Talk:Israel

Edit request: Change Israels capital to Tel Aviv in infobox

Tel Aviv is recognized as Israels capital by the international community. Maxsmart50 (talk)

RfC: mention apartheid in the lead?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of was: no consensus.

The main relevant policy is MOS:LEADREL, which only one editor referred to explicitly. "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy."

The lead is 472 words and includes, "Israel has been internationally criticised in its occupation of the Palestinian territories, and been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinians by human rights organizations and UN officials." Many editors wanted to add "including the implementation of policies that amount to apartheid" per the proposal, citing DUE. Many editors didn't, citing UNDUE. Many comments compared the leads to other articles, or discussed reliable sources generally. There were comments that referred to the body, but few explicitly focused on any lead/body discrepancies. There are 7 sections in the article before See Also, including History, Econ, Geog, Government, Culture; apartheid is a subsection of Government. During the discussion the ICJ published on this area, so editors discussed withdrawing the RFC.

Given everything, I close this RFC as no consensus and recommend discussions clarify key policies from the start to focus discussion on improving the article, Tom B (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

---

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)

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)
• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

  I’ll add a page link to the holocaust in the lede Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  This has nothing to do with the subject of this RFC. Kindly stay on topic. Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
  • @Pincrete: the latter, see the lead of crime of apartheid and crimes against humanity. starship.paint (RUN) 08:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks, I had checked on the main Apartheid page, and found no mention of it being considered a crime. Pincrete (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

    That article is principally about the SA case, it's tucked away at the bottom, Apartheid#International legal, political, and social uses of the term Selfstudier (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

Untrue on the last point. For instance, Nazi Germany. JDiala (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessarily inflammatory. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

overloaded with every accusation ever made against Israel, @האופה:? Oh, is Israel and state-sponsored terrorism in the lead of this article? Censorship in Israel? Human trafficking in Israel? Racism in Israel? Torture during the Israel–Hamas war? Israeli demolition of Palestinian property? Palestinian genocide accusation? How did we miss all of these accusations in the lead? starship.paint (RUN) 09:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that other countries’ pages wrongly lack criticisms, such as United States, China, and Rwanda Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Feel welcome to bring it up there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• The US article is not WP:NPOV Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  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". — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  "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.

  Whichever way you slice it, it is without a shadow of a doubt a notable accusation. A UN human rights expert, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem  – I don't know how anyone could claim B'Tselem has an anti-Israel bias. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)
  • Yup, that's better wording. starship.paint (RUN) 13:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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:

"Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism, including committing the crime of apartheid." Makeandtoss (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Which RS coverage would you describe as generally friendlier, Israel or Iran? FortunateSons (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  You mean tabloids or expert analyses? — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

  Actually, Israel and apartheid already exists. M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Option A. Per starship.paint, Iskandar323, and others. Bogazicili (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  How about replacing crimes against humanity with accusations of apartheid? Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Apartheid is not the only crime against humanity that Israel is accused of. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  Okay, in light of that I’d support

  “… including apartheid,”

  Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  @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)

• 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)

It isn't rejected by most of the world? The UN represents the global community Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. [1] 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)

"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: [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." Read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  @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)

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)

There's a section on the apartheid accusation in the body Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

WP:Consensus can change RfCs are not a form of voting, it’s consensus building, and this has been many people’s main concern Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Relevant consensuses can be built adjacently? Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Option B per above. We do not need to overload the lead with more accusations. Mellk (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  There is a wish to add a paragraph on culture and trim down the history part Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing to do with this RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Addressing people’s concerns has nothing to with the RfC?? Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  But can we not concisely discuss people’s objections and whether there is something addressing them? Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  Yep, opening a new section to discuss other matters is indeed to be preferred. Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option A per nom and others. - Ïvana (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option B: Do not include the bolded text. Comments from Talk:Israel#Article classification and issues. Issues with the lead and the incessant want or need of some editors to keep the article embroiled in other issues like adding "too much detail" reflected in multiple RFC's to clutter the lead that is also covered in MOS:LEADNO which is under the subheading of "Relative emphasis" that is covered by both the NPOV policy on "Due weight" and our wording of "indiscriminate detail". Read the paragraph on "equal validity" can create a false balance (False balance) and check out extraordinary claims.

It IS NOT customary to use such derogatory content, as suggested, in the lead. Pick nearly every article on a country, especially around the Mediterranean and more especially if they are accused of human rights violations. like Hamas, Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, or others. These countries, aside from being in the area, have or have had, terribly human Rights violations but the leads, if covered at all, does not go into such detail as suggested here.

The push to use Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as RS's, which they are, does not erase the fact that in cases like this, they are extremely bias. Look at Amnesty's web page on "Armed Conflict": No matter the cause of war or the forces involved, the results are often the same. Armed conflicts mean devastating loss of civilian life, massive displacement and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Similar would be using the organization on abortion in the lead. The site states, Abortion is a Human Right — Help Fight Back. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"Armed conflict = bad" is biased? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Otr500: - some of the articles you picked do not match what you have argued. The lede of Hamas (while not a country) says: Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing mostly civilians, and taking hostages back to Gaza … 1988 Hamas charter was widely described as antisemitic … Hamas has carried out attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers, including suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks … designated Hamas as a terrorist organization The lede of Syria says that it is a totalitarian dictatorship with a comprehensive cult of personality around the Assad family … one of the most dangerous places for journalists … the most corrupt country in the WANA region … epicentre of a state-sponsored multi-billion dollar illicit drug cartel, the largest in the world … Assad forces causing more than 90% of the total civilian casualties … 7.6 million internally displaced people … 80% facing food insecurity, Meanwhile, Turkey, even with a 700+ year history, has a lede that outright says that the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Greek and Assyrian subjects. starship.paint (RUN) 02:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option A - This is a well-documented accusation made by many notable bodies up to and including the UN, so therefore it should be in the lead. It's as simple as that. (I wouldn't oppose making the phrasing less wordy, though.) Loki (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option B per BilledMammal. Vlaemink (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option B. Option A is an overkill. The lead tells already "It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity...". What else do you need? Repeating nearly the same thing over and over again does not make Israel more guilty. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I also do not like the proposed phrasing: "including the implementation of policies that amount to apartheid". This should be simply "including apartheid" (this is the accusation). "implementation of policies that amount ..." - whould that be "a crime against humanity" as the proposed text say? Only the actual apartheid would. My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it should be the crime of apartheid. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe replacing crimes against humanity w apartheid? As the other crimes aren’t discussed in the body as far as I’m aware? Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Already discussed this, that wording is from a prior RFC and will need another RFC to change it. The question here is whether to add something not remove something previously agreed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Okay my bad Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option A or C. I have yet to read a single convincing argument as to why the word "apartheied" shoudn't be mentioned in the lead. starship.paint also made a really good point about the lead sections of the Syria and Turkey articles. M.Bitton (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option B - per BilledMammal. I agree it is WP:UNDUE. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option A - It is ridiculous to not mention the conditions of the largest minority group under Israeli rule, particularly when organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch see it as apartheid. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option C "including the implementation of policies that violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid." Because, on 19 July 2024, the ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories findings include
• (BBC) "Among its other far-reaching conclusions, the court said Israeli restrictions on Palestinians in the occupied territories constituted "systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin"" This refers to "Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the régime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD."

• (Amnesty) ""The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion and the conclusion is loud and clear: Israel’s occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."" This refers to Article 3 of CERD as linked above "The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD."

• (Haaretz, Aeyal Gross) ""While it held that Israel's actions amount to systematic discrimination, and violate the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) prohibition on "segregation and apartheid," the ICJ stopped short of determining whether the situation constitutes "only" segregation or, in fact, amounts to "apartheid." Presumably this ambiguity was deliberate, allowing as many judges as possible to join the majority – regardless of their view on this point."

• Finally again according to the legal analysis "the bottom line of the Court’s approach seems clear – at best Israel’s actions amount ‘only’ to racial segregation, but they could also be apartheid. And the reason for this ambiguity is again the need to maintain consensus within the Court; the Court thus did not call Israel an ‘apartheid state’, but it did find a violation of an article in which apartheid is one of the two available options."

Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option B - Many of the editors promoting Option A have elsewhere argued that the scope of this article should be strictly geographic to Israel within the 1949 borders. Whether Israel is engaged in apartheid within said borders is heavily disputed and arguably a FRINGE view even among those who make the claim with respect to the West Bank. Thus inclusion in the lede here would be quite UNDUE. PrimaPrime (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  WP:LEAD requires that "prominent controversies" be included tho. And following the 1949 border restriction would mean leaving out all sorts of things, the illegal occupation, the illegal settlements, the illegal annexes which we are obviously not about to do. Selfstudier (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

What a bloody waste of time. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

It has not been discarded. The consensus from that RfC is still the status quo Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal: - the previous closure was overturned, so there is no consensus from that RFC. starship.paint (RUN) 09:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Nonsense, he was just saying he’ll cooperate Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The ICJ ruling will be published next Friday, 19 July, didn't expect this RFC still to be open but there you go, let's see if it has anything useful to say as regards the subject matter here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Online pogrom? By following Wikipedia policy? Professor Penguino (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

But the accusations of apartheid aren't fringe. It's not undue weight or false balance. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

extremely undue weight given for fringe views in almost every related article. Luckily this content is not fringe. Washington Post 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. starship.paint (RUN) 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! You can disagree with the scholars, but calling the apartheid accusations "fringe" is ridiculous. Professor Penguino (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Complete nonsense, you need to WP:Assume good faith, people are representing RSs and their abundance Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment this sentence

Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism

Is unnecessary and should be combined with the following sentence Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If my edit is okay, can you edit the RfC to shorten the proposal? @Starship.paint: Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Notifiying @JDiala, FortunateSons, TucanHolmes, Makeandtoss, Gorgonopsi, Marokwitz, Professor Penguino, K.e.coffman, Levivich, A Socialist Trans Girl, and Alaexis: from previous RfC/ starship.paint (RUN) 04:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Notifiying @Wafflefrites, Selfstudier, Alexanderkowal, Iskandar323, Objective3000, Moxy, Adam Black, and ScottishFinnishRadish: from previous RfC. starship.paint (RUN) 04:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: WP:ISRAEL, WP:PALESTINE, WP:LAW, WP:HUMANRIGHTS, WP:DISCRIMINATION has been notified of this discussion, as well as WP:ZA (South Africa), because I was thinking they know more about apartheid, though BilledMammal has objected to the last one on my talk page. starship.paint (RUN) 07:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Also included Wikipedia:Judaism FortunateSons (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton notified WP:ISLAM, WP:CHRISTIANITY, WP:ARAB. starship.paint (RUN) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

ICJ ruling

@Starship.paint: Would you be open to withdrawing this RFC and the reopening of a new one, given the recent ICJ ruling in which these discussions and votes did not take into consideration? This is particularly important as the ICJ ruling established the existence of apartheid as fact, as int. human rights organizations long have; so the attribution in the proposed text would become redundant. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s not actually true; per the comment made by Selfstudier above, the (advisory) decision specifically did not clearly show that there is apartheid, an issue with ambiguity that has become a pattern for the court. FortunateSons (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It's still WP:RECENT, I have no clue as to how RS will report it over the coming days but right now, there is, um, hesitation, I would say. See what the RS looks like in a week, maybe. Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I’m only speaking about the current proposal by Makeandtoss and the current coverage, it is obviously subject to change. FortunateSons (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Makeandtoss: - sorry, I did not respond immediately as I was attending to another issue on-wiki. I do not think it is within my ability to withdraw, because I am not the only contributor to this RFC. Even I wished to withdraw, we still have to respect everyone else's opinion. starship.paint (RUN) 13:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Would it not make more sense to close this one for no consensus and open another one in a few weeks/ a month when we have more RSs and reactions addressing the ICJ ruling? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Someone uninvolved has to close this. If you participated, you should not be closing, unless every single editor who participated can agree with it. starship.paint (RUN) 13:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Can we not use Wikipedia:Closure requests? Kowal2701 (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701: - yes can use that starship.paint (RUN) 14:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Done Kowal2701 (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: As the initiator of this RFC, I think you are the only one who can withdraw it. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Makeandtoss: - at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Reasons_and_ways_to_end_RfCs it says The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly).. But I am not fully confident that this situation applies. starship.paint (RUN) 14:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: I guess that is just one example out of many possible ones. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is, but I do not feel comfortable being the one to discard many editors' opinions, time and effort. starship.paint (RUN) 14:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: I don’t think you would be one. Even if this RFC passed, a new one will be legitimate considering the new significant information, and it would go to waste anyway. If anything your withdrawal of the rfc would prevent further waste of time and effort. Eventually up to you. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Lede: paragraph on culture

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:NPOV Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my concerns seriously! FortunateSons (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Okay we'll do that first Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The four paras is not ironclad, it can be five if justified. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Or add culture to the small 4th one? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a wish to trim 3 down, however that'd be after the RfC Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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.

I don't know what to put next Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No other country has half of their lede dedicated to controversy Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed I was just spitballing Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

• China is known for its cuisine, culture and has 57 UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
• South Africa is often referred to as the "rainbow nation" to describe the country's multicultural diversity, especially in the wake of apartheid.
• Brazil is the only country in the Americas to have Portuguese as an official language, and is by far the largest Lusophone country in the world. Brazil is one of the most culturally and ethnically diverse nations, due to over a century of mass immigration from around the world ... Due to its rich culture and history, including its global influence in music, sports, literature, dance, and the visual arts, Brazil ranks thirteenth in the world by number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
• New Zealand's culture is mainly derived from Māori and early British settlers, with recent broadening of culture arising from increased immigration. The official languages are English, Māori, and New Zealand Sign Language, with the local dialect of English being dominant.
• 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
• As a reflection of its large cultural wealth, Spain is the world's second-most visited country, has one of the world's largest numbers of World Heritage Sites, and it is the most popular destination for European students.

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)

• From looking at the content above, I'm guessing, if we were to have a sentence, it should link Culture of Israel, Jewish culture and Hebrew language / Modern Hebrew. Not sure if we could work in Arab culture in Israel or Culture of Palestine. starship.paint (RUN) 13:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  Better than mine, although it should mention traditions and holidays within Judaism Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Israel is the only country to follow the Hebrew calendar and have Hebrew as an official language. Jewish culture is dominant in the culture of Israel, while Arab culture is also present. starship.paint (RUN) 14:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Israel is the only country which follows the Hebrew calendar and has Hebrew as an official language. Jewish culture is dominant in the culture of Israel, while elements of Arab culture are also present. starship.paint (RUN) 14:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support, if anyone has any further edits/additions feel free to edit your comment/proposal Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It will be good to hear from actual Israelis on this. They would know the culture best. Also note, the above is 34 words. That's close to that of Japan's 32 words: Japan is a cultural superpower as its culture is well known around the world, including its art, cuisine, film, music, and popular culture, which encompasses prominent manga, anime, and video game industries. starship.paint (RUN) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative second sentence? FortunateSons (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How about mentioning that Israel includes lots of holy sites of different faiths? Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You want it? You word it. I'm not sure how to. starship.paint (RUN) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Israeli cuisine fuses Jewish cuisine and Arab cuisine. Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories also have a plethora of historical and religious sites important to many Abrahamic religions. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Maybe list the others after that? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

How about Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories ? I think that works Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

The article is about the state of Israel, which controls the occupied territories Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You are right indeed, it controls it, but does not encompass it. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why the distinction is made Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Apples and oranges. Selfstudier (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Maybe Abrahamic instead of western would be more appropriate Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep, Abrahamic religions. Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

You mean in the article body? Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

See https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf and specify what you would like to add. I think the accusations are already summarized, no? Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

This: These include the Law of Return, the 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, and many laws regarding security, freedom of movement, land and planning, citizenship, political representation in the Knesset (legislature), education and culture, as well as the Nation-State Law enacted in 2018.

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)

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)

Tbh it's mainly political representation in the Politics of Israel article, I'll do Israeli law Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Agreed, but there are more than 3 Abrahamic religions, just 3 major ones Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How about:

Israel is the only Jewish majority country in the modern period, with Arab, Druze, Circassian, Armenian, and Samaritan minorities. Israeli culture combines elements of European, North African, and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture, as well as those from other minorities.

Britannica [3] states "The State of Israel is the only Jewish nation in the modern period" Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to say that I oppose this addition, we already have a paragraph on culture that talks about it in detail, I don't think it should be in the lead which should be include the most important parts .

Beyond that, only a few months ago there was a discussion about adding "the only Jewish country in the world" and most editors opposed this addition. Qplb191 (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Qplb191. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section#Rule of thumb says that if something gets its own section, it deserves to be summarised in the lede. I did put feelers out for that description but didn’t hear any arguments against, Britannica describes it as such. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons, Chipmunkdavis, Wafflefrites, Selfstudier, O.maximov, Starship.paint, Iskandar323, and Mawer10: I'd rather not do an RfC on this, pinging editors that have participated in this discussion Kowal2701 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of a paragraph about Israeli culture, based on the discussion I imagined something along the following lines: Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world, and is the only country to have Hebrew as an official language. The country contains many historical and religious sites with great significance to the Abrahamic religions. In many aspects, Israel's culture is a blending of Jewish and Arab cultures, encompassing diverse elements like cuisine, music, and art. Mawer10 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am happy with this. Better than nothing. starship.paint (RUN) 02:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The spoken language sentence is pointless: this is not notable. Romania is the only country where Romanian is spoken, etc. The official language of a nation is mundane information that is already clearly displayed in the infobox, alongside population information, land area, etc., and does not need to be repeated in sentence format in the lead. That's just bloat. Also, a culture including "cuisine, music and art" is not "encompassing diverse elements"; those are just the basic constituents of a culture. Fluffy wording. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I’d say the revival of Hebrew is notable Kowal2701 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If that is what is notable then the lead should link revival of the Hebrew language and state that Israel is the only country to speak a revived language. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Most historical and religious sites are actually in Palestine and East Jerusalem. I’d say change country to region Kowal2701 (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a page about the country, not a region. This is why that statement is a bit vague and problematic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s a page about the State of Israel which would include their administration of occupied territories, I agree it’s problematic though Kowal2701 (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

As discussed before, this article is about the State of Israel, whose geographic scope is the 1948 internationally recognized border. Mentions of the occupied territories here does not come from a perspective of geographic scope, but from a perspective of that the Israeli state is the perpetrator of the occupation and the apartheid; per ICJ.

I oppose any inclusion of a sentence on culture beyond a sentence, as is the case with any other country's lede. I find so far the point about Hebrew being revived and the Hebrew calendar to be the most appropriate for inclusion, as a middle ground solution, and so we can finally move on from this point.

This is the proposal: "Hebrew is the country's official language, a revived language, and the only country that uses the Hebrew calendar. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, your opinion is just one person’s opinion Kowal2701 (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Aren't the 1967 borders the internationally recognised borders, as again just determined by the ICJ case? Why are you harking on about 1948 (1947 UN partition proposal technically)? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to the green line, so indeed better called the (pre-)1967 border. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but no one still talks about the green line, except in reference to 48 Arabs. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's also Modern Hebrew; Hebrew links to Hebrew language in general. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Kowal2701s alteration to @Mawer10 suggestion here, because it’s controlled by the country, despite not being within what most consider the de-jure borders. FortunateSons (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

By "most" you mean international law and the intentional community? That's not something we just hand wave aside. The occupied territories are no more part of Israel than Crimea is a part of Russia. And you haven't addressed any of the other points, which does not really help us build consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Would “wider region” be more appropriate, provided we can agree on the scope here? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would we bring that up in the lead about a specific country? A lead is meant to reflect the absolutely most specific and critical information about the subject, not peripheral material. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Because the wider region is under Israeli administration Kowal2701 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, and ... ? Crimea is under Russian adminstration. Does Russia now contain and get to claim everything Crimean? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Crimea would be within the scope of Russia imo Kowal2701 (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, that does depend on your specific interpretation of 242 regarding any or every specific area, and the status of Jerusalem, etc., as well as a wide range of other factors. But I do feel like most is the appropriate term here, considering my argument is based on de-facto status, not law. FortunateSons (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

As of Friday, East Jerusalem is illegally occupied according to the ICJ, which is the highest legal body of the UN. If we're not dealing in legal terms, we would have to state that "Israel claims ownership of ..." Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing sounds clunky, but the content is fine IMO, even if I would stick with facts rather than claims, focussing instead on what is happening on the ground, being less subject to change. What is the phrasing used for other long-term occupations/effective control on other pages? Tibet uses “under the administration of”, Taiwan uses “The combined territories under ROC control”, both sound reasonable to me when used here. FortunateSons (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many religious and historical sites of great significance in Israel proper, so there is no need to consider the occupied territory in this statement. See. Mawer10 (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The sentence is vague and avoids mentioning if these religious sites are Al-Aqsa mosque and Nativity church, which Israel advertises as within its territory, while they are in fact under occupation. This vagueness would be misleading. There are no parallels to these two sites within Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the historical site mention on when current culture is the intended topic. They're not mentioned in Israel#Culture at any rate. At any rate, if that's what's holding back the addition of a very basic mention of Culture in the lead, add the rest and discuss that sentence more if needed. CMD (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

The green/light green map is terribly small. It is hardly visible! starship.paint (RUN) 14:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I was looking through the pcitures of the smallest countries and the best pciture I got to after seeing about 10+ countries was File:Singapore on the globe (Southeast Asia centered) zoom.svg. I also saw that M.Bitton and Zero0000 have some experience with maps? Could either of you make the green/light green diagram in File:Israel (orthographic projection) with occupied territories.svg larger? We could cover the Indian Ocean. starship.paint (RUN) 03:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If I have time this weekend, I'll create a new one. I'll ping you once it's uploaded to Commons. M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: what can I say? Three weeks felt like a week. Anyway, better late than never. Please have a look at the new map and let me know if anything needs adjusting or changing. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: well, I can say that I love the improvement! Implementing it pronto. Thank you very much for your effort. starship.paint (RUN) 13:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

the map also includes the Golan Heights, and is inline with other pages such as Venezuela (which doesn't even occupy Essequibo), India, China, Pakistan, Russia, Sudan, North Korea Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2024

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)

Wasphilux, fixed. Thanks. Pincrete (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede

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)

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)

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)

WP:Common sense please, this is not an article on the region Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sorry for using WP:Common sense, your arguments are of course common sense Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

It is, since the removal was based on the whole mention of this. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

So should I have instead started a new topic on the proposal? Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

What do you identify as excessive detail? Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

FYI there are some at Talk:Israel/Archive 94#Brief summaries of Israel and the next section down after that. Levivich (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

thank you Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

So what I've got so far:

• [4] "The modern history of Israel" (Lucas, 1975)
• [5] "A history of Israel : the birth, growth, and development of today's Jewish state" (Samuel, 1989)

There are many more here [6]

And Talk:Israel/Archive 94#Brief summaries of Israel for tertiary sources Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Let’s trim this lede

2nd paragraph 1st & 2nd sentences contain easy-to-fix redundancies.

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)

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)

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)

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)

See above comment. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I just assumed he was EC, my bad Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

RFC: How should the Nakba described?

How should the Nakba described?

1. The Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.
2. The Palestinians were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.
3. The Nakba should be described. But neither of the sentences above should be used.
4. The Nakba shouldn't be mentioned.

Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  '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)

• 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)

  Good point, it’s just that the page link to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is more of a history page, whilst the Nakba page is more of a perspective on the history Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

"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)

"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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  Nothing to do with BRD, which addresses an edit in dispute, not the case here. Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Meant bold editing for controversial edits Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's only controversial if it's disputed. Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

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)

First choice #3 for reasons above. Second choice #1, to match the lead of Nakba as supported by the sources in the third paragraph of Nakba#Displacement "Nakba is described as ethnic cleansing ..." (permalink). I think those sources support the statement in wikivoice in this article just as in that article or any other. Third choice #2 because I oppose #4 per Aquillion and starship. Levivich (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

(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. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to update my !vote to (4), only because I'm convinced the same facts can be conveyed in a more neutral and objective language, as in the current text:

The war saw the expulsion and flight of many Palestinians due to various causes.

Nakba is a less-neutral term since it's innately tied to the Palestinian perspective, and while this perspective is notable, I think the lede of Israel should stick to describing facts in neutral language. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli perspective of Independence War is in the lede Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite follow what you mean, but if there are concerns that the current summary of Israel's creation isn't neutral, I would think some minor wording tweaks could address that. For Israel's lede, I would argue we should stick to one brief factual summary rather than getting into different viewpoints. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Yes, this is the article on Israel, but Israel perpetuated the Nakba. For you to claim no reason at all is very puzzling. starship.paint (RUN) 02:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• 2, followed by 1 and 3 in that order; oppose 4 in strongest possible terms. The expulsion of the Palestinians is a central aspect of Israeli history, as well as a core part of understanding events today, and is therefore clearly worthy of inclusion in the lead; I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise (some people might reasonably disagree with the framing, but that would be option 3 at most - option 4 is absurd and indefensible.) The problem with option 1 (and a suggestion for option 3) is that using the words ethnic cleansing might make sense due to that descriptor being central to the underlying dispute, but would probably require some form of attribution. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• 2, then 3, then 1, oppose 4. I largely agree with Aquillion. The Nakba is simply highly relevant and important to Israel, as it resulted in longstanding and current Palestinian unrest within Israel, to the point of the current war. Even now some consider there to be an Ongoing Nakba with Israeli settler violence. Unfortunately there is Nakba denial, one reason due to the Nakba damaging the legitimacy of the founding of Israel. Option 2 follows the titling of our Wikipedia article on the expulsion and flight, though I am open to other viewpoints. starship.paint (RUN) 03:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

4, I oppose 1,2,3 - if the Israeli War of Independence isn't mentioned, then it makes no sense to mention the Nakba. Both are not politically neutral terms. O.maximov (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

3/4, I oppose 1,2 - The flight and forced expulsion of Palestinian Arabs following the establishment of Israel did not exist in a vacuum. It specifically occurred after the 1948 Palestine war, in which horrible atrocities were committed by both sides, ended in Israels favor. Additionally any definition of the Nahkba would also have to include mentioning of the fact that not all Palestinian Arabs were forced to flee or forcibly expelled, but that many also fled themselves out of fear of repercussions or one of the various other reasons listed in the Nahkba-article alongside forced expulsions. Vlaemink (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Nakba article. It began before the war started, not after it ended. Levivich (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The current version is fine, I don't think there was good reason for this RFC since there was no major disagreement over it that was discussed. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

4, we already mention the 1948 Palestinian flight and expulsion which sums up the issue, we don't need the narrative version of the same event. ABHammad (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

4, opposing the other options, I don't see why we should use contested terms. If we don't use the Israeli term 'Independence War,' so there is no need to use the Palestinian term 'Nakba.' HaOfa (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Is that addition okay? Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think your edit in the lede proposes a false equivalence behind the causes of the Palestinian exodus Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It also goes against already established consensus Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think if “a core part of the Nakba” were added it’d be fine, since there’s now the “Independence War” included Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• 3 or 4 . 3 because 1 and 2 are not improvements compare to the current version. 4 per the argument by ABHamad just above. As of note, the current version is erroneous grammatically. "fled by Zionist militias"? My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  The current one doesn’t mention militias or the Nakba Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• 4 and I prefer the version of the text XDanielx mentioned. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• 1, considering the academic consensus of the Nakba as ethnic cleansing (barring the previously mentioned grammatical errors, of course) GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• 3 is the most neutral way to approach this. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Version 2 without the loitering comma, or some similar formulation (3) Iskandar323 (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment - the way the sentences are written sounds like all the Palestinians were expelled or fled but I have heard that some Arab citizens of Israel consider themselves to be Palestinians so the proposed sentences need to have the word “majority”. Proposed sentences need to be written “The majority of Palestinians…” Wafflefrites (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax tagging you, can you please add “majority” or some other clarifier? Not all of the Palestinians were expelled or fled, some stayed. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This is making things too complicated, about half of the expelled/fled was before Israeli state was declared. Then there were the 1948 Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle and 1949–1956 Palestinian expulsions as well. Selfstudier (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The Nakba page and short description and says it occurred since 1948. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Look in Nov 47 to May 48 section "On 14 May, the Mandate formally ended, the last British troops left, and Israel declared independence. By that time, Palestinian society was destroyed and over 300,000 Palestinians had been expelled or fled."

Although I agree it is not as clear as it should be in the lead, needs to be fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The introductory/summary section above that in the Nakba article says, “About 750,000 Palestinians—over 80% of the population in what would become the State of Israel—were expelled or fled from their homes and became refugees. “

I just remember nableezy back in October putting the actual numbers in the lead after an edit war. ^__^ Wafflefrites (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The Nakba did not start or end in 1948 says "In less than six months, from December 1947 to mid-May 1948, Zionist armed groups expelled about 440,000 Palestinians from 220 villages." Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

See here nableezy wrote the number [7] Wafflefrites (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, it needs fixing up. For purposes here, I see little point in delving into what happened to those that stayed. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice I didn’t say anything in about putting information about the Palestinans who became citizens of Israel. I just suggested to add the word “majority”. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

vast majority? Majority implies 60% to me Kowal2701 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that’s better. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not an RFC option tho, so you can ask for it as part of your !vote else ask for RFC to be amended and everyone who !voted to be pinged. If you do ask for an amendment then I would prefer a specific number and a % of the population and some mention of the subsequent expulsions as well. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s so complicated.

Given the options, I would vote 3 or 4. The options 1 and 2 are missing “vast majority” or “80%.” If 1 &2 did contain “vast majority” or “80”, I would pick option 2 over option 1. To me though, I don’t really personally care whether or not Nakba is in the lead since the expulsions are already in the lead so that is why I vote both 3 and 4. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's OK, we are used to the need to make 3 or 4 RFCs about the same thing before it is accepted. Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I think it’s better to change “made to flee” to “fled” or some other wording that sounds less awkward. Usually people flee do to fear, threat or danger so I don’t think it’s necessary to write “made to flee” which sounds a bit weird. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah 'fled' implies they didn't want to, I think that wording is more to counter some Israeli revisionist histories where they claim the Palestinians left willingly Kowal2701 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If they had left willingly, I think the word “emigrated” would have be used instead of “fled”. That would be revisionism, not “fled”. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@everyone: This is a bit complicated. There were about 1.5 million Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine when the Nakba began. About 900k lived in the parts of Mandatory Palestine that later became Israel. (This portion includes the 54% of Mandatory Palestine assigned to Israel by the UN partition, plus about half of the remaining 45% that was supposed to go to a Palestinian state, totaling 78% of Mandatory Palestine in all.) About 750k Palestinians were expelled/fled. This is "over 80% of the Palestinians in the land that would become Israel" (750k/900k) and "about 50% of the Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine" (750k/1.5M). It wasn't a "majority" of all Palestinians everywhere in the world. But the "over 80%" figure is widely reported in RS because the point is that Israel cleared out almost all of the Palestinians within the land that it was given/took. There are lots of different ways to say this, but "a majority of Palestinians were expelled/fled" without qualification would be incorrect. I think the more important figure is the "over 80%" because the point isn't how many Palestinians were kicked out, but that almost all Palestinians in Israel were kicked out. It's of course possible to say something like "over 80% of Palestinians in Israel and about half of Palestinians overall," but that might be overly long/awkward.

It should also be noted that the 150-160k Palestinians who were still in Israel at the end of the war -- the "'48 Arabs" or Palestinian citizens of Israel -- included an unknown number who were internally displaced persons ("IDPs," meaning they didn't just stay in their homes throughout the war, they were expelled/fled from one part of what would become Israel and ended up stuck in another part; they were trapped, they didn't remain in their homes, and they didn't choose to remain in Israel). Levivich (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

“Over 80% of Palestinians that had been living in the region that would become Israel were expelled or fled.” Wafflefrites (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment if the Nakba is in the lede then 'Independence War' needs to also be in the lede for NPOV

Kowal2701 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

1948 Arab–Israeli War (its name) is already there and linked. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I know but if we're including the Palestinian POV on the war, we should include the Israeli POV as well Kowal2701 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

"Nakba" is not "the Palestinian POV on the war." The Nakba and the war are two different things. Also, WP:NPOV doesn't mean if we include the Palestinian POV we must also include the Israeli POV; WP:NPOV is not false balance. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this is false balance. Israelis see the war as the Independence War. Palestinians view the war in the context of the Nakba. I don't think it's controversial/undue weight to say "termed the Independence War in Israel". That says nothing on the war or the expulsion, other than it gained Israel its independence, which is fact Kowal2701 (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, this would be right after 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It's not to provide a different POV on the Nakba, but just to include an Israeli POV when we're including a Palestinian one Kowal2701 (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The Nakba is not the same thing as the war. The Nakba started before the war, and continued after the war. "Nakba" is not an alternative name of "War of Independence." And, again, NPOV is not about including the POV of both sides in a conflict; read WP:NPOV, it's about the POV of sources, not the POV of states or groups of people. And in any event, both the war and the Nakba are mentioned in the lead. Levivich (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

sources say the Israelis view the war and the Nakba in the context of the War of Independence. It doesn't excuse or negate the expulsion Kowal2701 (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

As you say, it's actually an Israeli POV to view the war and the Nakba as merely two sides of the same coin, or competing POVs, i.e.: that very framing is POV. And it is ultimately one of the forms of Nakba denial, albeit one of the more subtle and crafty ones. It's the Benny Morris route, i.e.: " sure there was an ethnic cleansing, but it was a necessity". POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that speaks for itself. No one claiming any morality can dismiss ethnic cleansing as ‘unavoidable’, you pare it back to the circumstances that led to it and identify the mistakes. I think we’ve got to have faith in the reader to discern this Kowal2701 (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

In Nakba lead, it says "The Palestinian national narrative views the Nakba as a collective trauma that defines their national identity and political aspirations. The Israeli national narrative views the Nakba as a component of the War of Independence that established Israel's statehood and sovereignty." Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right they are connected, I was wrong to separate the two. That excerpt adheres to NPOV and I feel these proposals might not. The war and the expulsion are already mentioned, these two additions are perspectives on the series of events if I'm not mistaken. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 4. We mention the expulsion already quite prominently in the lede. As far as I understand the term Nakba usually encompasses more than the expulsion/flight of 1948-1949, so the options 1 and 2 can be misleading. Not sure about 3, since we already mention the key components (the wars, human rights issues, dispossession), I don't see convincing RS-based arguments why we need to mention this term specifically. This could potentially cause NPOV issues, since if we are to mention and wikilink a Palestinian perspective then we should mention and wikilink Jewish/Israeli ones (War of Independence, settler ideology, etc.). The lede is long enough already. Alaexis_¿question? 21:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 then 2 then 3. Strong oppose option 4. The Nakba, and the ongoing Nakba, is a central aspect of Israel's establishment, and continuation; as per overwhelming majority RS discussing the topic; and thus cannot be ignored in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Why strongly oppose 3? Levivich (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

By mistake, fixed. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Third lead paragraph has an extra comma that should be deleted, since it doesn't fulfill any grammatic prupose:

The West Bank and Gaza Strip, were taken by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

Also at the end of second lead paragraph, there should probably be a comma and a while instead of an extra and to separate different events. I think it reads better like this:

led to intercommunal conflict between Jews and Arabs,[26][27] while the 1947 UN Partition Plan triggered civil war between them.

Thanks--2800:2503:4:DEA7:1:0:C9BA:5F63 (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. I went with two sentences instead of "while." Levivich (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for Israel article to mention that it's a regional and middle power

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

  −

  It has one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East and Asia, and ranks as one of the most advanced countries.

  +

  It has one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East and Asia, ranks as one of the most advanced countries, and is considered both a regional and middle power.

• Why it should be changed: The articles for Regional power and Middle power list Israel as an example of each. However, the introduction of the Israel article does not mention its status as a regional or middle power. This is inconsistent with, for example, the page for Iran whose introduction describes Iran as a regional power, the page for Saudi Arabia whose introduction describes it as a regional and middle power, and the page for Canada, whose introduction describes it as a middle power.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

For middle power:

For regional power:

rdl381 (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: I do not think this adds much to the article, as "middle power" and "regional power" are loosely defined phrases, and in fact should probably be removed from other articles in favour of a short description of what makes them a power. For example, the article on the United Kingdom does not say the country is currently a global power (it does mention it was the world's foremost power during the colonial period), instead it mentions The UK is a developed country and has the world's sixth-largest economy by nominal gross domestic product (GDP). It is a recognised nuclear state, and is ranked fourth globally in military expenditure. The UK has been a permanent member of the UN Security Council since its first session in 1946. It is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, the Council of Europe, the G7, the OECD, NATO, the Five Eyes, AUKUS and the CPTPP. This to me makes the United Kingdom's status as a global power quite clear without having to use another loosely defined term, and is an example that should be followed with most articles in my opinion. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 12:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I very much agree with this: description > labels. Too often Wikipedia articles rely on labels. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• • Good idea as its a massive academic topic with multiple disciplines that is the norm in fully developed FA articles like Canada, Japan, Australia and Germany....however its status as a regional power is debatable so its been omitted from the lead as it needs context...Kappel, Robert (2014). "Israel: The Partial Regional Power in the Middle East". Regional Powers in the Middle East. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. p. 145–161. doi:10.1057/9781137484758_8. ISBN 978-1-349-50355-1. Mark Heller stated that Israel has the power to block, but not the power to shape the regional order. Although its power is impressive "and almost certainly sufficient to defend its security against threats by others" (Heller 2011: 238), Israel is not a regional power that is able to manage the regional order. It tries to prevent the emergence of any other power that could seriously damage it, but has no soft or smart power, as this contribution will show..
  • As for middle power it could be added but the body should cover the context as our FA articles do Canada#Foreign relations...need to mention its middle power status is based on arm sales. Shymanska, Alina; Heo, Changbae (May 4, 2022). "Arms sales as a middle-power strategy: the case of Israel". Israel Affairs. 28 (3): 452–463. doi:10.1080/13537121.2022.2066861. ISSN 1353-7121. Israel's sales of advanced arms and technology as a middle-power foreign policy tool. By way of doing so it discusses the nature and characteristics of this policy, as well as its various components, and assesses the extent of its success in achieving its goals. It concludes that despite Washington's occasional opposition to its arms export policies, Israel's strategy has proved highly successful and can serve as a model for middle powers seeking to improve their status and prestige in the contemporary international system.
  • In my POV the UK article is a bad example as it just a list of various organizations and forums WP:COUNTRYLEAD......need real info ...some meat if you will that FA articles now have ...
  • Example:

Y year = 2024 A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks. Recognized as a middle power, Canada's strong support for multilateralism and internationalism has been closely related to its foreign relations policies of peacekeeping and aid for developing countries. Canada is part of multiple international organizations and forums.

N year = 2019 A highly developed country, Canada has the seventeenth-highest nominal per-capita income globally and the sixteenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index. Its advanced economy is the tenth-largest in the world and the 14th for military expenditure by country, Canada is part of several major international institutions including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Group of Ten, the G20, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the Organization of American States.

Moxy🍁 16:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I have added a </small> tag to your last post. You used two <small> tags but only one </small> tag, which would have incorrectly formatted all subsequent content on this page as small. I think I've placed it correctly, but thought I'd mention it in case you intended more of the text to be small.

Regarding my example of the UK article, it is far from perfect. I am not surprised it has failed two FA nominations, been delisted as a GA and failed three GA nominations. However, rather than describing the UK as some type of power it provides details of why the country is powerful. Yes, it could be significantly better but I really don't think adding "the United Kingdom is a great power" would be in any way an improvement. This extract from the article power (international relations) probably best highlights why I think it is pointless (formatting added to highlight most relevant section):

• Those states that have significant amounts of power within the international system are referred to as small powers, middle powers, regional powers, great powers, superpowers, or hegemons, although there is no commonly accepted standard for what defines a powerful state.

Why highlight something in country articles (particularly featured country articles) for which there is no widely accepted definition? Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree on this, "middle power" and "regional power" are the sort of terms where any paper discussing them will have to self-define how they use those terms. They are not appropriate or helpful to readers on high-level articles. CMD (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Be hard pressed to find any academic publication about foreign relations of a country that doesn't use these terms. Best lead our readers to academic terms so they can learn for themselves. Moxy🍁 11:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The Routledge Handbook on Israel's Foreign Relations does not use "middle power". It does use "regional power", the slightly more intuitive term. Israeli Foreign Policy since the End of the Cold War does not seem to use either. At any rate, the articles should be accessible to as many readers as possible, and if a term is ambiguous or needs further definition it is likely more concise to simply undertake the relevant description. CMD (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting .....I guess for some countries its simply more clear and the starting point to describe foreign relations. Canada McKercher, B.J.C. (2012). Routledge Handbook of Diplomacy and Statecraft. Routledge handbooks. Taylor & Francis. p. 131. ISBN 978-1-136-66437-3. Moxy🍁 13:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Article classification and issues

The article has a multitude of tags. Some may not be a game changer by themselves but together they add up. Other issues are long ongoing and may (probably alright with some) prevent actual article improvements until some editors take a stand. This article enjoyed "Featured Article" status from May 2007 until June 2010 so what happened?

This article fails the B-class criteria of 4 and maybe a little arguably 5 out of 6 points.

• 1)- Articles with dead external links from 2017 and 2024,
• 2)- Articles with unsourced statements from March 2024,
• 3)- Articles lacking reliable references from January 2023 and February 2023,
• 4)- Wikipedia articles in need of updating November 2021, March 2023,
• 5)- The article is tagged with "potentially dated statements" from 2007, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, December 2022, October 2023.
• 6)- Articles with "specifically marked weasel-worded phrases" from January 2024

Add to this the issues with the lead and the incessant want or need of some editors to keep the article embroiled in other issues like adding "too much detail" reflected in multiple RFC's to clutter the lead that is also covered in MOS:LEADNO which is under the subheading of "Relative emphasis" that is covered by both the NPOV policy on "Due weight" and our wording of "indiscriminate detail". Read the paragraph on "equal validity" can create a false balance (False balance) and check out extraordinary claims.

If there are active editors on a page then either following BRD or simple talk page inquiries would be the normal way for possible article expansion, and not RFC's on every aspect right off the bat. A main reason we have WP:BRD is to prevent or otherwise hamper article improvements with too many rules. See WP:RFCNOT. Surely this makes sense: An RFC is one of the options for Wikipedia:dispute resolution. How can a RFC be used as a first line if there has been no dispute? -- Otr500 (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: It seems I am not alone concerning RFC's. I just saw "RFC: How should the Nakba described?" with comments, "this is a wholly unnecessary RFC, the previous discussions on this page show no disagreement with this by anyone other than opener", by Selfstudier. I just keep seeing RFC's over suggested edits, when there was no previous reverted edit or discussion, so no way there could be a "disagreement" or conflict. It is not used very often, that I have found, but Wikipedia:Editing policy would be a good policy for everyone to read or reread. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Propose to heavily reduce the first three subsections under `History`

We have discussed this before (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel/Archive_103#History_section), but I'm realizing now that even the work of the traditionalist historians (eg Shapira and Karsh) start their history of israel in the late 19th century. It might also be worth noting that Britannica starts the history section around the same time period.

So, I propose the reduce the first 3 subsections (Bronze and Iron Ages, Classical antiquity, and Late antiquity and the medieval period) to a single paragraph the reason being that the majority of the sources cited do not discuss the modern state of Israel. The content does not belong here unless RS connect the discussion to the modern state.

No part of the first paragraph uses sources that refer to the modern state.

Content worth keeping in the following paragraphs, which has some relevance to the modern state:

Modern archaeology has largely discarded the historicity of the narrative in the Torah concerning the patriarchs, The Exodus and the tales of conquest in the Book of Joshua, and instead views the narrative as the Israelites' national myth. However, some elements of these traditions do appear to have historical roots.

and:

In 634–641 CE, the Rashidun Caliphate conquered the Levant. Over the next six centuries, control of the region transferred between the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid caliphates, and subsequently the Seljuks and Ayyubid dynasties. The population drastically decreased during the following several centuries, dropping from an estimated 1 million during Roman and Byzantine periods to about 300,000 by the early Ottoman period, and there was a steady process of Arabization and Islamization brought on by non-Muslim emigration, Muslim immigration, seeking economic prosperity, and local conversion. The end of the 11th century brought the Crusades, papally-sanctioned incursions of Christian crusaders intent on wresting Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim control and establishing Crusader States. The Ayyubids pushed back the crusaders before Muslim rule was fully restored by the Mamluk sultans of Egypt in 1291.

which explains to some extent a transition into the modern era.

Otherwise, these sections are totally disconnected from the modern state and the content simply does not belong here.

It's possible that some of the sources I was not able to check *do* connect the discussion to the modern state, but the content currently does *not* do that. So we either fix that, or dramatically reduce the content in this section.

I would make the edits myself, but I know they would be instantly reverted. DMH223344 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The well-established practice for country articles (and other geopolitical articles) is to cover the history of the area rather than just the history of the current polity. If the sections are disconnected that means there is a missing throughline from then to now. Overall the section does need shortening, however this is due to the overall length, and is unlikely to get that length of time down to one paragraph. CMD (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I can understand covering *some* history of the land, but dwelling on it for 3 subsections is excessive. This should be brought down to 1-2 paragraphs at most (even that is pushing it if the sources do not connect the history to the current state). For example the page about the United States has a single paragraph about pre-european-settlement history (as does Canada). DMH223344 (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is excessive, but this is a reflection of the entire >5000 word section rather than being subsection-specific. Canada's entire section is about half that. CMD (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well the rest of the history section might have too much detail, but that's a different issue. Here we are talking about content that doesnt belong, rather than the inclusion of unnecessary details. DMH223344 (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

In that case, per standard practice it does belong, as it does on the other pages you mentioned. CMD (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

what? DMH223344 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support - history section is way, way too long and spends way, way too much text on ancient history. Levivich (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support if two more sentences are added to the first paragraph regarding Israel and Judah, and summarise Jewish history up to Muslim conquests. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't see any need to remove extremely relevant historical facts. The articles for two other modern states home to ancient civilizations, Egypt and Greece, has about the same length of ancient history. HaOfa (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to check the sources and discussion in those articles, but on first glance one difference that stands out is the mostly continuous timeline in both of those articles. The history section here has a huge leap in time. In any case, the narrative we share here should match up with that presented in RS, which as I've shown primarily starts with the late 19th century. DMH223344 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Some other tertiary sources:

• Britannica: This discussion focuses primarily on the modern state of Israel. For treatment of earlier history and of the country in its regional context, see Palestine, history of. The nation of Israel is the world’s first Jewish state in two millennia. It represents for Jews the restoration of their homeland after the centuries-long Diaspora that followed the demise of the Herodian kingdom in the 1st century CE. As such, it remains the focus of widespread Jewish immigration. (then goes into modern history)
• Encyclopaedia.com starts their history section: The independence of the State of Israel in 1948 was preceded by more than a half century of efforts by Zionist leaders to establish a sovereign state as a homeland for dispersed Jews. The desire of Jews to return to their biblical home was voiced continuously and repeatedly after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 c.e. and dispersed the population of Roman Palestine. Attachment to the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) became a recurring theme in Jewish scripture and literature. Despite the ancient connection, it was not until the founding of the World Zionist Organization by Theodor Herzl near the end of the nineteenth century that practical steps were taken toward securing international sanction for large-scale Jewish resettlement in Palestine.
• New world encyclopedia: Pre-human occupation of the land area that became the state of Israel dates back to 200,000 B.C.E. Jewish tradition holds that the Land of Israel has been a Jewish Holy Land and Promised Land for four thousand years, since the time of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). The land of Israel holds a special place in Jewish religious obligations, encompassing Judaism's most important sites (such as the remains of the First and Second Temples of the Jewish People). The first historical record of the word "Israel" comes from an Egyptian stele documenting military campaigns in Canaan. This stele is dated to approximately 1211 B.C.E.

Starting around the eleventh century B.C.E., the first of a series of Jewish kingdoms and states established intermittent rule over the region that lasted more than a millennium.

Under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and (briefly) Sassanid rule, Jewish presence in the region dwindled because of mass expulsions. In particular, the failure of the Bar Kokhba's revolt against the Roman Empire in 32 C.E. resulted in a large-scale expulsion of Jews. It was during this time that the Romans gave the name “Syria Palaestina” to the geographic area, in an attempt to erase Jewish ties to the land.

Nevertheless, the Jewish presence in Palestine remained constant. The main Jewish population shifted from the Judea region to the Galilee. The Mishnah and Jerusalem Talmud, two of Judaism's most important religious texts, were composed in the region during this period. The land was conquered from the Byzantine Empire in 638 C.E. during the initial Muslim conquests. The Hebrew alphabet was invented in Tiberias during this time. The area was ruled by the Omayyads, then by the Abbasids, Crusaders, the Kharezmians and Mongols, before becoming part of the empire of the Mamluks (1260–1516) and the Ottoman Empire in 1517.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Cool examples. I think something similar, summarizing the Jewish history and importance of the region for Jewish identity etc., should appear in two-three sentences in the second paragraph of the lead. HaOfa (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion focused on the history section for now DMH223344 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and then this can be expanded on in the history section instead of having a "History of the Land of Israel" Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there also needs to be more emphasis on the various migrations to Israel in the body Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the NWE passage as a model for scope and depth. Levivich (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Too many

413,471 bytes and 717 references, in my opinion, are too many. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Surely it's only to do with words and the limit is 15,000? The article has 16,500 if I paste it into Word Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal: yes, too many in my opinion. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The above topic discusses trimming some of the history section Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Idk how many times we have had "the history is too long" discussion and nothing ever gets done about it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: exactly, inconceivable! JacktheBrown (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s not how you do it. WP:TOOBIG has a web based tool. If you read that section and use the tool, current article length is not 16.5 k words. the current size is less than 15k Wafflefrites (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites: for the Italy page this "problem" was solved immediately; why should the Israel article be treated differently? JacktheBrown (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Page length is not measured in bytes or references, that was the wrong way to go about it Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says there is a problem? It would make sense there would be pushback if there actually isn’t a problem…it would be creating extra work.

Also where is the edit diff on Italy where you tagged it as being too long? You can definitely start trimming the Israel page if you think it’s too big as consensus is also achieved through editing. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites: I didn't tag the Italy article as too long: Article too big. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I see one of the other editors involved replied directing the conversation to readable prose size and for you to make suggestions on the talk page concerning what you would like to trim. Do you have any suggestions on what to trim in the article? Wafflefrites (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites: definitely a part of "History "; I don't have much knowledge about Israel, but I'm sure, as others have rightly pointed out, the "History" paragraph is too long. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the History section has it's own article, some trimming should be fairly uncontroversial providing all of the key information is retained and useful, relevant content is not removed from the encyclopedia entirely (i.e. it is still available to read in the History of Israel article). Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 17:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black: exactly, the same was done in the Italy article. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the Italy article has an editor who is familiar with Italy’s history and would know what to trim. We did have an editor on this Israel page who was familiar with Israeli history and would have been helpful in summarizing/making things more concise, but he was blocked as a suspected sock puppet. I have edited on Wikipedia 3 times as an IP on the same device, same internet and all my IPs were different, so I don’t know how this sock puppet thing works. There were other editors familiar with Israeli history but they were blocked or sanctioned for other reasons, and I am not sure if they would have been as helpful in trimming since their edits on Israel/history were more detailed. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This page is in need of more input from Israelis/neutral experts on Israel. Everything about Israel seems to come with controversy, it's very hard to separate the conflict from the other content as it's all consequential. I don't know what the solution is for this page. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites: Who was this editor? Anyway, I think a sock-puppet usually refers to using multiple accounts with the same IP address, so if you're using one account on different devices and IPs, that shouldn't be an issue from what I know. HaOfa (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

But if he wasn't logged in on other devices it may be sockpuppeting if used to change consensus no? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I am confused how they determine sock puppets because there isn’t a way to identify them by IP if the IP sometimes changes. Also if he was student and there were other editors at the same university, it is possible he could be mistaken as a puppet. The editor was User:HaNagid. he did seem to get into content arguments a lot, but his edits were concise and he was good at putting in helpful links.

I think trimming parts of or summarizing the ancient history should not be controversial. it is a lot of info. But when editors want to remove it completely that is when people start arguing about removing it entirely or not, so that probably caused most of the controversy in the past. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites: I don't know him, but I'm sorry that Wikipedia has lost a user who could have improved this (very important) article. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

He was good at trimming history, see here ! [8] He trimmed it! Wafflefrites (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

(Increased space) @Wafflefrites: but is he a native Israeli? JacktheBrown (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites: perhaps also "Government and politics". JacktheBrown (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli-occupied, International opinions, Demographics and Economy sections do have some WP:OVERCITE. You are certainly welcome to start trimming the History or any other section. I have done many edits on this article recently including trimming the entire article and nobody reverted me. I think as long as your edits are neutral, non controversial, and adhere to policy, it usually isn’t a problem. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

just make sure to do edit summaries, even if only brief or abbreviations, I suck at that Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My best guess is yes, it seemed like he was very familiar with the history and he said “ My focus here is on contributing to Jewish history in Mediterranean communities, ancient Judaism, and current events, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I maintain particularly close ties with Jewish institutes in Jerusalem, drawing extensively from their resources.” He would have been helpful with trimming and summarizing the ancient history. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think all agree that WP:COUNTRYSIZE is a concern here. What would be helpful is actual suggestions of texts to be included or excluded ...... reworked section prose would be helpful. Ping @Nikkimaria: as she's being mentioned here in a roundabout way and her expertise of country articles maybe a benefit here. 😀Moxy🍁 19:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria just fyi, there're ongoing discussions to add a summary of the culture section to the lede and to rewrite the pre-Zionism history Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at condensing the history section. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Great work! There are a few bits of information which should probably be left in so I'll add them, but all in all excellent job. Uppagus (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, we have been making observations here more than taking the initiative, perhaps because of the presence of so many issues, most importantly, which was previously brought up multiple times, is the 3,000 year jump from the first millennium BC to roughly Herzl's 1896 book, exemplified in the lede: "Situated at a continental crossroad, the region was then ruled by various empires. Amid European antisemitism, the late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism,".

A state is a polity that rules over a geographic body. That geographic body's history is a major part of any state's history. Whether it corresponds to the modern nation-state's current identity is not relevant. The history of a land is history, it cannot be changed, or ignored. Although indeed the history section is bloated, and has been helpfully condensed, it still ignores to a large degree that 3,000 year history of Palestine, land of Israel, or whatever you want to call it, which not only undermines the article's credibility but also misses out on extremely relevant information; more relevant certainly than European antisemitism or Jewish exodus from Arab countries. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

can you give some examples of what extremely relevant information is omitted? Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Most notably, of course, is the fact that the land had been under the rule of caliphates for millennia, with a brief rule by a crusader state. These civilizations, along with notably the Greek and Roman ones, have left a plethora of ruins and historic sites, more than the ones that existed in antiquity. This is for the lede, as for the body, which the lede should reflect, due proportion to the more recent and relevant 3,000 year history should be given there. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree but getting the right weight would very difficult. I propose just having a sentence saying that

Throughout history the region was ruled by pagan, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim states, and it holds a special place in Jewish tradition.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is difficult, it existed, before it was recently removed from the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Is that satisfactory? Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is totally unnecessary here, every area in the Europe, North Africa and the Middle East was ruled by different empires. In most of the period from the Islamic conquest up to the modern era, don't forget, this area was a backyard of empires, with just a third of its population in ancient times. The lead should focus on the historical periods relevant for understanding modern Israel. ABHammad (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Arguably the whole history is relevant for understanding modern Israel, do you mean Zionism? Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

@האופה: What is factually incorrect about Tel Aviv being Israel's "largest city as well as its economic center"? Levivich (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Tel Aviv is simply not the largest city in Israel, Jerusalem's population is double its size. HaOfa (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

West Jerusalem is not larger than Tel Aviv and East Jerusalem is not in Israel. I'm reverting your edit. Levivich (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: East Jerusalem is not part of Israel. We had this discussion about the scope of the article multiple times already. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You are working against the great majority of WP:RS, check online for "Largest city in Israel" and see what you receive. Sources generally describe Tel Aviv as the second most popoulous city in Israel. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on synthesized calculations, or personal opinions of editors. So its either we describe Jerusalem as the largest - as the majority of RS do, or we don't say anthing about that at all, as the article generally did for at least the last couple of years. ABHammad (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not in Israel, West Jerusalem is. And Tel Aviv is larger than West Jerusalem, these are just facts. Describing said facts as "misinformation" is tendentious. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Tendetious is pushing a POV when obviously there is no consensus and no sources have been shown to support the claim. ONUS and on. I'll be waiting, once again, for your self-revert to show you are ready to engage in good faith discussions instead of forcing others to accept a challenged version. ABHammad (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how stating a fact (provably true) is POV pushing? It is describing facts as misinformation that is POV pushing. Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Describing facts as a POV seems like the kind of thing that reduces the chance of a good faith discussion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how international law is "personal opinions of editors". This has been discussed multiple times already, the geographic scope of this article is 1948 Israel. East Jerusalem is part of the occupied West Bank, Israel's annexation of it doesn't change that fact. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So now we have another revert, right out of left field. Selfstudier (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@2018rebel: Why haven't you provided an edit summary for the revert, or at the very minimum participated in this discussion? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

In 2020, there were 220,200 Israeli citizens in East Jerusalem, while there were 349,700 Israeli citizens in West Jerusalem. Together, they total 569,900 Israelis within the municipal borders of Jerusalem, making it de facto the most populous municipality in Israel even if we exclude Palestinians from East Jerusalem. Tel Aviv is only the largest city in Israel if we consider its metropolitan area. Different sources may claim that Jerusalem or Tel Aviv are the largest cities depending on the criteria used, whether municipal or metropolitan area. The claim that Tel Aviv is the largest city in Israel is not consistent with other Wikipedia articles and the rest of this article: the infobox and the 'Demographics' section place Jerusalem as the largest city. See also here and here, perhaps relevant for the discussion. Mawer10 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Anywhere that WP specifies or implies that Jerusalem is a part of Israel is POV. We had two major RFCs on the matter at the Jerusalem article already. I don't really care how it is dealt with in this article as long as this principle is maintained. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What definition of the word 'in' is being used here precisely? The State of Israel is a closed spatial object with an inside and an outside. This fact should help resolve matters. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Jerusalem is in Israel both de facto and de jure (under Israeli law, of course). Annexed or disputed territories often are treated differently in articles; for example, in the article about Russia the population of Crimea appears in Russia's population data with a note making it clear. Mawer10 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The two RFCs at Jerusalem say otherwise. Jerusalem is not in Israel on WP, Israeli law is irrelevant and so is nonsense about municipalities, flags and all the rest. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also irrelevant. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not state that something is the case when it is not the case. For Wikipedia, it is not the case that locations across the green line are in Israel. This is the approach Wikipedia takes with respect to Israel given the constraints imposed by the WP:NPOV policy and after many discussions. And the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct is a useful guide here as it explicitly prohibits "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For reference, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem and Talk:Jerusalem/Archive_28#Should the infobox contain this flag and emblem? Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Adapting the meaning of 'in' for Jerusalem has unintended consequences. It becomes possible to ask a question like 'What is the largest Israeli settlement in Israel?' and expect Wikipedia to provide an answer. But this is not a question Wikipedia can answer. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I know all this, I've read it. But Jerusalem is still de facto in Israel, despite the de jure non-recognition. The city is mentioned explicitly or implicitly in several sources as being in Israel and appears on several maps as being in Israel, such as the second map in the infobox. International law does not change the reality on the ground, only military actions or agreements between two or more countries do. The city's status in Israeli law is also important; if Israel did not claim any part of Jerusalem, this city would not need to be mentioned anywhere in this article. I am not suggesting changing the article to explicitly say that Jerusalem is in or is part of Israel, I'm just saying that we can't ignore the de facto reality completely. Anyway, it is inconsistent with this and other Wikipedia articles to say that Tel Aviv is the largest city in Israel, not even the article about Tel Aviv does this. Without specifying the criteria used is also misleading; a more precise statement would be "Tel Aviv is the country's largest metropolitan area and its economic and technological center." Mawer10 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The city is mentioned explicitly or implicitly in several sources as being in Israel and appears on several maps as being in Israel, such as the second map in the infobox WP:WSAW Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

A simple true factual statement like 'X is the most populous city in Y' should be possible because there is, as a matter of fact, a most populous city in Y. Is a statement like 'Tel Aviv is the most populous city in Israel' a true statement? Is it a misleading statement? It could be improved by including the fact that Israel counts things in a different way, but it should still be possible to make a statement like 'X is the most populous city in Y' where all of the words have their normal meaning. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

1) "Airports at Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Eilat, Rosh Pinna, and Haifa serve the country’s domestic air traffic."

2) "The major urban centres inhabited by Arabs include cities and towns with both Arab and Jewish populations — such as Jerusalem, Haifa, ʿAkko, Lod, Ramla, and Yafo"

The excerpts above are from the article about Israel in the Encyclopedia Britannica, this source suggests/implies that Jerusalem is in or is part of Israel even without explicitly saying so. This also occurs here on Wikipedia. It's not because the sources are wrong, it's because there is a factual reality on the ground that cannot always be ignored. This my point. So if we are going to state in this article that Tel Aviv is the largest city, I strongly believe that it is necessary to specify that the metric used is the metropolitan area. Mawer10 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not personally bothered about that edit, I only reverted it because the previous editor falsely said it was misinformation. The whole idea of a "factual reality" was argued again and again in those RFCs, and quite correctly ignored. Same would apply to "boots on the ground" arguments. To take one of your prior comments, Israeli fiction can be put in a note somewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I assume the most viable solutions will be ones that avoid possessives and the word 'in' using wiki-voice. Jerusalem is not Israel's city and it can't be treated as if it is in Israel just like Israeli settlements across the green line within what Israel defines as Jerusalem can't be treated as if they are in Israel. We treat them as being in the Israeli occupied territories because of the constraints imposed by policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

So the current version of 'recognition of Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited internationally', makes sense. O.maximov (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

And per Mawer's argument, Jerusalem is still the largest city. Good explanation Mawer. In all cases, Jerusalem is still the largest per population. O.maximov (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not the largest city. There are many cities larger than Jerusalem around the world. So, there is incomplete information. How would you phrase what you mean precisely in a way that is consistent with WP:NPOV? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding Romanizations

I recommend adding romanizations directly under the names of Israel in Hebrew and Arabic respectively. https://www.alittlehebrew.com/transliterate/ This site can help.

Using it and Google translate for romanizing Arabic, we’d get:

Hebrew: Medinat Yisra'el

Arabic: Dawlat 'Iisrayiyl Intichkanmi7378 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Already done I see romanizations in the footnote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

POV tag

@האופה: By what right was my POV tag removed without consideration of the conditions outlined by WP? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: pinging one more time. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you've got to put reasons and problems on the talk page, otherwise it's WP:Drive-by tagging Kowal2701 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I have already explained my reasoning in the edit summary as mandated by WP:DRIVEBY, so this is not true, and the lack of engagement in the talk page is all the more worrying. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't need my opinion but I suggest just WP:Be bold, people will iterate on it and maybe be more incentivised to join discussion Kowal2701 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024

Mynameisjules12 (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

because something has been written historically wrong on this page. Judah is older than palestine. it was never historically called palestine only within Arab communities.

please replace the saying historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land to historically known as Canaan, Kingdom of Judah (which was founded in 930BC) and the Holy Land, within Arab communities and Islam it is a known as Palestine. :)

 Not done:It's pretty indisputable that it has, rightly or wrongly, been known as Palestine by more than just the Arab communities and Islam; particularly without giving a date range for "historically..." we cannot make this assertion. Please see, e.g. Palestine (region) which provides several examples that contradict your statement. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of the name Palestine Kowal2701 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to edit antisemitic tone in Lead

Why are there 2 statements in a row that state Israel has lots of money in the lead?

Stop. Breathe. Exhale.

I think it would add to the utility of this article for interested editors to really stop and think (remember to breathe and exhale) about why there are 2 redundant statements in a row dealing with Israel and money in the lead of this highly scrutinized article.

“Israel has one of the biggest economies in the Middle East; it is one of the richest in the Middle East and Asia”

Firstly, “one of the biggest” is misleading. Turkey and Saudi Arabia have the biggest GDPs in the Middle East. Israel’s is half of theirs. Generally, if something if half the size of the biggest in a set, one would not define that half-sized thing as being “one of the biggest”.

The next statement is the bigger problem. The sources define “richest” as GDP per capita. It’s not encyclopedic to claim that Israel is “richer” than China or India just because Israel has a much smaller population. It is true that GDP per Capita is a good measure for standard of living, but that information is already in the lead: ”It has one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East”. That part could be edited to say: ”It has one of the highest standards of living in Asia”

In the interest of keeping antisemitism out of this article, please remove “it is one of the richest in the Middle East and Asia”. The statement is bigoted, inflammatory, redundant, and not supported by facts. 2601:80:8600:EFA0:D192:E372:9BD5:2E6F (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Done, are there any other problems you see? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

GDP is not a good measure of the standard of living but of the value produced by an average resident. Discretionary income better reflects the standard of living. In this context, we should use precise language: Israel's GDP per capita is among the highest in the region. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Israel is the third largest economy in the Middle East and among the highest places in the Middle East and Asia according to GDP per capita, it is true that GDP or not is a perfect index but today it is the main index by which a country's economy can be measured, also according to other indices such as wealth per adult number of millionaires per capita average wealth of a family Israel is in the highest place in the Middle East and among the top 10% countries in the world, so the sentence expresses it accurately. Qplb191 (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Also I don’t understand what is antisemitic in that, in other countries lead it is also mentioned that they are advanced/rich/ developed. Qplb191 (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Asian countries by GDP (PPP) per capita 9th and 30th is among the highest places? Moxy🍁 17:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Because we're not supposed to link Jews and money I guess. Unlike our sources[9][10][11]. Go figure. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

Nakba

Why is the nakba doesn’t mentioned in its name on the lead? It is very important Add that 5.28.182.23 (talk) 18:07, 15 July 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. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to understand why the Nakba is not mentioned 5.28.181.170 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Because someone took it out. There is an ongoing discussion about this at #RFC: How should the Nakba described?. Levivich (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Because it's not politically neutral, it's a term invented by pro-Palestinians and is politically charged. Other expulsions such as Expulsions of Germans from Poland 1945-1949 and [Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia] 1945-1950 are neither mentioned in their countries' histories, nor do they have some kind of politically charged name implying right to ownership of the land they were expulsed from.