinger, Allthemilescombined1 and Eladkarmel; feels like including this would unduly shoehorn something in that doesn't belong in the general overview article. Andre🚐 21:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Not in the lede. It should be made clear that these are accusations and many sources do not agree with this characterisation. Note that many country articles don't mention genocides in the lede even when there is a consensus that it happened (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, Syria (Yazidi genocide), Uganda, etc). Alaexis_¿question? 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Alaexis just a question: when you say "nor in the lead; does that mean you think it should be in the body? If so, which paragraph? Huldra (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. There's a relevant section where it can be mentioned: Israel#Israeli-occupied_territories. Right now, this article doesn't mention two important things: That the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a fugitive wanted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, and that Israel is being charged with genocide by South Africa in the International Court of Justice. I think there can be a new subsection in the "Israeli occupied territories" section, that mentions both facts. I see Selfstudier has given a sample text. I support that paragraph being added to the relevant section, but I think a mention of the ICC's arrest warrant of the Prime Minister of Israel (and Yoav Gallant's warrant too) could also be added, since it's also international litigation for crimes against humanity in Gaza. Mohammed Deif's arrest warrant doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. I think we can have a new subsection titled "Gaza Strip" that moves text that already exists in the section. So in addition to Selfstudier's text, I would add the first sentence of the arrest warrant article to the end of it, and make it look like THIS (A link to a sandbox page that would show what the article would look like).--JasonMacker (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  As far as adding it to the lead, the already existing sentence in the lead, "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." seems to be a good enough summary, but I guess I would modify it to "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, the International Criminal Court, and United Nations officials." The ICC is technically not a UN body, so it should be mentioned separately. But other than that, I think such a sentence would be fine. I'm open to suggestions on this though. JasonMacker (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

*No. The genocide allegation appears to be, at the moment, primarily a tool of propaganda. Unless substantial new evidence emerges, analyzed by impartial, non-politicized sources and supported by more than two vague statements and casualty figures (which include a significant number of Hamas militants but the Hamas-run Health Ministry prefers not to differentiate militants from civilians), such claims lack the rigor required for inclusion in serious, encyclopedic coverage. ABHammad (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The genocide allegation appears to be, at the moment, primarily a tool of propaganda." This is simply not true. See: Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• No. This article is about the State of Israel. Not news. Should the articles about the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and many others feature the various proven genocides that actually took place, or even in the lead? Might as well say "also known as the Z.E.", in the lead or anywhere, with some extra brackets for good measure? This is a matter of an ongoing armed conflict, with fog of war and disinformation throughout. Not only would it be "commenting on an ongoing investigation" as they say, but entirely inappropriate and irresponsible. Skullers (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Per WP:LEDE, required mention of significant criticism or controversies, clearly true and which several of the No !votes have acknowledged as being the case. A mention should be added via inclusion within the sentence "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 [and genocide ] against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Not in the lede - a good chunk of the lede is already criticism, so adding additional accusations would seem like POV shoehorning. Not necessarily against inclusion in the body, but there isn't a specific proposal to comment on. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

User:XDanielx there is a question about whether it should be in the body. ("Yes, it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph") So, if you agree: which paragraph? Huldra (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Huldra: Relevant material is currently in the body, unless it is reverted. The original dispute was about a sentence being added to the lead not material being added to the body, something which is not usually a source of dispute unless the amount of such material is undue. Option 2 already assumes material present in the body, no?. And option 1 just says no, so the third option is not really necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: When I started this RfC on the 22 nov, it wasn't in the body (that was first added the 27th) so the the third option is useful (necessary?) for keeping it there, Huldra (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I just think the two things should not be mixed up, this RFC should not attempt to rubber stamp the addition that I made to the body, that should just be subject to the normal editing process. Imagine that I had not added it and people voted option 2? Then there would have had to have been another discussion about what should be in the body, so yes I have attempted to remedy a deficiency in the way the RFC was drafted and hopefully it meets with approval. Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes in the body and the lede: There are prominent RS (UN Special Committee, Israeli holocaust scholar Omer Bartov to cite two examples) supporting the charachterization that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza, so there is no reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the body. Accordingly, lede summarizes the body, so it should include that, given that it is one of the most prominent controversies Israel is facing second to the crime of apartheid in the West Bank (I am in favor of including both in the lede), though admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed, that's why for now it can be described as an accusation. The perfect short phrasing in my opinion for the lede can be:

“ Israel's practices in the occupied territories has drawn sustained international criticism for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including for maintaining an apartheid regime in the West Bank, as well as being accused of committing a genocide in Gaza. ”

Makeandtoss (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Update to my "admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed," that is beginning to change as Amnesty International launched a report today charachterizing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. While this does not yet mean the threshold has been reached, but it gives a whole new significance to the inclusion of the "accusation" to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, both in the lead and body: Per sources and my understanding of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Some of these policies and guidelines are:

1) Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. WP:Tertiary sources can be used to assess WP:DUE. My understanding is that once DUEness is established, Wikipedia articles can be kept up to date. This is actually a strength of Wikipedia. For example, no one would argue mentioning something about the economy in this article is WP:UNDUE. WP:Tertiary and overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel would include something about the economy. It could be too much or too little, but something about the economy would be DUE in this article. However, economic stats in this article would probably be much more up to date than many published overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel such as Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Israel.

Similarly, WP:Tertiary sources mention Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict at length. As such, Gaza genocide would be DUE. If in several years, newly published WP:Tertiary sources do not mention this, it can be taken out of the lead. If in several years, both newly published WP:Tertiary and overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel do not mention this, it can also be taken out of the body. But for now, to keep the article up to date, this is DUE.

Sources are below, I cannot give lengthy quotes due to word count restrictions in Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict

Coverage of Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict in WP:Tertiary sources:

Britannica[3] mentions these issues in the lead, although it's more brief than here The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, Israel entry (accessible through Wikipedia library). Partial quote from the lead: ...That conflict, which became known as the Arab-Israeli conflict, has heavily influenced Israel's development, as security issues have dominated Israeli politics and society since 1948... World Encyclopedia, Israel entry (accessible through Wikipedia library). There's nothing similar to the Wikipedia lead. The "lead" in encyclopedia entry is just few sentences about geography. But the history section mentions these issues. A Guide to Countries of the World (4 ed.) Israel entry (accessible through Wikipedia library). There's no history section, but large coverage, especially under Contemporary politics section.

More tertiary sources can be found using Google Books, Google Scholar, or the Wikipedia Library (for example: Oxford Reference Online database)

Given the coverage above, this is what I'd recommend for 3rd paragraph in the lead. Additions in bold, moved some wikilinks.

... Following the 1967 Six-Day War Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and Syrian Golan Heights. Israel established and continues to expand settlements across the illegally occupied territories, contrary to international law, and has effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in moves largely unrecognized internationally.[We can remove this to trim the paragraph, it's already covered below. Add a footnote about East Jarussalem into the first paragraph when Israel's capital is mentioned. Golan Heights mentioned above] ... Israel's practices and settlements in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed genocide [link to Gaza genocide], war crimes, and other crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from scholars, human rights organizations and United Nations officials.

The above wording makes the lead neutral as only the accusation is added in Wikivoice. Similarly, the text in the body should be NPOV.

2) Wikipedia:Verifiability. Lots of WP:RS. See Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. There are already WP:Secondary sources about this such as Gaza Faces History by Enzo Traverso.

3) MOS:LEADLENGTH. The above proposal would trim the lead word count by something like 26 words. It'd still be more than 400 words, but even many featured articles are longer than 400 words. Bogazicili (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You linked to four tertiary sources, but I don't see the word "genocide" in any of them? (Britannica links to recent news about it, but that seems temporary.) Maybe this is a sign that our lede's focus should somehow be different, but in terms of accusations of genocide, if anything it seems like a sign that we should omit them.

I don't think there's any dispute that something like accusations that it has committed genocide would pass WP:V, but that isn't really an argument for highlighting material in a lede. That comes down mainly to WP:DUE and to MOS:LEDE, which tell us to briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning for this.

This is a recent and ongoing event. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, published in 2008, would not have mentioned 2024 events. It's a reliable source, but they are not clairvoyant.

My DUE argument was due to heavy coverage of Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict in Israel entries in tertiary sources.

If sources published in the next few years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, it can be taken out of the body or the lead.

But for now, we can keep the article up to date. I believe this is the precedent in Wikipedia. Otherwise Wikipedia would be several years or longer behind everything if we had to wait for overview WP:Secondary or WP:Tertiary sources for everything. Once those type of sources covering recent events are available however, those sources would determine how we proceed. Bogazicili (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be linked in the lead, at the end of the third paragraph where it discusses war crimes and crimes against humanity. This text has been through various iterations, but would benefit from greater precision by means of specificity. A great many countries have been accused of war crimes, making that a rather generic, not outstanding observation. While it is probably more notable that Israel has been accused of a particularly voluminous number of different war crimes in the post-WWII period, sitting above that are the very specific crimes against humanity in which it has been implicated –namely apartheid and genocide. Now apartheid has already been through the RFC process and denied a mention (based on rationales that grow poorer by the day) but to the question here, yes, it is extremely pertinent to mention the particularly nation-defining crime against humanity of genocide – the so-called crime of crimes. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes it is notable enough for an article, therefore should be linked. SKAG123 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, but not in the lead. There's some discussion of genocide in the 21st century section of the article and this link could be put there, but it's not clear why this should be added to the lead. I am strongly opposed to adding it to the lead and most of the arguments for inclusion into the lead can be discounted on WP:10YT/WP:NOTTHENEWS/WP:RECENTISM grounds. Nemov (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would argue this passes the ten-year test per WP:10YT.

  I don't think Wikipedia:Recentism or WP:NOTNEWS applies because we have so much more than news articles on this, like WP:Secondary sources such as [4] Bogazicili (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes for the body, no for the lead It is certainly notable enough to mention in a relevant part of the article, but I think it is too recent to mention in the lead, since we cannot assess long-term historical importance yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  QuicoleJR, can you point to the relevant Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for your argument? Bogazicili (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  The bar for something being included in the lead is pretty high, much higher than inclusion in the body. According to MOS:LEADNO, emphasis on material, such as the Gaza genocide, should reflect its relative importance to the topic as described by reliable sources. I think the current state of the lead is fine, although I would also be fine with adding a sentence or two about how Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal. I don't think the Gaza genocide by itself has enough weight to warrant inclusion in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Gaza genocide is part of the Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict, which is heavily covered in Israel entries in WP:Tertiary sources. See the sources above. Bogazicili (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly warrants inclusion in the lead. However, is the Gaza genocide itself heavily covered in those entries? It is the level of coverage for the specific topic that matters, not the level of coverage of the wider subject it is part of. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  See the discussion above. Bogazicili (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  WP:LEDE requires mention of significant criticism or controversies, this fits the bill, it needs no more than a wikilink. Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  It says summarize the most important points. I am simply contending that this is not one of them. Israel is a sizable country with a lot of history, and I don't believe that this has enough DUE weight in reliable sources about Israel as a whole to warrant including prominently in the lead, although I think it is important enough to mention in the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict definitely warrants inclusion in the lead, and we could probably add a sentence about the legality of Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, but I think including the Gaza genocide specifically in the lead would be recentist and UNDUE, especially since the Israel-Hamas war is only covered by "several wars" in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  See the wording suggestion above. This could be added into the lead while trimming the lead. For WP:DUE, we can look at coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict. If newer tertiary sources in the upcoming years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, Gaza genocide can be taken out. Do we have any tertiary sources published in the past few months?

  If the only sources were newspaper articles, recentist arguments would succeed. However, we have so many secondary sources on Gaza genocide now. Bogazicili (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, we have many secondary sources on the Gaza genocide. We also have many secondary sources on a variety of other things, like the 7 October attacks or the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes. Those aren't included in the lead either. My question is whether secondary or tertiary sources on the topic of Israel as a whole mention the genocide. If not, it shouldn't be in the lead yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Assessing DUEness of Munich massacre is easy, since it happened in 1972. Look at tertiary sources. Bogazicili (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Arguing that we should rush this into the lead because we can't assess long-term importance yet is pure recentism. I'm not saying we can't update the body to add this information, but we should wait on adding it to the lead until the long-term impact is more clear. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  That wasn't my argument, I won't respond any further to not WP:Bludgeon Bogazicili (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  It says summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies I can assure you this is a prominent controversy. Well, unless you can convince me it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is a decently prominent controversy, but the State of Israel has had a lot of prominent controversies in its short history, and we can't stuff them all in the lead. I think mentioning that their occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal would cover the most important controversy, being their illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The Gaza genocide is arguably a subtopic of that. For an applicable example from another article, the featured article Japan does not mention the atrocities they committed against China in World War II in the lead, even though it was, and still is, a very prominent controversy. Similarly, the lead of Germany only gives the Holocaust two words in a sentence about the Nazi government. Similar considerations apply here. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  And this would be exactly one word in the lead, per my suggestion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Only in the body while it’s a non-insignificant criticism, it’s not sufficiently significant to be included in the lead. Both based on the uncertain status and the recency of the accusation, the lead should instead continue referring to other, certain misconduct, per the relevant policies cited above, instead of referring to a disputed interpretation of some of the very recent actions. FortunateSons (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Not in the lead per WP:RECENTISM. Would prefer to wait until a court conviction or acquittal has been made to decide. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC)

This doesn’t seem that actionable an RfC, or that productive a question. The content of the article is what is discussed, and links serve as navigational aids for delving into the content. Considering a link alone in the aether rather misses its purpose. CMD (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems that there should be first some material in the body related to the wikilink and South Africa's genocide case against Israel. @Huldra: Suggest you pull the RFC tag on this for now until some material can be put together for the article body. Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Something like this perhaps

Israel is accused of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people by experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations during its invasion of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war. Observers, including the UN Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices and United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, have cited statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an "intent to destroy" (in whole or in part) Gaza's population, a necessary condition for the legal threshold of genocide to be met. A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide". On 29 December 2023, South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice pursuant to the Genocide Convention,

This is just wrt the genocide issue, need something about the arrest warrants as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem very neutral to cover statements from sources like Albanese without also covering accusations of bias on their part. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t make sense to cover things that aren’t relevant to the topic, like accusations of bias instead of addressing the substance of the statement. nableezy - 00:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If we don't want to get into such accusations of bias then we shouldn't be using sources like Albanese in the first place. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me. We dont include accusations of bias against the Times of Israel anytime we use them as a source, or the NYTimes, or Benny Morris, or whatever other reliable sources we cite. The ad hominem of "she's biased" is not relevant to the argument she makes or the qualifications she has to make them. At most, such accusations belong in the biography of Albanese, or Morris, or whatever other article that covers the sources themselves, not whenever they are cited. nableezy - 17:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not at all comparable. NYT and Morris are occasionally criticized by both sides for various perceived biases. Accusations of bias against Albanese are far more significant, e.g. with officials from several different governments openly calling her antisemitic or unfit for her role. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

They are directly comparable, and governments arent reliable sources for anything other than the views of the politicians heading those governments. It is a basic ad hominem, and it has nothing to do with the actual content of her comments. nableezy - 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense to call this an ad hominem, when source selection inherently involves evaluating sources rather than the content of their statements. Surely the WP:BESTSOURCES here would be uninvolved ones with some semblance of objectivity.

Covering Albanese's claim here is like covering Biden's claim that there isn't a genocide. Clearly neither is among the BESTSOURCES, and neither claim is noteworthy enough that it would need to be covered anyway. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Biden is a politician speaking as a politician. Albanese is an expert in international law, speaking as an expert in international law. nableezy - 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I should add that she isn't just speaking as an expert in international law (which she undoubtedly is), but she is speaking as a UN official who is the current United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. To compare her speech with Biden (a non-expert politician who has absolutely no scholarship on the issue and doesn't have an international law background) is ridiculous. JasonMacker (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Special Rapporteurs are not UN officials, they are independent experts consulted by the UN, and they remain independent. See United Nations special rapporteur for an overview. nableezy - 20:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

And Jews and others praising her, no? She must be doing something right. Afaics, she has tended to be ahead of the curve on most matters. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit request

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): In History, 21st century, please change

  −

  A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".

  +

  According to a recent Middle East Scholar Barometer poll of 758 mostly US-based Middle East scholars, a majority of those respondents believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".

  * Why it should be changed:The result of any one poll is probably undue for this section, but if it is to be included, it should be with proper context.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Mikewem (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: neither an uncontroversial improvement, nor one that has consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Tag

Resolved

-tag removed !Moxy🍁 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

---

@Moxy: Reasons for the tag, please? Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing but military info looks like nothing but conflict for 20+ years ...this article is not History of the Israel Defense Forces. Need info like ..90s saw first featuring direct election of the prime minister etc. Moxy🍁 13:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You tag says undue not that the section needs updating, which material is undue? And why? Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

undue because its nothing but military history....no memtiom of any other history. Sounds like the most unstable country doing nothing but being at war. Moxy🍁 13:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

History on its own at 5116 words is half an article by itself. A lot is likely undue. CMD (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree so much details - over info that can be and is covred in sub articles that can be trimed like :The Jewish insurgency continued and peaked in July 1947, with a series of widespread guerrilla raids culminating in the Sergeants affair, in which the Irgun took two British sergeants hostage as attempted leverage against the planned execution of three Irgun operatives. After the executions were carried out, the Irgun killed the two British soldiers, hanged their bodies from trees, and left a booby trap at the scene which injured a British soldier. The incident caused widespread outrage in the UK" Moxy🍁 13:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The section that has been tagged is Israel#21st century, a short section, the material The Jewish insurgency continued and peaked... is not even in it, that material is in Israel#British_Mandate_for_Palestine section, which has not been tagged.

So did you mean to tag something else? Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Moxy explained that subsection above, it is just one of a few with similar issues. CMD (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

They haven't explained it, the material they quote is not tagged. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I was pretty clear.... the whole section is just about military.... in fact we have two paragraphs for something that's happening in the past year. What we are looking for is substantial historical significant information about the country's social and historic evolution in that time. Best we simply don't regurgitate American news headlines. For example should mention Disengagement Plan... What kind of social human rights progress has there been? In 20 years there must be some sort of legal process that has changed.... democratic decline perhaps? What has happened on the diplomatic front.... like the mass increase in foreign aid? Moxy🍁 20:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

the whole section is just about military Which section? The only section that you tagged is the 21st Century section. If you meant to put the tag for the entire history section, then do that, I would also agree with that inline with multiple prior discussions asserting that it was way too long. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Which section? Not interested in some sort of gameplay. Your initial post was about a tag in a section this is the topic of the ongoing conversation..... with mention by another and myself about the excess detail overall in the history section with an example that I gave. You either agree it's excessive or you don't.... best course of action would be to come up with some sort of prose for the section.... and a better summary. Moxy🍁 21:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, you don't want to admit you got this all backwards, fine by me, bfn. Selfstudier (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What you have to ask yourself is does your approach to this conversation help improve that article or not. There is clearly a problem all over the history section...but the info in this tagged section is the topic of conversation...do you have any input what can be done to help the section? Then perhaps we can move on to other sections. Moxy🍁 15:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I asked you what the problems were and your response was to quote something else from an untagged section, so if you can answer the original question that would be good. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Best you let someone that is competent deal with the tag. My bad just frustrated that the post has not moved forward in actual improvements. Will address the problem with prose after the content addition dispute is over. Moxy🍁 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What content addition dispute? Selfstudier (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Was not aware of 'this'. Let's deal with the content issue after all the current concers. Last post from me here.Moxy🍁 20:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with the issue you have been describing in this section.. OK, resolved for now. Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024

In 21st century history, please change

−

A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".

+

A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars who were polled believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".

"mostly US-based Middle East scholars" is not an identifiable group, the phrase as written doesn't have a concrete definition. Which Middle East scholars' beliefs are being talked about here? The scholars who were polled are being talking about. Adding language that clarifies the source of these statistics and defines the group in question could make the statistics more useful. Thank you for your consideration. Mikewem (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

From the given citation, added "758" before "mostly" and "polled in 2024 by Brookings" before "believe" to clarify matters. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

""Israel"" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect "Israel" has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 7 § "Israel" until a consensus is reached. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@Terrainman: Are these your first edits to articles on WP that relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If so, please familiarize yourself with WP:ARBPIA and WP:ONUS which states that adding contested content requires achieving consensus on the talk page, not reverting. This responsibility is known as onus lying with the inserter of the material. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank-you. The information I added was to improve the context of the paragraph, in a much needed way. From what I can see, nothing contested was added. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Terrainman: Your additions to the lede/lead were reverted so the material is by definition is now contested, meaning you will have to gain consensus for them in the talk page, not revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand but your edit reason was to keep the brevity of the lead when my edit was rather brief in my view. It has been further edited by another user to make the additions more concise. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Terrainman: Your additions still increased the material about the 1948 war from six to eight sentences in the lede. This needs to be trimmed even below six sentences. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand since that para is already very long, however unfortunately the topic is extremely complicated; hence why it was the longest para in the lead long before my edit. My addition provided essential context in my view, I also received thanks for it and it has been refined since by another editor. In my view if this para is to be made more concise we need to explore other options for that. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Terrainman: Receiving thanks is not a measure of consensus, but discussion on the talk page. Your addition still duplicates mention of the UN partition plan in the second and third lede paragraphs, as well as non-summarizing elaborations on the Oslo Accords, which is also a duplicate mention in the third lede paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph explains that the partition plan failed, which is crucial context!

Regarding Oslo accords, it is not a duplication. The second mention references them in a sentence about progress since then. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we are setting this low a threshold in what is essential to the lead, there are multiple parts of the third paragraph which elaborate to a significant extend, rather than merely state the existence of key historical events which are in-fact needed to provide context for the rest of the paragraph. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, when you say Lede, do you mean Lead? I just want to be sure I am not missing something here. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Lede and Lead are legitimate alternative spellings; both refer to the intro material which, in Wikipedia, should summarize the major points of rest of the article. A major issue for many Wikipedia articles is putting too much stuff in the lede. Erp (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Minor edit Request

Remove "synonymous with Canaan" from the lede.

1. The borders of ancient Canaan don't line up with modern day Israel.

2. No real reason to mention ancient Canaan just like we don't mention that it's synonymous with British Mandatory Palestine or the Judea province of the Roman Empire.

3. The fact that Canaanites lives there is in the following sentence. Fyukfy5 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done QuicoleJR (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)