Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
{{Banner holder|text=Readerships and mentions|collapsed=yes|
{{Banner holder|text=Readerships and mentions|collapsed=yes|
{{All time pageviews|74}}
{{All time pageviews|74}}
Line 60:
Line 60:
{{section sizes}}
{{section sizes}}
}}
}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 105
|counter = 109
|algo = old(45d)
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Israel/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Israel/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=Talk:Israel/Archive index |mask1=Talk:Israel/Archive <#> |mask2=Talk:Israel/Israel and the Occupied Territories-<#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=Talk:Israel/Archive index |mask1=Talk:Israel/Archive <#> |mask2=Talk:Israel/Israel and the Occupied Territories-<#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}
__TOC__
== Edit request: Change Israels capital to Tel Aviv in infobox ==
Tel Aviv is recognized as Israels capital by the international community.<ref>https://press.un.org/en/2017/sc13111.doc.htm</ref>
<!-- ] 23:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1735340468}}
{{closed rfc top|result=The result of was: '''no consensus.'''
Should the article ] be linked from this article, and if yes, where?
:Possible answers:
*'''No,''' it should not be linked
*'''Yes,''' it should be linked in the lead.
*'''Yes,''' it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph)
cheers, ] (]) 22:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The main relevant policy is ], 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."
===Polling (RfC)===
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 ]" 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.
{{notavote}}
*'''Yes,''' it should be linked in the lead and the body of the article, attached to content similar to that {{u|Selfstudier}} developed above, and content similar to that {{u|Huldra}} developed in {{oldid2|1258656766}} would serve well in the lede. It's obviously something readers are going to be coming to this page to learn more about, and the information exists on the encyclopedia, the conversations about whether it belongs here or not have laready been had, so there's no reason this page should not serve reader needs. — ] 🚀 <sup>(] • ])</sup> 21:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes,''' adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph + add a single sentence to the end of lead , ] (]) 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't understand why it would be necessary to add it as a completely separate paragraph (if we were to add it) instead of just putting at the end of the third paragraph, which is far more related, and less abrupt. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes,''' {{TQ|adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph}} and add a single sentence to the <s>end of</s> lead per Huldra, but I would modify their suggested text ''("In 2024, Israel was accused of committing the ])"'' to ''"In 2024, Israel was accused of committing ]"'' or similar. My logic for the change is that the accusation/dispute centres on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide ''(or are legitimate self-defence/similar)'', rather than whether the 'Gaza genocide' is being committed by Israel ''(as opposed to some other State or body)'' which Huldra's text otherwise implies.] (]) 07:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', I agree with the inclusion in the lead. ] (]) 16:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' to Selfstudier's suggestion in the body per the weight of reliable sources given (I'll leave to others to determine where), with a summary in the lead. Only suggestion is to add the arrest warrants on. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' it should be included in the lede and in the body text.--] (]) 14:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' similarly to how self has suggested ] (]) 00:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' Not until a new article about Palestine's genocide against Israel is linked to the Palestine article.<ref name="b920">{{cite web | title=Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I issues warrant of arrest for Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri (Deif) | website=International Criminal Court | date=2024-11-21 | url=https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-warrant-arrest-mohammed-diab-ibrahim | access-date=2024-11-26}}</ref>] (]) 01:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*:See ] and then perhaps think about making a policy based argument or your !vote will likely be ignored by whoever closes this RFC. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' Given that there is no actual genocide. Very much not. ] (]) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' The article "Gaza genocide" presents claims that lack broad consensus within the international community and are subject to significant dispute. Linking to such an article may mislead readers into perceiving these claims as established facts rather than contested allegations, thereby compromising the integrity of the host article. ] (]) 20:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' per MaskedSinger, Allthemilescombined1 and Eladkarmel; feels like including this would unduly shoehorn something in that doesn't belong in the general overview article. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Not in the lede'''. It should be made clear that these are accusations and many sources do not agree with this characterisation. Note that many country articles don't mention genocides in the lede even when there is a consensus that it happened (], ], ] (]), ], etc). ]<sub>]</sub> 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::] just a question: when you say "nor in the lead; does that mean you think it should be in the body? If so, which paragraph? ] (]) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. There's a relevant section where it can be mentioned: ]. Right now, this article doesn't mention two important things: That the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a fugitive wanted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, and that Israel is being charged with genocide by South Africa in the International Court of Justice. I think there can be a new subsection in the "Israeli occupied territories" section, that mentions both facts. I see ] has given a sample text. I support that paragraph being added to the relevant section, but I think a mention of the ICC's arrest warrant of the Prime Minister of Israel (and Yoav Gallant's warrant too) could also be added, since it's also international litigation for crimes against humanity in Gaza. Mohammed Deif's arrest warrant doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. I think we can have a new subsection titled "Gaza Strip" that moves text that already exists in the section. So in addition to ]'s text, I would add the first sentence of the ] to the end of it, and make it look like ] (A link to a sandbox page that would show what the article would look like).--] (]) 05:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:As far as adding it to the lead, the already existing sentence in the lead, "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." seems to be a good enough summary, but I guess I would modify it to "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations, the International Criminal Court, and United Nations officials." The ICC is technically not a UN body, so it should be mentioned separately. But other than that, I think such a sentence would be fine. I'm open to suggestions on this though. ] (]) 05:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
<s>*'''No'''. The genocide allegation appears to be, at the moment, primarily a tool of propaganda. Unless substantial new evidence emerges, analyzed by impartial, non-politicized sources and supported by more than two vague statements and casualty figures (which include a significant number of Hamas militants but the Hamas-run Health Ministry prefers not to differentiate militants from civilians), such claims lack the rigor required for inclusion in serious, encyclopedic coverage. ] (]) 06:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)</s><small>Blocked sock ] (]) 11:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
*:"The genocide allegation appears to be, at the moment, primarily a tool of propaganda." This is simply not true. See: ]. ] (]) 07:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. This article is about the State of Israel. Not news. Should the articles about the ], the ], ], and many others feature the various ''proven'' genocides that actually took place, or even in the lead? Might as well say "also known as the Z.E.", in the lead or anywhere, with some extra brackets for good measure? This is a matter of an ongoing armed conflict, with fog of war and disinformation throughout. Not only would it be "commenting on an ongoing investigation" as they say, but entirely inappropriate and irresponsible. ] (]) 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Per ], required {{tq|mention of significant criticism or controversies}}, clearly true and which several of the No !votes have acknowledged as being the case. A mention should be added via inclusion within the sentence "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes <s>and</s> crimes against humanity ] ] against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." ] (]) 12:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Not in the lede''' - a good chunk of the lede is already criticism, so adding additional accusations would seem like POV shoehorning. Not necessarily against inclusion in the body, but there isn't a specific proposal to comment on. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 23:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::] there is a question about whether it should be in the body. ("Yes, it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph") So, if you agree: which paragraph? ] (]) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Re|Huldra}} Relevant material is currently in the body, unless it is reverted. The original dispute was about a sentence being added to the lead not material being added to the body, something which is not usually a source of dispute unless the amount of such material is undue. Option 2 already assumes material present in the body, no?. And option 1 just says no, so the third option is not really necessary. ] (]) 10:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{Re|Selfstudier}} When I started this RfC on the 22 nov, it wasn't in the body (that was first added the 27th) so the the third option is useful (necessary?) for keeping it there, ] (]) 23:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I just think the two things should not be mixed up, this RFC should not attempt to rubber stamp the addition that I made to the body, that should just be subject to the normal editing process. Imagine that I had not added it and people voted option 2? Then there would have had to have been another discussion about what should be in the body, so yes I have attempted to remedy a deficiency in the way the RFC was drafted and hopefully it meets with approval. ] (]) 23:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes in the body and the lede''': There are prominent RS (UN Special Committee, Israeli holocaust scholar ] to cite two examples) supporting the charachterization that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza, so there is no reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the body. Accordingly, lede summarizes the body, so it should include that, given that it is one of the most prominent controversies Israel is facing second to the crime of apartheid in the West Bank (I am in favor of including both in the lede), though admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed, that's why for now it can be described as an accusation. The perfect short phrasing in my opinion for the lede can be: {{cquote|Israel's practices in the occupied territories has drawn sustained international criticism for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including for maintaining an apartheid regime in the West Bank, as well as being accused of committing a genocide in Gaza.}} ] (]) 07:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:Update to my "admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed," that is beginning to change as Amnesty International launched a report today . While this does not yet mean the threshold has been reached, but it gives a whole new significance to the inclusion of the "accusation" to the lede. ] (]) 12:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes, both in the lead and body''': Per sources and my understanding of ]. Some of these policies and guidelines are:
::1) ]. ] sources can be used to assess ]. My understanding is that once DUEness is established, Misplaced Pages articles can be kept up to date. This is actually a strength of Misplaced Pages. For example, no one would argue mentioning something about the economy in this article is ]. ] and overview ] sources about Israel would include something about the economy. It could be too much or too little, but something about the economy would be DUE in this article. However, economic stats in this article would probably be much more up to date than many published overview ] sources about Israel such as .
::Similarly, ] sources mention Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict at length. As such, Gaza genocide would be DUE. If in several years, newly published ] sources do not mention this, it can be taken out of the lead. If in several years, both newly published ] and overview ] sources about Israel do not mention this, it can also be taken out of the body. But for now, to keep the article up to date, this is DUE. ('''Update: quote from intro chapter in overview secondary source provided below''' ] (]) 19:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC))
::Sources are below, I cannot give lengthy quotes due to word count restrictions in ]
{{Collapse top|Coverage of Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict in ] sources:}}
::*Britannica mentions these issues in the lead, although it's more brief than here
::*, Israel entry (accessible through Misplaced Pages library). Partial quote from the lead:
::{{tq2|...That conflict, which became known as the Arab-Israeli conflict, has heavily influenced Israel's development, as security issues have dominated Israeli politics and society since 1948...}}
::*, Israel entry (accessible through Misplaced Pages library). There's nothing similar to the Misplaced Pages lead. The "lead" in encyclopedia entry is just few sentences about geography. But the history section mentions these issues.
::* Israel entry (accessible through Misplaced Pages library). There's no history section, but large coverage, especially under Contemporary politics section.
{{Collapse bottom}}
::More tertiary sources can be found using Google Books, Google Scholar, or the (for example: )
::{{small|wording suggestion removed}}
::The above wording makes the lead neutral as only the accusation is added in Wikivoice. Similarly, the text in the body should be NPOV.
::2) ]. Lots of ]. See ]. There are already ] sources about this such as by ]. This source also ties Gaza genocide with Israeli-Palestinian conflict: {{tq|In this urgent, insightful essay, a respected historian places the Israeli-Palestinian war in context, challenging Western attitudes about the region}}
::3) ]. The above proposal would trim the lead word count by something like 26 words. It'd still be more than 400 words, but even many featured articles are longer than 400 words. ] (]) 17:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::You linked to four tertiary sources, but I don't see the word "genocide" in any of them? (Britannica links to recent news about it, but that seems temporary.) Maybe this is a sign that our lede's focus should somehow be different, but in terms of accusations of genocide, if anything it seems like a sign that we should omit them.
::I don't think there's any dispute that something like {{tq|accusations that it has committed genocide}} would pass ], but that isn't really an argument for highlighting material in a lede. That comes down mainly to ] and to ], which tell us to {{tq|briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article}}. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 01:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I gave my reasoning for this.
:::This is a recent and ongoing event. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, published in 2008, would not have mentioned 2024 events. It's a reliable source, but they are not clairvoyant.
:::My DUE argument was due to heavy coverage of Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict in Israel entries in tertiary sources.
:::If sources published in the next few years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, it can be taken out of the body or the lead.
:::But for now, we can keep the article up to date. I believe this is the precedent in Misplaced Pages. Otherwise Misplaced Pages would be several years or longer behind everything if we had to wait for overview ] or ] sources for everything. Once those type of sources covering recent events are available however, those sources would determine how we proceed. ] (]) 11:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', it should be linked in the lead, at the end of the third paragraph where it discusses war crimes and crimes against humanity. This text has been through various iterations, but would benefit from greater precision by means of specificity. A great many countries have been accused of war crimes, making that a rather generic, not outstanding observation. While it is probably more notable that Israel has been accused of a particularly voluminous number of different war crimes in the post-WWII period, sitting above that are the very specific crimes against humanity in which it has been implicated –namely apartheid and genocide. Now apartheid has already been through the RFC process and denied a mention (based on rationales that grow poorer by the day) but to the question here, yes, it is extremely pertinent to mention the particularly nation-defining crime against humanity of genocide – the so-called crime of crimes. ] (]) 18:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' it is notable enough for an article, therefore should be linked. ] (]) 23:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Yes, but not in the lead.''' There's some discussion of genocide in the 21st century section of the article and this link could be put there, but it's not clear why this should be added to the lead. I am '''strongly opposed''' to adding it to the lead and most of the arguments for inclusion into the lead can be discounted on ]/]/] grounds. ] (]) 22:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes for the body, no for the lead''' It is certainly notable enough to mention in a relevant part of the article, but I think it is too recent to mention in the lead, since we cannot assess long-term historical importance yet. ] (]) 15:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|QuicoleJR}}, can you point to the relevant ] for your argument? ] (]) 15:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The bar for something being included in the lead is pretty high, much higher than inclusion in the body. According to ], emphasis on material, such as the Gaza genocide, should reflect its relative importance to the topic as described by reliable sources. I think the current state of the lead is fine, although I would also be fine with adding a sentence or two about how Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal. I don't think the Gaza genocide by itself has enough weight to warrant inclusion in the lead. ] (]) 15:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Gaza genocide is part of the Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict, which is heavily covered in Israel entries in ] sources. See the sources above. ] (]) 15:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Yes, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly warrants inclusion in the lead. However, is the Gaza genocide ''itself'' heavily covered in those entries? It is the level of coverage for the specific topic that matters, not the level of coverage of the wider subject it is part of. ] (]) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::See the discussion above. ] (]) 15:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::] requires mention of significant criticism or controversies, this fits the bill, it needs no more than a wikilink. ] (]) 16:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::It says summarize the most important points. I am simply contending that this is not one of them. Israel is a sizable country with a lot of history, and I don't believe that this has enough DUE weight in reliable sources about Israel as a whole to warrant including prominently in the lead, although I think it is important enough to mention in the body. ] (]) 16:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::To be clear, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict definitely warrants inclusion in the lead, and we could probably add a sentence about the legality of Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, but I think including the Gaza genocide specifically in the lead would be recentist and UNDUE, especially since the Israel-Hamas war is only covered by "several wars" in the lead. ] (]) 16:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::See the wording suggestion above. This could be added into the lead while trimming the lead. For ], we can look at coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict. If newer tertiary sources in the upcoming years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, Gaza genocide can be taken out. Do we have any tertiary sources published in the past few months?
*::::::::If the only sources were newspaper articles, recentist arguments would succeed. However, we have so many secondary sources on Gaza genocide now. ] (]) 16:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Yes, we have many secondary sources on the Gaza genocide. We also have many secondary sources on a variety of other things, like the 7 October attacks or the ] of Israeli athletes. Those aren't included in the lead either. My question is whether secondary or tertiary sources on the topic of Israel as a whole mention the genocide. If not, it shouldn't be in the lead yet. ] (]) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Assessing DUEness of Munich massacre is easy, since it happened in 1972. Look at tertiary sources. ] (]) 16:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Arguing that we should rush this into the lead because we can't assess long-term importance yet is pure recentism. I'm not saying we can't update the body to add this information, but we should wait on adding it to the lead until the long-term impact is more clear. ] (]) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::That wasn't my argument, I won't respond any further to not ] ] (]) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::It says {{tq|summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies}} I can assure you this is a prominent controversy. Well, unless you can convince me it isn't. ] (]) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::It is a decently prominent controversy, but the State of Israel has had a ''lot'' of prominent controversies in its short history, and we can't stuff them all in the lead. I think mentioning that their occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal would cover the most important controversy, being their illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The Gaza genocide is arguably a subtopic of that. For an applicable example from another article, the featured article ] does not mention the atrocities they committed against China in World War II in the lead, even though it was, and still is, a very prominent controversy. Similarly, the lead of ] only gives the Holocaust two words in a sentence about the Nazi government. Similar considerations apply here. ] (]) 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::And this would be exactly one word in the lead, per my suggestion. ] (]) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{od}} {{u|QuicoleJR}}, can you provide recent sources (second half of 2024 for example) that supports your interpretation of Wiki policies? ] (]) 14:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What do you mean by that? ] (]) 14:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Please provide a recent (second half of 2024 for example) tertiary or overview ] source about Israel, and show that these issues are not mentioned. ] (]) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The only one I have been able to find is Brittanica, which has been updated recently and makes no mention of the genocide. Very few overview sources have been published in that timeframe, and you are asking me to prove a negative. ] (]) 14:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The ONUS is on you to prove that they ''are'' covered in such sources. ] (]) 14:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::And I did provide recent sources below.
::::::Britannica's updates seem superficial. They have in history section, but it seems to stop at a certain point. ] (]) 14:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Only in the body''' while it’s a non-insignificant criticism, it’s not sufficiently significant to be included in the lead. Both based on the uncertain status and the recency of the accusation, the lead should instead continue referring to other, certain misconduct, per the relevant policies cited above, instead of referring to a disputed interpretation of some of the very recent actions. ] (]) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|FortunateSons}}, can you please specify "the relevant policies"? ] (]) 16:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*::], ], ], ] would probably be the most relevant ones ] (]) 08:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{u|FortunateSons}}, thank you for clarification. Note that ] and ] are not '''policies''', they are '''explanatory essays'''. You can get more information in ].
*:::For interpretation of ] and ], we disagree, but this has been discussed above, so I'm not going to get into it again. ] (]) 14:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Of course, but they are broadly accepted as a concretisation of policy; nevertheless, thank you for the reminder. ] (]) 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{od}} {{u|FortunateSons}}, can you provide recent sources (second half of 2024 for example) that supports your interpretation of Wiki policies? ] (]) 14:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What do you imagine this source to be? There are news reports that don't mention genocide, but that not what you mean? ] (]) 14:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Something like or an encyclopedia, but published on second half of 2024. ] (]) 14:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I would defer to the cited Britannica here; more importantly, the fact that we’re discussing less than a handful of sources and a timeframe of 6 Months (or a year) is a strong indication that this is in fact recency bias. ] (]) 15:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{u|FortunateSons}}, Britannica doesn't seem that updated. See above. ] (]) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Which seems like a strong indication that there has not been sufficient change to justify us updating either. ] (]) 22:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That seems like an ] explanation. We do not know when Britannica updates their articles. It could be once in every 5 years for example. ] (]) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::: it’s possible, but that doesn’t seem to align with this. ] (]) 09:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I actually found the information
::::::::::But for Israel, history seems to stop before ]: ] (]) 10:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::With this entry also not supporting your position, right? ] (]) 10:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::What do you mean? It shows that Israel entry wasn't really updated. Arab-Israeli wars entry was updated. ] (]) 11:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Leave it to closer to decide relative merits, which won't really depend on whether Britannica is updated or not. ] (]) 11:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::None have been published to my knowledge, and it is on you to prove that they do exist. ] (]) 17:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Plenty of sourcing, obviously relevant and controversial enough to outweigh proforma objections. ] (]) 17:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Not in the lead''' per ]. Would prefer to wait until a court conviction or acquittal has been made to decide. ] (]) 04:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The ] is not recent only the ] is and that is still a significant controversy, regardless. ] (]) 17:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Since 1955, the population of Palestine has steadily increased. The life expectancy has increased, the infant mortality and child death rate has decreased. So I don’t understand how Israel has been genociding the Palestinians if all these numbers are improving for them. ] (]) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Reminder of ] and ]. ] (]) 00:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Here is a source so it is not OR or NOTAFORUM. The source is a Jewish advocacy group. ] (]) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::That isn’t a reliable source for the topic. ''']''' - 02:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Without even getting into if the advocacy group source you provided is a reliable source, for accusation of genocide, we would use ] sources such as , so the source you provided does not invalidate those, per ]. ] (]) 14:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' should be linked in lead per Iskandar323's reasoning. ] (]) 23:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment, newer sources'''
:*Overview ] source: . From the '''introduction''' chapter:
::{{tq2|In this context we should not overlook the latest turning point in the history of Palestine – the attack by Hamas on 7th October 2023 on Israeli settlements adjacent to Gaza and the subsequent genocidal war that the state of Israel has carried out in the Gaza strip}}
::'''Although the title says Palestine, it covers Israel too. See the definition on page 3''' in
:*. Although this is an entry about geopolitics, and not an entry about Israel as a country, the prominence of ] is notable. Genocide accusations are also mentioned.
::Given no recent (second half of 2024 for example) overview secondary or tertiary sources about Israel have been provided in this RfC, and given the lengthy coverage of Arab-Israel conflict in older tertiary sources about Israel, and given the above sources, I now think that '''three things are due both in the lead and in the body:'''
::{{Ordered list
|]
|Most recent ]
|]}}
:: ] (]) 14:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::The lack of recent overviews (I don't think many have been published) does not mean that we should include these things in the lead. I support adding the Israel-Hamas war, I think the other two would be both be giving UNDUE weight to recent events. ] (]) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The lack of recent overviews means we have to use what we have (above), while keeping in mind the heavy coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict in older sources. I just pinged you to ask for newer sources though, no need to discuss what we already discussed above. ] (]) 14:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', the available sourcing here and on the related article indicates that it's a major part of the coverage and history of Israel. The arguments against inclusion don't make any sense, either; whether individual editors ''agree'' with it, or whether it's disputed, are reasons to be cautious about the precise wording for how we cover it, but they're not what we use to determine if we cover it at all - that question comes down to how broad and high-quality the sourcing is and how significant they treat it as. And the extensive academic sourcing clearly justifies treating it as a high-profile aspect of the topic worth discussing prominently here. A lead is supposed to contain {{tq|mention of significant criticism or controversies}}; we don't exclude high-profile stuff just because it's controversial. The sourcing disputing it above doesn't help; while it's not terribly high-quality, I'm sure higher-quality sourcing for that perspective exists... but it's written from the perspective of "this is an important and central argument over Israel", ie. a controversy worth covering even if they have a clear perspective on it. The sort of coverage that would be necessary to exclude it isn't just academics who disagree, but sourcing that establishes that it is broadly ''fringe'', which doesn't seem to be the case. --] (]) 15:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' in body (end of 21st century para) and lead per Selfstudier and Iskandar323, as well as ] - while I've seen several comments ''opposing'' the change on 10YT grounds, I actually think that as increasing amounts of information - backed by RS, of course - comes out on this topic, it will look increasingly strange in 10 years time for us to ''not'' have included this. Regardless of how one personally feels about the matter, this is a significant charge to be levied against a state, and it will be significantly more confusing to omit or downplay this information than to just include it. ] (]) 19:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*The lead's so fucked up it might as well be included, and it obviously should be included in the body. ] (]) 23:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Discussion (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, ] (]) 12:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)}}
:This doesn’t seem that actionable an RfC, or that productive a question. The content of the article is what is discussed, and links serve as navigational aids for delving into the content. Considering a link alone in the aether rather misses its purpose. ] (]) 09:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::Seems that there should be first some material in the body related to the wikilink and ]. {{Re|Huldra}} Suggest you pull the RFC tag on this for now until some material can be put together for the article body. ] (]) 11:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Something like this perhaps
:::] is accused of carrying out a ] against the ] by experts, governments, ] agencies, and ]s during ] of the ] in the ongoing ].<ref name="ohchr">{{cite web |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=16 November 2023 |title=Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people |url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231224050530/https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against |archive-date=24 December 2023 |access-date=22 December 2023 |website=] |quote=Grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians in the aftermath of 7 October, particularly in Gaza, point to a genocide in the making, UN experts said today. They illustrated evidence of increasing genocidal incitement, overt intent to "destroy the Palestinian people under occupation", loud calls for a 'second Nakba' in Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the use of powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts, resulting in a colossal death toll and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure.}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last=Burga |first=Solcyré |date=13 November 2023 |title=Is What's Happening in Gaza a Genocide? Experts Weigh In |url=https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts |magazine=] |access-date=24 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231125022352/https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/ |archive-date=25 November 2023}}; {{cite news |last=Corder |first=Mike |date=2 January 2024 |title=South Africa's genocide case against Israel sets up a high-stakes legal battle at the UN's top court |url=https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/south-africas-genocide-case-israel-sets-high-stakes-106055104 |access-date=3 January 2024 |work=] |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240107013809/https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/south-africas-genocide-case-israel-sets-high-stakes-106055104 |archive-date=7 January 2024}};{{Cite web |last=Quigley |first=John |date=3 July 2024 |title=The Lancet and Genocide By "Slow Death" in Gaza |url=https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-lancet-and-genocide-by-slow-death-in-gaza/ |access-date=13 July 2024 |website=Arab Center Washington DC |language=en-US |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713161805/https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-lancet-and-genocide-by-slow-death-in-gaza/ |archive-date=13 July 2024}}</ref> Observers, including the ] and ] ],<ref name="Albanese_anatomy_of_a_genocide">{{cite Q|Q125152282|url-status=live}}</ref> have cited statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an "]" (in whole or in part) Gaza's population, a necessary condition for the legal threshold of genocide to be met.<ref name="ohchr"/><ref>{{harvnb|Burga|2023}}; {{cite journal |last=Soni |first=S. |date=December 2023 |title=Gaza and international law: The global obligation to protect life and health |journal=South African Journal of Bioethics and Law |volume=16 |number=3 |pages=80–81 |doi=10.7196/SAJBL.2023.v16i3.1764 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="StateCrime">{{cite web |publisher=] |title=International Expert Statement on Israeli State Crime |website=statecrime.org |url=http://statecrime.org/international-expert-statement-on-israeli-state-crime |access-date=4 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106140101/http://statecrime.org/international-expert-statement-on-israeli-state-crime |archive-date=6 January 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref> A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".<ref name="Brookings">{{cite web |url=https://www.brookings.edu/articles/gloom-about-the-day-after-the-gaza-war-pervasive-among-mideast-scholars/ |title=Gloom about the 'day after' the Gaza war pervasive among Mideast scholars |last1=Lynch |first1=Marc |last2=Telhami |first2=Shibley |date=20 June 2024 |publisher=] |access-date=29 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240626215734/https://www.brookings.edu/articles/gloom-about-the-day-after-the-gaza-war-pervasive-among-mideast-scholars/ |archive-date=26 June 2024}}</ref> On 29 December 2023, South Africa instituted ] at the ] pursuant to the ],<ref name=":6">{{Cite news|date=December 29, 2023|title=South Africa launches case at top UN court accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza|url=https://apnews.com/article/south-africa-israel-un-court-palestinians-genocide-ffe672c4eb3e14a30128542eaa537b21|access-date=January 5, 2024|work=]|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240102144544/https://apnews.com/article/south-africa-israel-un-court-palestinians-genocide-ffe672c4eb3e14a30128542eaa537b21|archive-date=January 2, 2024|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Rabin|first1=Roni Caryn|last2=Yazbek|first2=Hiba|last3=Fuller|first3=Thomas|date=2024-01-11|title=Israel Faces Accusation of Genocide as South Africa Brings Case to U.N. Court|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/world/middleeast/genocide-case-israel-south-africa.html|access-date=2024-01-13|work=The New York Times|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=13 January 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240113053852/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/world/middleeast/genocide-case-israel-south-africa.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="ICJ_SA_proceedings_vs_IL_29Dec2023">{{Cite web|date=December 29, 2023|title=Proceedings instituted by South Africa against the State of Israel on 29 December 2023|url=https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf|access-date=January 5, 2024|website=]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105144115/https://www.icj-cij.org/index.php/node/203394|archive-date=January 5, 2024}} </ref><ref>{{Cite press release|date=December 29, 2023|title=South Africa institutes proceedings against Israel and requests the International Court of Justice to indicate provisional measures|issue=2023/77|url=https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icj-southafrica-israel-genocide-29dec2023/|location=The Hague, Netherlands|publisher=]|agency=]|access-date=January 5, 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240105144230/https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icj-southafrica-israel-genocide-29dec2023/|archive-date=January 5, 2024|url-status=live}}</ref>
:::This is just wrt the genocide issue, need something about the arrest warrants as well. ] (]) 15:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::It doesn't seem very neutral to cover statements from sources like Albanese without also covering accusations of bias on their part. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 23:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It doesn’t make sense to cover things that aren’t relevant to the topic, like accusations of bias instead of addressing the substance of the statement. ''']''' - 00:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::If we don't want to get into such accusations of bias then we shouldn't be using sources like Albanese in the first place. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That makes no sense to me. We dont include accusations of bias against the Times of Israel anytime we use them as a source, or the NYTimes, or Benny Morris, or whatever other reliable sources we cite. The ad hominem of "she's biased" is not relevant to the argument she makes or the qualifications she has to make them. At most, such accusations belong in the biography of Albanese, or Morris, or whatever other article that covers the sources themselves, not whenever they are cited. ''']''' - 17:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That's not at all comparable. NYT and Morris are occasionally criticized by both sides for various perceived biases. Accusations of bias against Albanese are far more significant, e.g. with officials from several different governments openly calling her antisemitic or unfit for her role. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::They are directly comparable, and governments arent reliable sources for anything other than the views of the politicians heading those governments. It is a basic ad hominem, and it has nothing to do with the actual content of her comments. ''']''' - 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::It doesn't really make sense to call this an ad hominem, when source selection inherently involves evaluating sources rather than the content of their statements. Surely the ] here would be uninvolved ones with some semblance of objectivity.
::::::::::Covering Albanese's claim here is like covering 's claim that there isn't a genocide. Clearly neither is among the BESTSOURCES, and neither claim is noteworthy enough that it would need to be covered anyway. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Biden is a politician speaking as a politician. Albanese is an expert in international law, speaking as an expert in international law. ''']''' - 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I should add that she isn't just speaking as an expert in international law (which she undoubtedly is), but she is speaking as a UN official who is the current ]. To compare her speech with Biden (a non-expert politician who has absolutely no scholarship on the issue and doesn't have an international law background) is ridiculous. ] (]) 18:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Special Rapporteurs are not UN officials, they are independent experts consulted by the UN, and they remain independent. See ] for an overview. ''']''' - 20:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::And Jews and others praising her, no? She must be doing something right. Afaics, she has tended to be ahead of the curve on most matters. ] (]) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
{{talk ref}}
<!-- ] 05:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1720328468}}
Noting the existence of the subsection ] in the body of the article, should the text that has been bolded below be added to the lead of this article? {{tq|Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing ] and crimes against humanity, '''including the ],''' against the Palestinian people by human rights organizations and United Nations officials.}} ''']] (])''' 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
== Tag ==
'''Option A: Include as proposed.'''<br>
{{resolved}}-tag removed !<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
'''Option B: Do not include the bolded text.'''<br>
----
'''Option C: Other.'''<br>
{{Re|Moxy}} Reasons for , please? ] (]) 13:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:Nothing but military info looks like nothing but conflict for 20+ years ...this article is not ]. Need info like ..90s saw first featuring direct election of the prime minister etc. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 13:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::You tag says undue not that the section needs updating, which material is undue? And why? ] (]) 13:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::undue because its nothing but military history....no memtiom of any other history. Sounds like the most unstable country doing nothing but being at war. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 13:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option A''' - the content is relevant to Israel, important enough to draw international coverage and , and reliably sourced. There is an abundance of content, so much so that a whole sub-article, ] was created over it, and it currently has almost 350 references. Given this, the accusation is simply ]. ''']] (])''' 07:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::::History on its own at 5116 words is half an article by itself. A lot is likely undue. ] (]) 13:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
**This accusation is in fact a mainstream academic viewpoint. '']'' surveyed {{tq|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. ''']] (])''' 09:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Agree so much details - over info that can be and is covred in sub articles that can be trimed like :''The Jewish insurgency continued and peaked in July 1947, with a series of widespread guerrilla raids culminating in the Sergeants affair, in which the Irgun took two British sergeants hostage as attempted leverage against the planned execution of three Irgun operatives. After the executions were carried out, the Irgun killed the two British soldiers, hanged their bodies from trees, and left a booby trap at the scene which injured a British soldier. The incident caused widespread outrage in the UK" <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 13:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::The section that has been tagged is ], a short section, the material {{tq|The Jewish insurgency continued and peaked...}} is not even in it, that material is in ] section, which has not been tagged.
::::::So did you mean to tag something else? ] (]) 14:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Moxy explained that subsection above, it is just one of a few with similar issues. ] (]) 16:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::They haven't explained it, the material they quote is not tagged. ] (]) 16:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry I thought I was pretty clear.... the whole section is just about military.... in fact we have two paragraphs for something that's happening in the past year. What we are looking for is substantial historical significant information about the country's social and historic evolution in that time. Best we simply don't regurgitate American news headlines. For example should mention ]... What kind of social human rights progress has there been? In 20 years there must be some sort of legal process that has changed.... democratic decline perhaps? What has happened on the diplomatic front.... like the mass increase in foreign aid? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|the whole section is just about military}} Which section? The only section that you tagged is the 21st Century section. If you meant to put the tag for the entire history section, then do that, I would also agree with that inline with multiple prior discussions asserting that it was way too long. ] (]) 21:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{green|Which section?}} Not interested in some sort of gameplay. Your initial post was about a tag in a section this is the topic of the ongoing conversation..... with mention by another and myself about the excess detail overall in the history section with an example that I gave. You either agree it's excessive or you don't.... best course of action would be to come up with some sort of prose for the section.... and a better summary. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 21:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::OK, you don't want to admit you got this all backwards, fine by me, bfn. ] (]) 23:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::What you have to ask yourself is does your approach to this conversation help improve that article or not. There is clearly a problem all over the history section...but the info in this tagged section is the topic of conversation...do you have any input what can be done to help the section? Then perhaps we can move on to other sections. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 15:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I asked you what the problems were and your response was to quote something else from an untagged section, so if you can answer the original question that would be good. ] (]) 16:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::<s>Best you let someone that is competent deal with the tag</s>. <small>My bad just frustrated that the post has not moved forward in actual improvements. Will address the problem with prose after the content addition dispute is over.</small> <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Couldn't agree more. ] (]) 18:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Was not aware of . Let's deal with the content issue after all the current concers. Last post from me here.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::<s>I don't see what that has to do with the issue you have been describing in this section.</s>. OK, resolved for now. ] (]) 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024 ==
*'''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 {{tq|It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity}}. Adding additional details would be ] - I note we don't even include highly relevant details around the background to the formation of Israel, such as the ]. ] (]) 07:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
*:I’ll add a page link to the holocaust in the lede ] (]) 08:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
*::This has nothing to do with the subject of this RFC. Kindly stay on topic. ] (]) 08:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option A'''{{sbb}} mention of the apartheid accusation, {{TQ|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.] (]) 08:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
**{{re|Pincrete}} the latter, see the lead of ] and ]. ''']] (])''' 08:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
**:Thanks, I had checked on the main ] page, and found no mention of it being considered a crime. ] (]) 08:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
**::That article is principally about the SA case, it's tucked away at the bottom, ] ] (]) 08:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option A''' per nom. We’ve got to be wary of too much detail, however this seems appropriate ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages... ] (]) 09:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::Untrue on the last point. For instance, ]. ] (]) 09:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Unnecessarily inflammatory. ] (]) 09:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::'''{{red|overloaded with every accusation ever made against Israel}}''', {{re|האופה}}? Oh, is ] in the lead of this article? ]? ]? ]? ]? ]? ]? How did we miss all of these accusations in the lead? ''']] (])''' 09:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::I agree that other countries’ pages wrongly lack criticisms, such as ], ], and ] ] (]) 09:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Feel welcome to bring it up there. — ] ] 11:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
{{edit extended-protected|Israel|answered=yes}}
::::I was talking about the lede. There’s no mention of the Uyghurs or that other religious group I can’t remember their name ] (]) 06:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
In 21st century history, please change
{{TextDiff|A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".|A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars who were polled believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".}}
"mostly US-based Middle East scholars" is not an identifiable group, the phrase as written doesn't have a concrete definition. Which Middle East scholars' beliefs are being talked about here? The scholars who were polled are being talking about. Adding language that clarifies the source of these statistics and defines the group in question could make the statistics more useful. Thank you for your consideration. ] (]) 17:00, 1 December 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:From the given citation, added "758" before "mostly" and "polled in 2024 by ]" before "believe" to clarify matters. ] (]) 17:42, 1 December 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 Misplaced Pages policy, I do feel inclusion would be ]. I agree with ] - I think we do already summarise the most serious accusations against Israel in {{tq|It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.}} ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 11:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 7#"Israel"}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
== Lede ==
*'''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: {{tq|According to UN bodies and human rights organisations, Israeli policies towards the Palestinian minority may have at times amounted to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and apartheid}}. — ] ] 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 ] (]) 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 ] 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 ], "transfer", a euphemism for the recognized crime against humanity of ], 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 ]. ] (]) 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. — ] ] 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 ] (]) 12:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
{{ping|Terrainman}} Are these your first edits to articles on WP that relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If so, please familiarize yourself with ] and ] which states that adding contested content requires achieving consensus on the talk page, not reverting. This responsibility is known as onus lying with the inserter of the material. ] (]) 12:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::The US article is not ] ] (]) 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". — ] ] 11:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:Ok, thank-you. The information I added was to improve the context of the paragraph, in a much needed way. From what I can see, nothing contested was added. ] (]) 12:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option B'''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. There is no place for such a suggestion. I agree also with BilledMammal ] (]) 12:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Terrainman}} Your additions to the lede/lead were reverted so the material is by definition is now contested, meaning you will have to gain consensus for them in the talk page, not revert. ] (]) 12:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:"{{tq|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:
:::I understand but your edit reason was to keep the brevity of the lead when my edit was rather brief in my view. It has been further edited by another user to make the additions more concise. ] (]) 13:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:'''<u>Option 1:</u> 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".
::::{{ping|Terrainman}} Your additions still increased the material about the 1948 war from six to eight sentences in the lede. This needs to be trimmed even below six sentences. ] (]) 13:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:'''<u>Option 2:</u> 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.
:::::I understand since that para is already very long, however unfortunately the topic is extremely complicated; hence why it was the longest para in the lead long before my edit. My addition provided essential context in my view, I also received thanks for it and it has been refined since by another editor. In my view if this para is to be made more concise we need to explore other options for that. ] (]) 13:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Whichever way you slice it, it is without a shadow of a doubt a notable accusation. A , , , and {{dash}} I don't know how anyone could claim B'Tselem has an anti-Israel bias. ] (]) 03:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Terrainman}} Receiving thanks is not a measure of consensus, but discussion on the talk page. Your addition still duplicates mention of the UN partition plan in the second and third lede paragraphs, as well as non-summarizing elaborations on the Oslo Accords, which is also a duplicate mention in the third lede paragraph. ] (]) 14:03, 15 December 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. ] (]) 06:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph explains that the partition plan failed, which is crucial context!
*'''Option A''' per Starship.paint. Having said that I find the second sentence unnecessarily wordy. {{tq|It has been accused of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and implementing policies amounting to apartheid}} would do. ] (]) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Regarding Oslo accords, it is not a duplication. The second mention references them in a sentence about progress since then. ] (]) 14:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Furthermore, if we are setting this low a threshold in what is essential to the lead, there are multiple parts of the third paragraph which elaborate to a significant extend, rather than merely state the existence of key historical events which are in-fact needed to provide context for the rest of the paragraph. ] (]) 14:41, 15 December 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." ] (]) 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 referringtoasnotneeded. ] (]) 14:29, 2June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Then all should be trimmed. ] (]) 17:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:Additionally, when you say Lede, do you mean Lead? I just want to be sure I am not missing something here. ] (]) 12:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Lede and Lead are legitimate alternative spellings; both refer to the intro material which, in Misplaced Pages, should summarize the major points of rest of the article. A major issue for many Misplaced Pages articles is putting too much stuff in the lede. ] (]) 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== Minor edit Request ==
:'''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 ]." ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. If it were to be included, it must focus on accusations, not actions, to represent RS coverage. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
*::] 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 ] 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.'' ] (]) 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 ] (]) 15:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{tq|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. — ] ] 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
*::::Which RS coverage would you describe as generally friendlier, Israel or Iran? ] (]) 16:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::::You mean tabloids or expert analyses? — ] ] 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option B''' per ], ], and ]. The current paragraph on the conflict already overburdens the lead as it is. Israeli culture isn't covered at all. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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, . HRW also released a . 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 , including unlawful killings without investigation or arrests, let alone charge. A month past, there was even a . For want of more established material, try one of the many journal pieces written already in 2024 alone on the topic. , 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option A'''. Per starship.paint, Iskandar323, and others. ] (]) 05:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option B'''. ] should summarise the ]. 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. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
*:How about replacing crimes against humanity with accusations of apartheid? ] (]) 09:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
*::Apartheid is not the only crime against humanity that Israel is accused of. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 ]. The discussion here is not whether to amend that (which would require another RFC) but whether to mention the apartheid accusation specifically. ] (]) 11:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Okay, in light of that I’d support
*:::::::“… including apartheid,”
*:::::] (]) 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 ], 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). ] (]) 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. ]<sub>]</sub> 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. ] (]) 22:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
*:@]: 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 Misplaced Pages 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). ] (]) 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. ]<sub>]</sub> 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 ] (]) 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 ] generally discourages the language of accusation is because it implies inaccuracy or uncertainty, which is appropriate {{tq|"when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined"}}, but not elsewhere. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 14:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
*:@]: It is due on two counts per ]: 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 07:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::It isn't rejected by most of the world? The UN represents the global community ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::There are plans to add a culture paragraph to the lede and trim down the history section ] (]) 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. {{tq|"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.}} 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. ] (]) 13:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::"{{tq|Unnecessary politicization of a complex article anyway}}." This isn't a reason to exclude it from the lede. "{{tq|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: . "{{tq|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 ]. ] (]) 22:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option B''' . I share the view that this would be ] and an unnecessary politicization of the article. ] (]) 08:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
*:@]: What exactly about ]? 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. ] (]) 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 ] there. ] (]) 07:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::There's a section on the apartheid accusation in the body ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::] RfCs are not a form of voting, it’s consensus building, and this has been many people’s main concern ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Relevant consensuses can be built adjacently? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Per ], the lead {{tq|includes mention of significant criticism or controversies}}. The apartheid accusation is a significant criticism/controversy, there is not any doubt about this. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The ] is something else, this is about apartheid accusations which go far beyond anything that is Hafrada. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option B''' per above. We do not need to overload the lead with more accusations. ] (]) 05:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
*:There is a wish to add a paragraph on culture and trim down the history part ] (]) 06:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
*::Nothing to do with this RFC. ] (]) 11:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::Addressing people’s concerns has nothing to with the RfC?? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::::But can we not concisely discuss people’s objections and whether there is something addressing them? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 12:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Yep, opening a new section to discuss other matters is indeed to be preferred. ] (]) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option A''' per nom and others. - ] (]) 01:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option B: Do not include the bolded text'''. Comments from ]. {{tq|Issues with the ] and the incessant want or need of some editors to keep the article embroiled in other issues like adding ] reflected in multiple RFC's to clutter the lead that is also covered in ] which is under the subheading of "Relative emphasis" that is covered by both the ] and ]. Read the paragraph on ] (]) and check out ].}}
:It IS NOT customary to use such derogatory content, as suggested, in the lead. Pick nearly every article on a country, especially around the ] and more especially if they are accused of human rights violations. like ], ], ], ], ], 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 ] and ], as RS's, which they are, does not erase the fact that in cases like this, they are extremely ]. Look at Amnesty's web page on : {{tq|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, . -- ] (]) 01:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
::"Armed conflict = bad" is biased? ] (]) 05:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{re|Otr500}} - some of the articles ''you'' picked do not match what you have argued. The lede of ] (while not a country) says: {{tq|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 ] says that it is a {{tq|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, ], even with a 700+ year history, has a lede that outright says that {{tq|the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Greek and Assyrian subjects}}. ''']] (])''' 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.) ] (]) 03:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option B''' per BilledMammal. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Strictly speaking it should be ]. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::Okay my bad ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option B''' - per BilledMammal. I agree it is ]. ] (]) 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... ] (]) 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 ] findings include
* This refers to
Remove "synonymous with Canaan" from the lede.
* 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."
1. The borders of ancient Canaan don't line up with modern day Israel.
*
2. No real reason to mention ancient Canaan just like we don't mention that it's synonymous with British Mandatory Palestine or the Judea province of the Roman Empire.
*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."
] (]) 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. ] (]) 06:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*:] 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. ] (]) 08:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
3. The fact that Canaanites lives there is in the following sentence. ] (]) 22:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Discussion (new) ===
:{{done}} ] (]) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
New RfC has been started due to of the closure review of the previous RfC and the recommendation 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. ''']] (])''' 04:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::Restore Canaan and rephrase to avoid implying synonymity. ] (]) 16:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This didn't address the points they made. 'Variably known as' still conflicts with all three points here. ] (]) 17:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== RFC: Human rights violations section ==
:What a bloody waste of time. ] (]) 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. ] strikes back. ] (]) 05:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
<!-- ] 18:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738692065}}
{{replyto|Starship.paint}} {{strikethrough|is completely out of line making this.}} ({{xt|voluntarily removing this line as it strays outside of ]}}) There was no consensus on ] 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. ] (]) 09:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=9BBC7A9}}
Should this article include a top level section about violations of human rights by the state of Israel? ] (]) 17:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:It has not been discarded. The consensus from that RfC is still the status quo ] (]) 09:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{re|Alexanderkowal}} - the previous closure was overturned, so there is no consensus from that RFC. ''']] (])''' 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" () 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 {{ping|Starship.paint|p=}} immediately above. We shall stick with this RfC. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 07:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Nonsense, he was just saying he’ll cooperate ] (]) 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. ] please. ] (]) 18:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
'''Comment''' An ] on Israeli practices in the OPT is due in the near future. 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. ] (]) 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 ]. Furthermore, to my understanding the request here is just for an advisory opinion, not a binding ruling. ] (]) 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 . At any rate it's not a policy question, I'm just humming and hawing, if you like. ] (]) 14:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:: 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. ] (]) 18:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
===Survey===
'''Comment''' Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is an online pogrom. ] (]) 05:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
'''Comment''' Not currently a subject of dispute? Maybe just create one and see what happens first? I wouldn't object personally but do we need an RFC for this right now? ] (]) 17:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:It was reverted quickly: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israel&diff=1266366530&oldid=1266365841 ] (]) 18:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::That might have been just the into the sea thing? {{Re|Remsense}}. I would have thought a hr top level section would have involved moving stuff from elsewhere in the article into it? ] (]) 18:09, 31 December 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 Misplaced Pages's credibility IMO. We're approaching a point where Misplaced Pages might no longer be considered a source for content related to Israel. ] (]) 05:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I made a mistake, please feel free to revert. Apologies. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 19:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::But the accusations of apartheid aren't fringe. It's not ] or ]. ] (]) 05:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Could you revert so that I don't annoy any admins violating 1rr (even though I have your permission)? ] (]) 20:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{red| extremely undue weight given for fringe views in almost every related article}}. Luckily this content is not fringe. {{tq| 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.}} ''']] (])''' 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::ah I see, I had totally misunderstood your edit summary. Thanks for reverting. ] (]) 20:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''No''' How many countries have human rights violations? I would maybe accept a top level section for ] because that is pretty unique and a big part of what Israel physically is. Absolutely no for HR violations generally. ] ] 23:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Coverage of Israel in RS is very often centered around human rights. That's not the case for most other countries. We should follow RS and similarly give top level attention to coverage of human rights. ] (]) 01:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Agreed that Israeli-occupied territories should be a top level section. There could be a Human rights subsection under Government and politics section ] (]) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* Information should be integrated into the article where it would be relevant rather than standing out on its own... ] = "Avoid ] or ]. Try to achieve a ] by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections. " This poor article really needs some work..... most of the articles is focused on military actions and one point in time.<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 00:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
===Discussion===
:* '''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 ] (]) 08:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::If my edit is okay, can you edit the RfC to shorten the proposal? {{ping|starship.paint}} ] (]) 15:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|1=What's happening on this page and with other articles on Misplaced Pages is an online pogrom.}}<br>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. ] (]) 02:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
== Sweep them into the sea ==
<small>Notifiying {{re|JDiala|FortunateSons|TucanHolmes|Makeandtoss|Gorgonopsi|Marokwitz|Professor Penguino|K.e.coffman|Levivich|A Socialist Trans Girl|Alaexis}} from previous RfC/ ''']] (])''' 04:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)</small>
Original sentence: 'The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state and to "sweep them into the sea".'
<small>Notifiying {{re|Wafflefrites|Selfstudier|Alexanderkowal|Iskandar323|Objective3000|Moxy|Adam Black|ScottishFinnishRadish}} from previous RfC. ''']] (])''' 04:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)</small>
Proposed change: 'The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state.'
<small>Note: ], ], ], ], ] has been notified of this discussion, as well as ] (South Africa), because I was thinking they know more about ], though {{u|BilledMammal}} has objected to the last one on my talk page. ''']] (])''' 07:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Also included ]</small> ] (]) 14:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
The quote that allegedly supports the inclusion of the the statement 'and to "sweep them into the sea"' is:
===ICJ ruling===
{{tq2|A week before the armies marched, Azzam told Kirkbride: "It does not matter how many there are. We will sweep them into the sea.}}
{{ping|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. ] (]) 09:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
This quote is of course not consistent with the claim that the '''purpose''' of the invasion was to sweep the Jews into the sea. The other citations for this sentence include:
{{tq2|Morris 2008, p. 396: "The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal."}}
: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. ] (]) 10:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::It's still ], 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
{{tq2|David Tal (2004). War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy. Routledge. p. 469. ISBN 978-1-135-77513-1. Archived from the original on 19 December 2023. Retrieved 1 December 2018. "some of the Arab armies invaded Palestine in order to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, Transjordan..."}}
*{{re|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. ''']] (])''' 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? ] (]) 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. ''']] (])''' 13:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Can we not use ]? ] (]) 14:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Kowal2701}} - yes can use that ''']] (])''' 14:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Done ] (]) 14:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*:{{ping|starship.paint}} As the initiator of this RFC, I think you are the only one who can withdraw it. ] (]) 14:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*::{{re|Makeandtoss}} - at ] it says {{tq|The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response ]).}}. But I am not fully confident that this situation applies. ''']] (])''' 14:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|starship.paint}} I guess that is just one example out of many possible ones. ] (]) 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. ''']] (])''' 14:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::{{ping|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. ] (]) 15:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}
{{tq2|Morris 2008, p. 187: Ahmed Shukeiry, one of Haj Amin al-Husseini's aides (and, later, the founding chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization), simply described the aim as "the elimination of the Jewish state." ... al-Quwwatli told his people: "Our army has entered ... we shall win and we shall eradicate Zionism"" }}
== Lead: paragraph on culture ==
None of these support the claim about sweeping Jews into the sea.
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 ] ] (]) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Additionally:
:Thank you for taking my concerns seriously! ] (]) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:This should not be considered part of NPOV, but the basics of writing a proper ]. 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). ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 07:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay we'll do that first ] (]) 08:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:Per ], 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 ] (]) 08:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::My thinking for structure is to have a couple sentences summarising ] 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 ] (]) 09:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::The four paras is not ironclad, it can be five if justified. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::Or add culture to the small 4th one? ] (]) 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::There is a wish to trim 3 down, however that'd be after the RfC ] (]) 14:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Ben-Ami: {{tq|The Arab states were driven to war in great measure by theperception that prevailed in their societies as to the Jewish state andthe threat it posed to the Arabs.}}
* 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. ''']] (])''' 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Rouhanna: {{tq|One goal of some of these armies was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; the Jordanian army, however, also sought to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state by conquering and annexing (after achieving the tacit understanding of the Zionist leadership) parts of Palestine for the Hashemite Kingdom.}}
:* I'm not the best placed to write this, but my '''proposal''' would be:
::::''Israel's culture is synonymous with ], with elements coming from within ] 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 ] (]) 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: <small>"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."</small>) 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. ] (]) 02:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Okay I'll add that to the proposal. I'm not sure how best to summarise each subsection ] (]) 08:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::The ] 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::The ] 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 ]. ''']] (])''' 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. ] (]) 13:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::::No other country has half of their lede dedicated to controversy ] (]) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Possibly because other countries do not have a 75 year record of controversy. In any case ] is not an argument. ] (]) 17:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::There are many countries that have 75+ years of controversy, but not reaching a point of climax today ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ''']] (])''' 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Agreed I was just spitballing ] (]) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Shapira: {{tq|As the sheer magnitude of the Palestinian Arabs’ defeat emerged, and as the horror stories of the Jews’ alleged brutality spread throughout the Arab world, the pressure exerted by public opinion on the Arab states to come to the aid of their Palestinian brethren intensified. Despite difficulties arranging a unified military command, as well as mutual suspicion regarding each other’s objectives in Palestine, on April 30 the Arab states decided to invade.}}
{{od}} 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.
*{{tq|China is known for its ], ] and has ].}}
* {{tq|South Africa is often referred to as the "]" to describe the country's multicultural diversity, especially in the wake of apartheid.}}
* Brazil {{tq|is the only country in the ] to have ] as an ], and is by far the largest ] in the world. Brazil is one of the most ] nations, due to over a century of mass ] ... Due to its rich culture and history, including its global influence in music, sports, literature, dance, and the visual arts, Brazil ranks ] by number of ] ]s.}}
* {{tq|] is mainly derived from Māori and early British settlers, with recent broadening of culture arising from increased ]. The ] are English, ], and ], with the ] being dominant.}}
*{{tq|Mexico's large economy and population, global cultural influence (particularly in cuisine, media, and art), and steady ] make it a ] and ]}}
*{{tq|As a reflection of its large ], Spain is the world's ], has one of the world's largest numbers of ]s, and it is the most popular destination for ] students.}}
Thus, discussing culture in the lede has wide precedent. There should not be any issue to have at least a sentence. ''']] (])''' 13:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Shlaim: {{tq|Seven Arab states sent their armies into Palestine with the firm intention of strangling the Jewish state at birth.}} ] (]) 17:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*From looking at the content above, I'm guessing, if we were to have a sentence, it should link ], ] and ] / ]. Not sure if we could work in ] or ]. ''']] (])''' 13:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
*:Only ] is currently in the body of those, although again the body does need significant improvement in that respect. I am going to add the ] link now, there is an obvious place for it already. ] (]) 13:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
*::You did great, CMD. My current thinking is to have this in the lede: {{purple|Israel is the only country to have ] as an official language. ] is dominant in the culture of Israel, while ] are also present.}} ''']] (])''' 14:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::Better than mine, although it should mention traditions and holidays within Judaism ] (]) 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 ] (]) 14:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
== Edit Request ==
: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. ] shows you how it's done. Everything before that is only present due to POV-pushing by editors along ]-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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 15:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Change the new "Human Rights violations" section, no other country the I checked (including those with serious human rights violation claims like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Myanmar) have any kind of section named anywhere near as negatively. Those claims are usually found in the Government and Politics tab. The way it is now is a violation of ] ] (]) 20:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} {{purple|Israel is the only country to follow the ] and have ] as an official language. ] is dominant in the ], while ] is also present.}} ''']] (])''' 14:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, this is extremely unusual. ] ] 23:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Good, but I think “elements of Arab culture”, so the two aren’t separated as culture can’t be compartmentalised ] (]) 14:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::Looks like we need an RFC after all. ] (]) 00:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:: {{purple|Israel is the only country which follows the ] and has ] as an official language. ] is dominant in the ], while elements of ] are also present.}} ''']] (])''' 14:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I don't know what you mean. The HR violations section was created accidentally, right? ] ] 00:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* '''Support''', if anyone has any further edits/additions feel free to edit your comment/proposal ] (]) 14:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Nope. ] (]) 00:36, 1 January 2025 (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: {{tq|Japan is a ] as ] is well known around the world, including ], ], ], ], and ], which encompasses prominent ], ], and ] industries.}} ''']] (])''' 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Are we both talking about the top level section I just deleted? ] ] 00:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::'''Support''' as well, I really like this proposal, but I'm not Israeli, so...
::::::I created it. It was not created accidentally, please revert your edit. ] (]) 01:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm guessing that no-one wants to re-open the can of worms that is the question of "only jewish-majority country"?
:::::::Sorry, I was confused by a comment Remsense left. I think it's an extremely controversial addition. Is there some WP rule reason that I have to revert, or is there consensus I'm not seeing? ] ] 02:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::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? ] (]) 15:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::There's definitely an open discussion.... Best leave it out till the process is done. Thinking about adding undue tags in relation to three or four sections... there's more to this country than it's relationship with with Palestine. Will gather some thoughts together and bring it up at the project page see if we can help. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 02:14, 1 January 2025 (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? ''']] (])''' 15:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|there's more to this country than it's relationship with with Palestine}}, right, and its relationship with Palestine and Palestinians is a core part of the coverage of Israel in RS. I'm curious where you think the undue tags should go. ] (]) 02:33, 1 January 2025 (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.
::::::::::Article is to big ingeneral and suffers from in the new style - 21st century should be summarized much better. Israeli-occupied territories, International opinion and Accusations of Apartheid should be integrated into history and/ or foreign relations with just a few sentences for each topic leading our readers to main articles. See ] for how its done.,see also ] and ]. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 03:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Your English is great, it’s quite plausible that it’s just me, don’t worry. ] (]) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Thefirstsentenceisreasonable, thesecondsentenceisn't special as Arab culture is dominantin the cultureofSaudiArabia,itdoesn'taddanything of valuereally. I would support the first and oppose thesecond. ] (]) 15:25, 5June2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::That seems like a strange suggestion, of course the occupation is relevant to the history, but it is also a crucial aspect of Israeli politics today. ] (]) 03:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Do you have a suggestion for an alternativesecondsentence? ] (]) 15:29, 5June2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Israel != Germany ] (]) 09:44, 1 January 2025 (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)'' ] (]) 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. ] isn't the same thing as ], 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::That’s probably nitpicking, but there is also non-European/ME Jewish culture with some pretty significant influence. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 16:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
== Edit request regarding the map ==
{{od}}{{tq|Israel is the only country which follows the ] and has ] 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 ], ] or ]. 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. ''']] (])''' 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I am writing to express concern about the recent changes to the map. The current map includes territories marked in green, representing areas such as Palestinian territories and even the Golan Heights. This change departs from the previous map, which accurately reflected the internationally recognized borders as endorsed by the United Nations. Marking these territories in green introduces a controversial interpretation that is not widely accepted by major international organizations.
:How about mentioning that Israel includes lots of holy sites of different faiths? ] (]) 08:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::You want it? You word it. I'm not sure how to. ''']] (])''' 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. ] (]) 15:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::{{od}}{{tq|''] fuses ] and ]. Israel and the ] also have a plethora of ] important to many ].''}} ] (]) 15:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::::If you look at a featured country article, like ], 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. ] (]) 18:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Maybe list the others after that? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::They are western religions? See ] and ], 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. ] (]) 19:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::As mentioned in the ] article they are more accurately called ]; 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 ]. ] (]) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::How about ''Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories'' ? I think that works ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The article is about the state of Israel, which controls the occupied territories ] (]) 19:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::You are right indeed, it controls it, but does not encompass it. ] (]) 20:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Agreed, which is why the distinction is made ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Apples and oranges. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.
:::::::::::::<small>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</small> ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::That’s technically true, but not really the point here, as the masterpiece that is ] 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 ].'' or something similar. ] (]) 21:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Maybe Abrahamic instead of western would be more appropriate ] (]) 19:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yep, ]. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 07:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You mean in the article body? ] (]) 10:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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: {{tq|''These include the ], the 2003 ], and many laws regarding security, ] ] and planning, ], political representation in the ] (legislature), ] and ], as well as the ] enacted in 2018.''}}
:::::::::::might be good, from the main article's lede. This article ] needs a section on the relevant apartheid allegations, and the other articles on politics and security ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Tbh it's mainly political representation in the ] article, I'll do ] ] (]) 12:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} 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. {{tq|Israel is the only country which follows the ] and has ] as an official language. ] combines elements of European, African, and Middle Eastern ] and ]. The territory controlled by Israel contains many places with great religious significance to all three ].}} 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. ''']] (])''' 01:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
1. Lack of Consensus: Major international bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union, and other globally recognized entities do not depict these territories in a distinct color that implies sovereignty or control by specific nations. The new map’s coloration could mislead readers into assuming a level of recognition or legitimacy that does not exist.
:Agreed, but there are more than 3 Abrahamic religions, just 3 major ones ] (]) 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. ]<sub>]</sub> 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
::What's the controversy with saying it's the only Jewish-majority country? This implies other minorities ] (]) 11:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Not sure about the import of an ]. "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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::This is discussed in 'Demographics', but it should be discussed in the context of culture as well imo ] (]) 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 . It's quite unlike the term 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages articles about Jews using this division extensively, like ], ], ] and ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{od}} How about:
::::{{tq|Israel is the only ] majority country in the modern period, with ], ], ], ], and ] minorities. ] combines elements of European, North African, and Middle Eastern ] and ], as well as those from other minorities.}}
::Britannica states "''The State of Israel is the only Jewish nation in the modern period''" ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Agree with Qplb191. ] (]) 09:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Why? ] (]) 09:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::::] 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. ] (]) 09:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping| FortunateSons|Chipmunkdavis| Wafflefrites| Selfstudier | O.maximov| starship.paint| Iskandar323| Mawer10|}} I'd rather not do an RfC on this, pinging editors that have participated in this discussion ] (]) 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: {{Green|Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world, and is the only country to have ] 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 ] and ], encompassing diverse elements like cuisine, music, and art.}} ] (]) 00:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I am happy with this. Better than nothing. ''']] (])''' 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. ] (]) 08:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I’d say the revival of Hebrew is notable ] (]) 09:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If that is what is notable then the lead should link ] and state that Israel is the only country to speak a revived language. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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: "] is the country's official language, a ], and the only country that uses the ]. ] (]) 09:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Respectfully, your opinion is just one person’s opinion ] (]) 09:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@]: 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)? ] (]) 09:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I am referring to the green line, so indeed better called the (pre-)1967 border. ] (]) 09:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ok, but no one still talks about the green line, except in reference to ]. ] (]) 09:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's also ]; ] links to ] in general. ] (]) 09:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree with @]s alteration to @] suggestion here, because it’s controlled by the country, despite not being within what most consider the de-jure borders. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Would “wider region” be more appropriate, provided we can agree on the scope here? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Because the wider region is under Israeli administration ] (]) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Ok, and ... ? Crimea is under Russian adminstration. Does Russia now contain and get to claim everything Crimean? ] (]) 10:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Crimea would be within the scope of ] imo ] (]) 10:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Well, that does depend on your specific interpretation of ] 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. ] (]) 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 ..." ] (]) 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? ] uses “under the administration of”, ] uses “The combined territories under ROC control”, both sound reasonable to me when used here. ] (]) 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. . ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (]) 01:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I object to adding the culture paragraph, for the reasons listed above there are not enough supporters of it and there are opponents. I don't understand why add this to the lead. ] (]) 19:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Your objection needs to be based on policy ] (]) 19:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Also @] opposed to adding that. ] (]) 19:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::No he didn't, he opposed the sentence on religious sites which was removed ] (]) 19:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Regardless it is 4/5 to 1/2 which is clear consensus. You've also just violated 1RR ] (]) 19:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|Makeandtoss}} regarding your earlier quote {{red|I oppose any inclusion of a sentence on culture beyond a sentence, '''as is the case with any other country's lede'''.}} - that's absolutely false, and I already proved it above with quotes, CTRL-F "Brazil", "New Zealand". ''']] (])''' 02:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I think adding the sentence about lead culture is problematic, Israel is among the most heterogeneous countries in the world, there are minorities of Christian Arabs, Muslim Arabs, Druze, Circassians, Russian Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, immigrants, , secularists, ultra-Orthodox, and more... There is no way to sum it up succinctly, it must be detailed, and it is not fit for the lead. ] (]) 02:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::It is detailed in the article body (although it can use more). Per ] this needs to be summarized in the lead, as it is with any other heterogenous country. ] (]) 03:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::There is a difference between a heterogeneous country and Israel which is a heterogeneous country that is in conflict with the indigenous people of the land. ] (]) 03:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::No difference that affects ]. ] (]) 03:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::There is definitely a difference , we can’t mention only the culture of Israel without mentioning the Palestinian culture. ] (]) 03:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The addition you reverted twice already specifically mentions both Jewish and Arab influences. ] (]) 03:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Looks fine @] ] (]) 12:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
=== arbitrary break ===
Just wanted to say that my latest edit summary was partially incorrect, this is not longstanding content. I got confused since there is another sentence starting in the same way ("Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world") in the Demography section. ]<sub>]</sub> 08:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Neutrality Concerns: Misplaced Pages strives to maintain a neutral perspective, especially on contentious geopolitical issues. By adopting a map with disputed territories marked differently, the page risks appearing to take a stance, which could alienate users and detract from Misplaced Pages’s reputation as an impartial source.
:Relating to the recently added sentence: "Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world, and is the only country to have a ], ], as an official language. In many aspects, Israel's culture is a blending of ] and ], encompassing diverse elements like ], ], and ]."
:How is having the largest Jewish population in the world lede worthy; India has the largest Hindu population in the world; what value does that add? How is "Israel's culture is a blending of ] and ]" even neutral when Israel is consistently characterized as engaging in cultural theft and destruction? And about "], ], and ]"; all cultures encompass cuisine, music and art so how does this add anything of value to the lede?
:Why were these contested sentences added despite the clear lack of general agreement, i.e. consensus; not a headcount? ] (]) 10:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::Because there was clear consensus, although not a complete one. Most people agreed with the proposal, yours and Qpib's opinions are in the minority. Also I really don't think your points hold water. ] (]) 12:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::You need to propose improvements rather than tearing everything down ] (]) 12:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::Makeandtoss: It would be constructive to differentiate descriptive statements from normative statements, evaluation, and opinion.]] 12:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::How about: {{tq|"Israel is the only country to have a revived language, Modern Hebrew, as an official language. The culture of Israel is predominantly Jewish with elements of Arab cultures, encompassing cuisine, music, and art.}}
::Predominantly addresses the initial first sentence. The wording of the last clause could be improved ] (]) 12:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Adding a fix (Because there are many different types of Jewish cultures). The culture of Israel is composed of diverse Jewish with elements of Arab cultures, encompassing cuisine, music, and art.
:::Do you like it? ] (]) 12:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes but just a little tweak:
::::The culture of Israel is predominantly composed of diverse Jewish cultures, with elements of Arab cultures, encompassing cuisine, music, and art. ] (]) 12:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::There is no minority and majority on WP, as WP is not a democracy; WP operates by consensus, and consensus is achieved by following guidelines and RS and valid compromising. If RS are stating that Israel has engaged in cultural theft of Arab culture, and we are here incorrectly portraying it by claiming Israel's culture encompasses elements of Arab culture, then this is a completely misleading POV that runs counter to RS. ] (]) 12:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's a factual statement. "with elements of Arab cultures" implies they've been taken from elsewhere, and the context given earlier implies the climate ] (]) 13:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It is not a factual statement because "encompassing" implies it is intrinsic to it, and not culturally appropriated per RS. This is similar to how we do not say that Israel encompasses the West Bank; it actually illegally occupies it. ] (]) 13:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That makes sense, but encompassing is not in reference to the Arab elements. I'm struggling to find a word that is more direct and doesn't imply intrinsicality. "Involving" as an improvement? ] (]) 13:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I don’t think the current sentence accurately represents the culture, at least according to Britannica.
:::::::::Here is what I added to the Culture of Israel Misplaced Pages article:
:::::::::There has been minimal cultural exchange between Israel’s Jewish and Arab populations. ] brought with them elements from the majority cultures in which they lived. The mixing of ], ], and Middle Eastern traditions have advanced modern Israeli culture, along with traditions brought by Russian, former Soviet republican, Central European and American immigrants. The Hebrew language revival has also developed Israel’s modern culture. Israel’s culture is based on its cultural diversity, shared language, and common religious and historical Jewish tradition.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Israel - Art, Music, Dance {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/place/Israel/Cultural-life |access-date=2024-06-05 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref> ] (]) 13:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::What is even the source for the claim that Israeli culture encompasses elements of Arab culture? A quick google search for the terms "Arab culture" and "Israel" only reveals articles about cultural theft and destruction. ] (]) 14:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::.]] 16:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I like it. A good balance. ] (]) 13:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'll be specific. I like ]'s "The culture of Israel is predominantly composed of diverse Jewish cultures, with elements of Arab cultures, encompassing cuisine, music, and art." ] (]) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don’t like this paragraph at all it’s not supposed to be at the lead and it’s not mentioning the Palestinian culture ] (]) 13:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This is the article about modern Israel, not Palestine or the British Mandate. ] (]) 13:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::They are part of the Arab minority, which also includes the Druze ] (]) 13:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::And also Arab Jews who never left the region, I suppose you could call them Palestinian if you want, as well as Arab Jews from the diaspora. ] (]) 13:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It’s can not be summery , it is complicated and there are many minorities ethnic and religious groups, the relation between ultra orthodox and secularist is much more important today . ] (]) 13:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Also it’s very debatable, we are not mentioning Arabic , Russian languages (which they are the second and third most spoken languages in Israel) not mentioning religious groups like ultra orthodox, and minorities, for example some Druze don’t see themself as Muslim and Arabs , I think it’s horrible sentence. ] (]) 13:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::We are also not mentioning the Palestinian culture , @] what do you think? ] (]) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Qplb191 made a new good point. Israel has its culture divided between the secularist and Ultraorthodox sections of its predominantly Jewish society. Consequently, the culture wars, relating to the role of religion in public spaces, the drafting of the Haredim, the charachtar of the state; these are all much more relevant to Israeli culture than the culture of its Arab minority. Even this Arab minority's culture, it is part of Palestinian culture, and not part of Israeli culture; even if Israel attempts to portray it as such; and even if a minority of Jewish Israelis are from Arab backgrounds. ] (]) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The Mizrahi Jews ("Arab Jews") are the largest ethnic group in Israel, about 40% to 45% of the population. They brought many things from Arab culture to the country, especially in cuisine. So not everything Arabic in Israeli culture comes from the Palestinians. ] (]) 14:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Bringing things to the country does not mean that the country's culture is now made up of it, especially when we have RS saying that Israel is appropriating parts of Palestinian and Arab culture as its own. ] (]) 14:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::You could say “culturally appropriated”, or you could say the Israeli version was “influenced” or “inspired by”. For example ], ], ], ] all possibly have Silk Road origins or some even hypothesize Middle East origins . Or that Taylor Swift was culturally appropriating/was influenced to create her own version of congee. Or that Starbucks’ and Dunkin Donuts’ new popping boba/bubble drinks are culturally appropriating / influenced by the Taiwanese ]. ] (]) 15:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Ahh, I got it. When y‘all were saying Palestinian, I was thinking about the Palestinians that were expelled, but yes some of them did remain, Israel does have a 20% Arab minority, which would include those that identify as Palestinian as well as the Druze and the ]. ] (]) 14:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The view that Arab citizens of Israel and other minorities do not count as Israelis is a relatively fringe POV. I'm surprised to see it is being promoted here, and it certainly should not guide the crafting of this article. ] (]) 15:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I dont care. ''']''' - 15:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think that we can agree that this sentence is extremely problematic.
:::::::::::::1. the relations between secular and ultra orthodox is not mentioned.
:::::::::::::2. there is Palestinian culture not Arab
:::::::::::::3. what about the culture of other groups like Russians Ashkenazi etc….
:::::::::::::
:::::::::::::4. What about minorities which do not see themselves as Muslim /arabs like Druze and Circassians
:::::::::::::5. the Arab/Palestinian culture is rejected by the state of Israel ,so this is a very twisted sentence, there are tense relations between the Palestinians and Jews so it is incorrect to say that their culture has mixed. ] (]) 15:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::No we can't, stop putting your own opinion on a pedestal.
::::::::::::::1. that more due for politics, not culture, notice how ] doesn't mention culture wars even though theirs are more pronounced
::::::::::::::2. Palestinians are part of the Arab minority
::::::::::::::3. Russians and Ashkenazi are included in "diverse Jewish cultures"
::::::::::::::4. Druze are included in Arab, as I already said. Circassians are a tiny minority, 5000, it'd be undue here
::::::::::::::5. There is no mention of Palestinian culture
::::::::::::::I think this is really pathetic. You should ] ] (]) 16:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::No, this sentence is just extremely inaccurate and misleading, it’s just not true Arabs in Israel are Palestinians, not just Arabs there is Palestinian tradition.@] do you agree? ] (]) 16:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Do we need to get a 3O here? ] (]) 16:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I don't think that is coherent ] (]) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
3. Consistency with Historical Usage: The previous map, in use for over 20 years, was widely accepted as a neutral representation of the region. It respected international consensus and did not introduce contentious visual elements. Returning to this map would preserve the neutrality and credibility of the content.
:The elements of Arab culture brought by the "Arab Jews" who now constitute 45% or more of the Israeli population are not Palestinian. Palestinian culture being a subsection of the broader Levantine and Arab culture needs no special mention. Israel does not reject Arab culture because is a well known fact that Israeli Jews have incorporated many elements of Arab culture into their culture even if some do not recognize the Arab origin of these elements. And the ultra-Orthodox are a minority in Israel, their mention is not important in a paragraph that is supposed to be a summary. ] (]) 16:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::As for the points 3 and 4 and the last part of 5, I think this is enough: "The country's culture is primarily characterized by the Jewish and Arab cultures, but it also includes Western and Eastern influences." What do you think? ] (]) 16:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::In fact, Ashkenazi "Western" cultural influence is much more dominant than "Arab-Jewish" influence. There has not been a single prime minister who was of Mizrahi origin, beyond that the ”conflict “with the ultra-Orthodox is much more significant and is being discussed, there is a real cultural "war" between secularists and ultra-Orthodox in Israel, and Israel is one The countries with the greatest religious tensions (Christians, Jews and Muslims) in the world, not mentioning it would be problematic. ] (]) 18:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::The distribution of prime ministers is more a function of the historic and persisting hierarchical racism in Israeli society than a useful indicator of general cultural influence per se. ] (]) 18:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::And even if the culture of Ashkenazi Jews was the most dominant in Israel, so what? This does not necessarily need to be in the lead, it's not important. ] (]) 18:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::The sentence simply does not describe "culture" in Israel correctly. There are many different groups in Israel, and within that there are religious tensions between religious groups, and tensions between secularists and ultra-Orthodox, the law must include this and currently it is lacking. Beyond the fact that it is not about the Palestinian culture and to say that Israel is a mixture of Arab culture is simply not true. ] (]) 20:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] we reach consensus and then add that , you can’t add that when some editors object that. ] (]) 20:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I can if arguments have been exhausted and most people support it. We can continue discussing, but people are not going to be incentivised to reply if the same points, that have been addressed, keep being made ] (]) 20:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Most people don’t support this current vision please self revert ] (]) 21:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please give us a version of what you would like the culture paragraph to look like. This will help this discussion progress more productively. ] (]) 21:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I think that simply in a heterogeneous country with an ongoing conflict with so many ethnic/religious groups, it is impossible to summarise the culture and the cultural and religious tensions between the different groups within one sentence, therefore in my opinion its need to be in the culture paragraph and not in the lead. This sentence is just incorrect and misleading… ] (]) 22:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::] so we can please drop the "most people support it" claim. This is not even sourced to any RS and having re-added it despite clear lack of general agreement -consensus- does not bode well in this topic area. ] (]) 22:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::All of your points have been addressed comprehensively. I suggest you start editing the culture section of the body if you’d like the summary to be changed ] (]) 07:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::None of them have; this sentence is not even sourced! ] (]) 07:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree with Makeandtoss that it needs a source that is not Misplaced Pages. The culture introductory body section needs to be checked for ]. Also the sentence about Arab influences being in many spheres needs attribution and has unbalanced emphasis towards the Arab influences (when really Israeli art, music and architecture is primarily influenced by the Jewish diaspora). The mixing of the Jewish diaspora culture is the dominant culture. It hasn’t mixed with the non Jewish Arab culture, they just exist alongside each other. ] (]) 10:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::The ] does not need a separate source or attribution. If there are issues, take it up with the sources in the Culture section. ] (]) 10:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Citations usually are not needed for the lead, but sometimes citations may be added on a case by case basis per ] and “ ''any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an ] to a reliable source that directly supports it''.” ] (]) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Indeed, but it does not need a ''separate'' source. It is summarising the Culture section and can use the sources there, if there are issues with those sources they should also be dealt with in the Culture section. ] (]) 15:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I think the problem is the handwave-y statements characterising what makes up the culture, which is currently not really sourced anywhere. ] (]) 17:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Handwavey statements is the subject of the first paragraph in the Culture section. ] (]) 01:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::If you’d like to do an RfC, we can do one, but it’d be very unnecessary imo ] (]) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::ONUS of achieving consensus is on the inserter, i.e. you, not me. ] (]) 07:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Makeandtoss, ONUS is about content that ''is'' sourced. And it is not about what sourced content belongs in the lead. Surely you understand that even controversial or despicable facts may be described in the lead summary.]] 11:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::: This looks like a good source to back up the sentence.
:::::::::: also on multiculturalism. ] (]) 11:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Those both look good, feel free to add them ] (]) 13:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::By the way like @] said this sentence never reached consensus, can you actually get consensus and then change the lead? ] (]) 15:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:This is a summary I made based on the section on Israeli culture in the :
:{{Red|Israel's culture is characterized by the convergence and intermingling of different Jewish traditions from the diaspora. This diverse cultural heritage and the revival of the Hebrew language played a crucial role in the country's cultural development.}}
:This summary says nothing about Arab influence on Israeli culture because Britannica did not elaborate on this very well. So I found this paragraph in another :
:{{Green|Israel's diverse culture stems from the diversity of the population: Jews from around the world have brought their cultural and religious traditions with them, creating a melting pot of Jewish customs and beliefs... Israel's substantial Arab minority has also left its imprint on Israeli culture in such spheres as architecture, music, and cuisine}}
:These two sources help to create a good summary, I have not yet found any source talking about the Israeli culture that included mentions of religious conflicts. ] (]) 01:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::Most of the encyclopaedias (Britannica for example)do not include the culture in Israel at the beginning of the article , but in a separate paragraph (like in Misplaced Pages). Relatively if we are talking about cultural influence , Israel does not have such a globally influential and developed culture that includes famous composers and artists (like Italy and France for example) .
::There are many different cultures in Israel and many tensions between the different groups (between Jewish groups , and between Jewish - Christian and Muslims) , so if we talk about culture we must also mention that (which is not possible to summarise in the lead in my opinion).
::I don’t think it’s really necessary to include that. ] (]) 02:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::: 1) The lead of Misplaced Pages articles does not necessarily need to present the same information presented in other encyclopedias. 2) We are not talking about global cultural influence, a country does not need to have cultural influence to deserve at least a simple mention of its culture in the lead. 3) The proposed sentence does not deny the existence of other cultures or subcultures in Israel; if you think it does, it shouldn't be difficult for you to suggest an improvement to the sentence in that regard. "if we talk about culture we '''must''' also mention that" {{source needed}}. ] (]) 03:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I simply do not understand why culture need to be mentioned on the lead ,when much more important topics are not mentioned, even in the lead of countries with much greater influence such as ] or the ] culture does not mentioned , Furthermore culture in Israel is much more problematic we can not mention only culture without the ongoing cultural tensions between different groups which is to my opinion do not need to be on the lead. ] (]) 03:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Because per ] relative coverage in the lead should be similar to the body, and the body has an entire level 2 section on the topic of Culture. ] (]) 05:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, culture should be summarized in the lead just like the other sections of the article. If other articles or encyclopedias don't do that, someone should fix them. ] (]) 05:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::There are paragraphs that are not covered in the lead such as geography or demographics which are much more important than culture... as I also said , in other countries that have a much greater cultural impact , culture is not covered in the lead. ] (]) 17:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::And please @] stop adding this sentence before why actually get consensus! ] (]) 17:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Your arguments are not only not based on policy they are directly contradicting it! Stop wasting people's time ] (]) 17:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The lead should summarize all the sections, including geography and demographics, and culture. This isn't up for debate, we have long-standing global consensus that leads summarize the body. Stop edit warring, and ], culture ''will'' be summarized in the lead of this article (and all articles that have a culture section). ] (]) 17:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::there is clearly no consensus about this certain sentence, can you please stop adding it? Furthermore this sentence has no reliable source and is clearly controversial, you have never received consensus for this and keep adding it…. ] (]) 18:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::There are much more important paragraphs that are not mentioned, while most countries doesn’t even have “culture “ in their lead. ] (]) 18:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You keep repeating the same arguments over and over; these arguments have been addressed above. ] (]) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes but you have never reached consensus as well, this sentence has no reliable source and it’s extremely problematic ] (]) 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You actually have never reached agreement to add this specific sentence ] (]) 18:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::] ] (]) 18:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::sorry but this has never reached consensus @] and others users object that, can you also bring reliable sources that actually claims that Israeli culture has “Arab elements”??? ] (]) 19:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::They are not reliable though ] (]) 19:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Why not? ] (]) 19:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The sources already on the page? ] (]) 20:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::The split between Jewish and Arabic culture in the latest proposal above is simplistic. Sure, there are just Palestinian Arabs in Israel today, but early on, there were also Arab Jews, including Palestinian Jews and Arab Jews from across the region – who all obviously had both Jewish and Arabic culture already, and were responsible for bringing in not just Jewish, but all sorts of Arabic cultural elements from across the region, including Arabic food from all the corners of the Greater Middle East. ] (]) 20:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::This sentence is just incorrect claim. ] (]) 21:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::This Washington Post source says the Israelis adopted the popular street food from Palestinians (hummus, falafel, msabaha, baba ghanoush, knafeh) but not msakhan, maftool, maqlubeh and mansaf. It says kebabs and shakshuka were brought from North Africa and the Balkans.
:::For the longest time, I thought hummus, falafel, tabbouleh, baklava, pita, and dolmas were Greek food, but turns out they are also Mediterranean/Levant/Middle Eastern. Apparently the Greeks inherited some of those from the ] (one of the regional powers that conquered Palestine). ] (]) 22:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Food is not really culture if we are talking about culture in art music etc… there is no reliable article that claim that Israeli culture has Arab elements ] (]) 22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Except the RS cited ''in the article'', like , which is about Arab elements in Israeli culture (and specifically uses food as an example). ] (]) 22:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Feel free to iterate on it ] (]) 07:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::::There is literally no consensus on adding this sentence and yes I will repeat that again, news paper are not reliable sources ] (]) 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
::::@] can you self revert until we reach consensus on sentence ( like you should have done) ] (]) 03:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Consensus occurs in a process that involves taking into account our policies and guidelines, it is unlikely to be greatly shifted by arguments against accepted ] practice and against accepted ] practice. ] (]) 03:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::It’s was actually proven that other countries doesn’t have culture in their lead (while also other paragraphs are not included in the lead) this sentence has never reached consensus like @] said. ] (]) 05:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::So we have myself, {{ping|Qplb191}} and {{ping|Wafflefrites}} opposing this phrasing, with {{ping|Iskandar323}} saying it's too simplistic. So why is this still on the article? The way forward to resolve this clear dispute is through an RFC, and not through the power of the majority, as WP is not a democracy.
:::::::We have multiple RS saying that Israel has been engaged in cultural appropriation of Arab and Palestinian culture, and here we are ignoring these RS and whitewashing this appropriation by claiming Israel's culture is actually made up of elements of Arab culture. ] (]) 11:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Feel free to do an RfC, but personally I don’t feel the opposing arguments hold any weight ] (]) 12:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ideally we'd have an RfC, but it might be a waste of the community's time if the differing quality of the arguments regarding policy is clear. Of course a summary is simplistic, it's a summary per ]. Of course there are Arab elements of Israeli culture, these come from the ] and ], as well as the Druze and Palestinian/Arab citizens. That controversy is barely ] for the body. Feel free to iterate on the wording, but the content is fine. ] (]) 13:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I don't see the word "appropriate" anywhere in ] or ]. ] (]) 13:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The words Israeli cultural "appropriation" and "theft" of Arab and Palestinian culture should exist in both; we have plenty of RS documenting this relating to food, attire, music and others. ] (]) 14:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I suggest you edit the first paragraph of the culture section which mentions Arab influences and add a couple sentences on where these come from, personally a clause for the controversy would be due, not a sentence ] (]) 13:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Kowal2701}} The ] to do an RfC is on the inserter of the material, which would clearly not be me. Simplicity should not be misleading; as demonstrated before we already have numerous RS relating to Israel's appropriation of Arab culture. ] (]) 14:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::There was and is weak consensus to add it and it's been added. I'd say the onus is on you. I'm not denying those sources, but you're ignoring the genuine Arab elements of Israeli culture (which lots of RSs discuss) and seem to be pushing a political POV. Numerous people in a previous RfC said that this article was over politicised, and I think this is an example of that. ] (]) 15:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Agree with @] this sentence has no actually reliable source it is extremely misleading and problematic and most importantly this never reached consensus, you need to reach consensus before you change the lead not after. ] (]) 02:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::100% agree with @], this sentence should be removed, because it is extremely problematic, there are many editors opposing it as well. ] (]) 02:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I was not sure about “The culture of Israel is predominantly composed of diverse Jewish cultures, with elements of ], involving cuisine, music, and art.” I liked “ '''The culture of Israel is composed of Jewish culture and Jewish diaspora influences,''' alongside elements of ], '''involving cuisine, music, and art'''” better because I think it’s more precise. The bolded info can be sourced to Britannica’s article. Both versions link to the culture section under ], so the Palestinian culture is included. The second version uses “alongside” which I think is an accurate description and doesn’t mean mixing. The cultures and people do exist alongside each other.
::::::::I don’t really care if the info is included or not. Although am not sure why the Hebrew language revival sentence was problematic and removed as well. I’m not sure of the objections to that sentence unless there is some mos guideline saying languages from the infobox should not be in the lead. ] (]) 04:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Minority cultures should not be highlighted, as is the case with any other country's lede. ] (]) 07:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::How can it avoid mentioning the Arabic cultural influence that is based on the combination of the Arab population, Arab Jewish culture and appropriation? ] (]) 08:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::It doesn't since the sentence already mentions "Jewish diaspora influences" which includes the Jews of Europe and other places. No need to specify Arab while avoiding mentioning the cultural appropriation and theft aspects. ] (]) 09:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::It does not appear constructive to repeatedly invoke "theft" etc. at the expense of parsing the issues under discussion here. "Theft" reifies cultural factors as if they were bags of booty criminally acquired. Regardless of whether some people believe that, it's not descriptive. We don't talk about Christian or Islamic "theft" of Hebraic religious teaching, e.g. and we need a more nuanced and subject-appropriate manner of describing the merger of cultural factors and practies. Proposals along that line would be helpful.18:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
:::::::::::::Agreed. "We have RS that say..." is ]. Of course there are RS that talk about Israeli ], and there are RS that dispute it, and there are RS that say that cultural appropriation ]. There are also RS that say that other countries and cultures engage in cultural appropriation. Should every country article mention cultural appropriation in the lead? The word "appropriation" isn't in ], for example. But more the point, the word "appropriation" isn't in ]. So why are we talking about putting it in the lead? (Surely, none of us would advocate for including info in the lead that isn't in the body in one article, while simultaneously removing info from the lead of another article because it isn't in the body...) "Appropriation" doesn't even appear in ] (and Israel is mentioned once in ]). I believe there is enough RS coverage to make a section on appropriation ] for inclusion in ], and that could probably be summed up in a sentence or few sentences in ]. Whether it's DUE for the lead of ], I'm not sure at all. The only thing I'm sure of is that the lead should summarize ]. Editors who think they can improve that summary should suggest the improvement or ]; editors who think the body section needs expansion should expand it, IMO. But talking about not summarizing culture at all in the lead is ridiculous, and talking about including cultural appropriation in the lead is premature. ] (]) 19:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I did not mean to argue for the inclusion of the material on cultural theft and appropriation to the lede. Rather, I was arguing for the removal of the so far poorly-sourced and highly contested claim that Israeli culture actually is/encompasses Arab culture as being ridiculously overly simplistic and therefore misleading. WP is not a reliable source so the argument that it does not feature/feature enough in other articles is not a good argument. Actually, there is enough RS and ] to make an an entire article on ], and not just a mini-section. ] (]) 09:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::This thread would have gone much more smoothly is people had actually started by reading what's written and sourced in the overview of the actual culture section on the page, which covers the diverse Jewish cultural origins and Arab influences already ... And again, is sourced. ] (]) 11:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The lede is different from the body. In the body there is an opportunity for nuance, while in the lede there is an opportunity for simplistic oversimplifications that are misleading. The body mentions "Arab influences" which is fine and keeps the weight reasonable somewhere within the large body of text. But adding "Arab elements" in a sentence in a prominent place such as the lede would be entirely misleading for the reasons mentioned previously. And of course the culture section misses the controversies relating to cultural appropriation and theft. ] (]) 12:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::My point was that if anything, the lead sentence should be a summary of the existing summary. "Arab influences" is reasonable to mention if it is well-sourced. (I mean it's kinda obvious: half of the cuisine is Arabic or Arabic influenced – both adopted from the locals and from Arab Jewish immigrants.) ] (]) 12:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Here is the overview paragraph at ]: {{tq2|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, being found in Israeli 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.}} Here is the sentence in the lead: {{tq2|The culture of Israel is composed of Jewish culture and Jewish diaspora influences, alongside elements of Arab culture, involving cuisine, music, and art.}} It seems like this sentence does a fairly good job of summarizing the overview paragraph. I'd be fine with changing "alongside elements of Arab culture" to "alongside influences from Arab culture." I don't really see the difference between "elements" and "influences," so either one would be fine with me. ] (]) 17:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Since the wikilink for “Arab” is pointing to ], I think “Arab” should be changed to “Arab-Israeli” to match the ethnic group in the link destination. There were many ] like Iraq and Egypt, who brought Arab influences from those countries too, but they don’t fall under Arab citizens of Israel. ] (]) 18:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Or just link to ] and make it less weird? The Arabic influence also comes from Arab Jews: it's not even remotely solely about modern Arab Palestinians. ] (]) 19:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Turkish and Iranian culture among many other cultures are influenced by Arab culture so still not sure how this would be suitable for the lede. ] (]) 09:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Could you explain why in these cases you refer to "influence" rather than "theft"? Is this implicit or is it supported by the weight of mainstream RS?]] 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::Clearly, these three cultures were under one Islamic culture. In the case of Israel and Palestine, there is no overall shared culture, and there are two opposing identities. RS have made the theft claims relating to Israel, not me. ] (]) 11:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::The culture of Israel is composed of Jewish culture and Jewish diaspora influences, alongside elements of Arab culture, involving cuisine, music, and art.
::::::::::::This captures very well. I think it is good, short and balanced. ] (]) 11:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Maybe we can say, culture of Israel is composed of a variety of different Jewish cultures instead of first half. ] (]) 11:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I have added an under discussion tag, as clearly there is no generally agreed upon version here. The way forward now is an RFC, and the onus of reaching consensus is on the inserter of this material. ] (]) 10:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::This sentence about “culture” is so unnecessary and never reached consensus, btw I want to see a reliable source that actually claims that Israel culture has an Arab element ] (]) 11:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::What is your concern with the body sources? ] (]) 11:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::We can't have an RfC every time an editor or two editors doesn't like something. You two need to suggest some revisions or drop the stick. ] (]) 12:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Many suggestions have been proposed: the bare minimum of changing “elements” to “influences,” and more ideally, removing the material all together to avoid simplistic narratives that ignore prominent controversies. This is based on RS, not on personal preferences. ] (]) 12:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::@] this sentence has never reached consensus actually . ] (]) 12:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I don't see anyone objecting to changing "elements" to "influences", I'm pretty sure you could make that change boldly, especially since "influences" is the word used in the body. We don't need an RfC for that. ] (]) 12:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::As mentioned this would be the bare minimum. The main issues remain: this is undue for lede, poorly sourced, misleading, oversimplistic, and lacks consensus. ] (]) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::What is your ]-compliant suggestion for changing the language then? ] (]) 13:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::"The culture of Israel is composed of Jewish culture and Jewish diaspora influences, involving cuisine, music, and art."
::::::::::::::::::::This version would simply mention "diaspora influences" of which Arab, among other cultures, is clearly one, but without overstressing this aspect or ignoring the cultural appropriation aspects. (Given that I still find "involving cuisine, music, and art." to be redundant but I don't feel strongly about removing it.) ] (]) 14:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::While I don't think it's an improvement, I'd be fine with it. If nobody objects, I think that change can just be made boldly. ] (]) 14:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::@] this sentence has never reached consensus actually . ] (]) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Stop repeating this, you are spamming the page. ] (]) 14:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}
4. Precedent for Reliable Sources: Most authoritative atlases and online mapping tools, including those maintained by major international organizations, avoid marking these territories in distinct colors to sidestep misinterpretation. Aligning with these standards would bolster Misplaced Pages's reliability.
== Map issue ==
I respectfully request that the map be reverted to its previous version, which better reflects the official and internationally recognized borders. This change would ensure that Misplaced Pages adheres to its guiding principles of neutrality and accuracy. ] (]) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
can the globe map near the top be fixed to not include illegally occupied Palestinian land? ] (]) 19:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:Thecurrentmapisappropriate.Theoccupiedterritoriesarecolouredinalightergreen,clarifyingboththe‘67lineandthe areas usually consideredoccupied. ] (]) 20:09, 3June2024 (UTC)
:You don't have the needed qualifications to edit about this topic(you don't yet have 500 edits), please see your user talk page. ] (]) 18:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:]The map reflects Israel's international recognized borders and the territories it claims (East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) and occupies militarily (West Bank excl. East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). This is mostly consistent with other country articles, such as ] (map depicts unrecognized claim over the former Sanjak of Alexandretta) and ] (map depicts claims over the Ukrainian territories it occupied since 2014). However, there is an argument to removing the West Bank (excl. East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip from the map and using ] instead, since Israel does not ''de jure'' claim the territory and it is internationally recognized as being part of the State of Palestine. ] 22:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::The green/light green map is terribly small. It is hardly visible! ''']] (])''' 14:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Thecircleinthebottomrightcouldbemademuchbiggertopartlycover the IndianOcean ] (]) 21:09, 4June2024 (UTC)
::There is no basis for Israeli claims to either EJ or the Golan, they are unrecognized annexes and along with the West Bank and Gaza are considered as occupied territories. ] (]) 22:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::However, for consistency reasons, it would be justifiable to exclude territories not annexed by Israel, as locator maps don't typically include territories under military occupation, but do include territories unilaterally annexed. For example, the map of Russia does not include ] and ] in light green, despite them being internationally recognized as Russian-occupied territories, but does include Crimea, as it was illegally annexed in 2014. Similarly, the map of the ] does not include ]. as it is not annexed territory of the US. ] 23:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It is really quite small. Most articles about European countries use offer locator maps for the continent they're on, e.g. ] 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 ], ] and ] have a similar problem to Israel, where they appear quite small in the locator maps and it's difficult to make out the detail. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 21:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Anyone that wants to can see Green Line Israel by clicking on a radio button, the initial question really is what we want the default view to be, that or with occupied territories shown. If it were up to me I would show Green Line Israel, excluding Golan, as default.
:::::I was looking through the pcitures of the smallest countries and the best pciture I got to after seeing about 10+ countries was ]. I also saw that {{u|M.Bitton}} and {{u|Zero0000}} have some experience with maps? Could either of you make the green/light green diagram in ] larger? We could cover the Indian Ocean. ''']] (])''' 03:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Then the alternate view should show all occupied territories, including purportedly annexed territories. Btw "disputed" is not a NPOV term here, see ].
::::::If I have time this weekend, I'll create a new one. I'll ping you once it's uploaded to Commons. ] (]) 22:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Other article maps do not affect what happens with the situation here. ] (]) 11:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Starship.paint}} what can I say? Three weeks felt like a week. Anyway, better late than never. Please have a look at the ] and let me know if anything needs adjusting or changing. ] (]) 15:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::If all territories under military occupation are to be included on the map, why are Southern Lebanon and parts of Southern Syria, newly occupied since 2024, excluded? There is also a significant difference in the legal status of East Jerusalem versus the rest of the West Bank. Israeli civil law is applied in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, whereas it is extended to Israeli settlers in the rest of the West Bank only via emergency regulations. Gaza remains militarily occupied due to control over its airspace, territorial waters, and borders, but Israeli civil law is not extended and Israel does not formally claim the territory as its own. Meanwhile, if militarily-occupied territories are to be included, Southern Lebanon nor the newly occupied parts of Syria are shown in light green.
::::::::{{re|M.Bitton}} well, I can say that I love the improvement! Implementing it pronto. Thank you very much for your effort. ''']] (])''' 13:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::The map of Russia excludes Ukrainian territories that are occupied but not annexed, and the Ukraine map omits its military occupation of parts of Kursk Oblast. The Russian article map did not include the four annexed oblasts until after they were annexed, despite Russia beginning settlement activities before then . Other Misplaced Pages articles consistently differentiate between annexed and occupied territories, marking only annexed areas.
:::::The map should either show all territories under Israeli military presence or limit itself to lands Israel ''formally'' claims as its own. Unrecognized or illegal claims should be marked in light green, in contrast to the West Bank (beyond East Jerusalem) and Gaza, which are solely claimed by the State of Palestine. This distinction is already visible on the map for the State of Palestine, where annexed territories like East Jerusalem and Latrun are marked differently from areas claimed exclusively by Palestine. ] 19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just to repeat that what we do here on this page for the map here does not depend on what is done at any other page.
::::::Southern Lebanon and parts of Southern Syria have not as yet been declared as occupied territory by any competent authority afaik.
::::::Lands that Israel {{tq|formally claims}} (EJ/Golan) are also illegal claims, so designated by the UNSC (reaffirmed recently by the ICJ in respect of EJ), so this distinction is of no import.
::::::As things stand, I simply want to note the OP request as not done (no consensus of EC editors). Presumably you do not want to do that. So I suggest we wait and see if any other editors have a view. ] (]) 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2025 ==
:the map also includes the ], and is inline with other pages such as ] (which doesn't even occupy Essequibo), ], ], ], ], ], ] ] (]) 20:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
==RFC: How should the Nakba described?==
<!-- ] 03:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1720926069}}
How should the Nakba described?
# ''The Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.''
# ''The Palestinians were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.''
# The Nakba should be described. But neither of the sentences above should be used.
# The Nakba shouldn't be mentioned.
Which version should be included in the lead? ] (]) 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. –] (]]) 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'''. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]...". ] (]) 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*:Good point, it’s just that the page link to ] is more of a history page, whilst the ] page is more of a perspective on the history ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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”? ] (]) 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 ] also uses Nakba specifically as a name for the events of the 1948 war. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 ] "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". ] (]) 13:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::"By Zionists" is another option but today's lay reader may perceive that word as ], like some kind of insult. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::Idk I'm very on the fence about whether ] should apply to contentious edits on contentious topics, it feels wrong ] (]) 09:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*::::Nothing to do with BRD, which addresses an edit in dispute, not the case here. ] (]) 09:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Meant bold editing for controversial edits ] (]) 09:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
*::::::It's only controversial if it's disputed. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::First choice #3 for reasons above. Second choice #1, to match the lead of ] as supported by the sources in the third paragraph of ] "Nakba is described as ethnic cleansing ..." (]). 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. ] (]) 04:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''<del>(3) or</del> (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 ]. More nuance is needed if this is to be included in the lede. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 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:
::{{blockquote|text=The war saw the ] due to ].}}
::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. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::The Israeli perspective of Independence War is in the lede ] (]) 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. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 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.] (]) 08:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
**Yes, this is the article on Israel, but Israel perpetuated the Nakba. For you to claim {{tq|no reason at all}} is very puzzling. ''']] (])''' 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. --] (]) 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 ] with Israeli settler violence. Unfortunately there is ], one reason due to the Nakba damaging the legitimacy of the founding of Israel. Option 2 follows the titling of our Misplaced Pages article on the expulsion and flight, though I am open to other viewpoints. ''']] (])''' 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.''' ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::Here's a link to the ] article. It began before the war started, not after it ended. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''4,''' we already mention the ] which sums up the issue, we don't need the '''narrative''' '''version''' of the same event. ] (]) 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.' ] (]) 12:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::Is that addition okay? ] (]) 12:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::I think your edit in the lede proposes a false equivalence behind the causes of the Palestinian exodus ] (]) 15:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::It also goes against already established consensus ] (]) 15:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::I think if “a core part of the ]” were added it’d be fine, since there’s now the “Independence War” included ] (]) 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"? ] (]) 20:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
*:The current one doesn’t mention militias or the Nakba ] (]) 21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
*:'''4''' and I prefer the version of the text XDanielx mentioned. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 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) ] (]) 00:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
*:'''3''' is the most neutral way to approach this. ] (]) 16:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
:'''Version 2''' without the loitering comma, or some similar formulation (3) ] (]) 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 ] 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…” ] (]) 17:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::@] tagging you, can you please add “majority” or some other clarifier? Not all of the Palestinians were expelled or fled, some stayed. ] (]) 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 ] and ] as well. ] (]) 06:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::The ] page and short description and says it occurred since 1948. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]—] and became ]. “
::::::I just remember nableezy back in October putting the actual numbers in the lead after an edit war. ^__^ ] (]) 13:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::: says "In less than six months, from December 1947 to mid-May 1948, Zionist armed groups expelled about 440,000 Palestinians from 220 villages." ] (]) 13:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::See here nableezy wrote the number ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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”. ] (]) 13:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::vast majority? Majority implies 60% to me ] (]) 14:03, 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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”. ] (]) 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). ] (]) 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.” ] (]) 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
:] (]) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::] (its name) is already there and linked. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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, ] doesn't mean if we include the Palestinian POV we must also include the Israeli POV; WP:NPOV is not ]. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 ], 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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." ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ]<sub>]</sub> 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. ] (]) 11:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
::By mistake, fixed. ] (]) 16:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
== Tel Aviv ==
{{yo|האופה}} What is ] about Tel Aviv being Israel's "largest city as well as its economic center"? ] (]) 06:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
:Tel Aviv is simply not the largest city in Israel, Jerusalem's population is double its size. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|האופה}} East Jerusalem is not part of Israel. We had this discussion about the scope of the article multiple times already. ] (]) 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. Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::So now we have another revert, right out of left field. ] (]) 08:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|2018rebel}} Why haven't you provided an edit summary for the revert, or at the very minimum participated in this discussion? ] (]) 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 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 ]. 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 Misplaced Pages articles and the rest of this article: the infobox and the 'Demographics' section place Jerusalem as the largest city. See also and , perhaps relevant for the discussion. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] is also irrelevant. ] (]) 15:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages should not state that something is the case when it is not the case. For Misplaced Pages, it is not the case that locations across the green line are in Israel. This is the approach Misplaced Pages takes with respect to Israel given the constraints imposed by the ] policy and after many discussions. And the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct is a useful guide here as it explicitly prohibits "". ] (]) 16:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::::For reference, ] and ] ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages to provide an answer. But this is not a question Misplaced Pages can answer. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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." ] (]) 16:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq| 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}} ] ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 05:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:::So the current version of 'recognition of Israeli sovereignty over ] is ]', makes sense. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]? ] (]) 13:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
== Adding Romanizations ==
{{Edit extended-protected|Israel|answered=yes}}
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 ] (]) 21:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:EEp --> I see romanizations in the footnote. ] (] / ]) 17:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
== POV tag ==
{{ping| האופה}} By what right was my POV tag removed without consideration of the conditions outlined by WP? ] (]) 15:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping| האופה }} pinging one more time. ] (]) 09:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::I think you've got to put reasons and problems on the talk page, otherwise it's ] ] (]) 14:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I have already explained my reasoning in the edit summary as mandated by ], so this is not true, and the lack of engagement in the talk page is all the more worrying. ] (]) 15:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::::You don't need my opinion but I suggest just ], people will iterate on it and maybe be more incentivised to join discussion ] (]) 19:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024 ==
{{edit extended-protected|Israel|answered=yes}}
{{edit extended-protected|Israel|answered=yes}}
I request an edit change of the GDP (Nominal), GDP (PPP), GDP Per Capita (Nominal), and GDP Per Capita (PPP) of Israel to 2025 in Accordance to IMF's October 2024 Database. The source will remain the same as the source currently shown, but the access date will be changed to "2 January 2025". Please Change Before (X) to After (Y).
] (]) 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:'''<!-- Template:EEp -->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. ] which provides several examples that contradict your statement. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 01:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:] ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:Done, are there any other problems you see? ] (]) 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. ] 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. — ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 06:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::::] 9th and 30th is among the highest places? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 17:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Because we're not supposed to link Jews and money I guess. Unlike our sources. Go figure. — ] ] 16:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:Economic facts are economic facts. If Israel ranks highly economically then it ranks high economically. So be it. Data is data. ] (]) 13:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 ==
{{Edit extended-protected|Israel|answered=yes}}
Nakba
Why is the nakba doesn’t mentioned in its name on the lead? It is very important
Add that ] (]) 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 ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> – ] <sup>(] | ])</sup> 20:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::I want to understand why the Nakba is not mentioned ] (]) 21:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Because ]. There is an ongoing discussion about this at ]. ] (]) 22:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
== Sovereignty over east jerusalem in lead ==
The sentence in the lead says "though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law" which with the recent ICJ advisory opinion is an understatement. The full sentence should read:
"Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though under international law East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel." ] (]) 17:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:Agree. More generally, I think the ICJ opinion justifies saying "illegal occupation" in Wikivoice. ] (]) 18:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::In contrast to specifying "under international law"? I'm not sure I agree, since just saying the occupation is illegal could be interpreted as an Israeli court ruling. ] (]) 18:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:::No, not in contrast, I'd be fine with "illegal under international law." I think "illegal occupation" implies illegal under int'l law, not Israeli law, but I have no problem with the clarification of "under int'l law." ] (]) 18:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:+1, there is now an authoritative statement as to the law from the ICJ that the occupation (including EJ) is illegal. That the annex is illegal has been the case for a long time by way of UNSC resolutions and now it is confirmed by the court. It's not just a case of not being recognized anymore, the new requirement is "vacate". ] (]) 18:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:Though is a ] word to watch. Instead of though, I think the sentence should be rewritten using “which”. ] (]) 00:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
::"which" doesnt work here grammatically unless we say something like:
::"Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem which is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel."
::I removed the "seat of government" phrase since it just makes the whole thing wordier and I dont think it really adds anything. ] (]) 14:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:::What about splitting the sentence? Would that help with the grammar? “Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem. This includes East Jerusalem which under international law is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel.”? ] (]) 16:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Never mind, I am ok with using “though” mostly because I don’t think the grammar is right using “which”. I am confused about whether the which is modifying Jerusalem or East Jerusalem in the sentences. ] (]) 16:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
removes "illegally" with edit summary "Removed point of view. Status of Jerusalem is explained in article. Here, it is unfair to say East Jerusalem is "illegally occupied" - that is not obvious enough to state it simply. See NPOV" Although it was clear enough before, it is now certainly obvious enough, there is a clear cut ICJ statement of the matter. Don't tell me we now have to an RFC on this as well. ] (]) 14:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
:That’s in the infobox, the lead still says illegally. I think it’s because the lead clarified that it’s illegal under international law, but the infobox didn’t. The occupation is not illegal under Israeli law. Personally I don’t care whether or not “illegally” is in the infobox or not, maybe the other editor was wanting clarification on the international law part. “Illegally” is still in the lead. ] (]) 14:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::id rather not try to decipher that incomprehensible edit summary. in any case, WP:NPOV is just not applicable here. As was done by someone else, I would just revert this kind of edit. ] (]) 15:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not governed by the opinions of some legal elites but by what reliable sources say. The qualification of "limited recognition" for Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem is the result of a longstanding consensus.
Perhaps we could satisfy all by ditching the rest of the roundabout language ("governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital") and say something like "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but its control over East Jerusalem is internationally considered to be an illegal occupation." ] (]) 04:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:First, there is no recognition at all of Israeli sovereignty so that's wrong and "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is also wrong because Israel has merely claimed that and it is not recognized. ] and probably should in this case, subject to RS dealing with the interpretation of the ICJ opinion (there is already plenty on the requirement that Israel vacate the OPT, for example). ] (]) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::Israel says Jerusalem is its capital. If America says Washington is it's capital, than damn so be it. If Israel has its parliament and government in Jerusalem and says its the capital, it is the capital of the country. If only some of the world recognizes it as the capital, then only some of the world recognizes it as the capital. You understand?
::The current phrasing is a compromise between everyone. Compromise is good, compromise is the Misplaced Pages way. I think there will be a million opinions on this. Let's leave this version, unsatisfying as it is. ] (]) 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The current phrasing is "Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though under international law East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel." ] (]) 14:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::No
::::Israel's governmental seat is in its ] of ], though Israeli sovereignty over ] is not recognised under international law and only has ].
::::This is the compromise version. The new thing was one way and not a compromise. ] (]) 14:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::It's pretty clear what they meant. The last consensual version. I'm also against the new version, it's really biased. ] (]) 14:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Biased how? ] (]) 14:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::HaOfa, I was talking about:
:::::Israel's governmental seat is in its ] of ], though Israeli sovereignty over ] is not recognised under international law and only has ]. ] (]) 14:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's the old version. ] (]) 14:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Israel's governmental seat is in its ] of ], though Israeli sovereignty over ] is not recognised under international law and only has ].
:::::::is better ] (]) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think this might be even better:
::::::''Israel's governmental seat is in its capital, Jerusalem, which Israel asserts as its undivided capital. However, international recognition of its sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited.'' ] (]) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You think it's better. Selfstudier thinks something else is better. Again we are going to talk and talk. I think
:::::::Israel's governmental seat is in its ] of ], though Israeli sovereignty over ] is not recognised under international law and only has ].
:::::::was a good compromise. ] (]) 14:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, illegality and limited recognition are different facets and both are needed. ] (]) 15:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::"Not recognized under international law" is what the status was before the recent ICJ decision. Now, the status is "illegal under international law." Violating int'l law is different from being unrecognized under int'l law, imo. ] (]) 16:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Why did you revert? ] (]) 14:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:] I like the way you explained yourself. Do you think:
:Israel's governmental seat is in its ] of ], though Israeli sovereignty over ] is not recognised under international law and only has ].
:Is a good consensus? ] (]) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::OK, the usual edit warring begins with the usual suspects, time for an RFC? ] (]) 14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The usual suspects? You are wrong. I am not the one who introduced again challenged material without consensus. ] (]) 14:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I have made one revert and several comments in this discussion. Afaics there is an agreement that following the ICJ opinion, the EJ occupation is illegal and now the reverters are arguing there is no consensus for this change so an RFC would seem to be the way to resolve this. ] (]) 14:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::He was talking about ]. But yes, not a great tone. ] (]) 14:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Selfstudier, why are you talking like this about ] ? If you have a problem with him say it nicely. ] (]) 14:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Per my comment above, I am nicely suggesting an RFC as there is no consensus, your point I believe. ] (]) 14:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::No problem. Check you have all the versions people suggested and previous consensus one. ] (]) 15:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Suggest we wait for more comments before we proceed, there is no rush. ] (]) 15:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Are we going to be doing an RfC? I think
:::::::Israel's governmental seat is in its ] of ], though ] considers ] to be ] ] by Israel.
:::::::should also be an option. I slightly changed a few words. ] (]) 00:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::What is the difference between a governmental seat and a capital? Isn't every country's seat of government in its capital? ] (]) 00:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I don’t know. The only words I changed to were “considers” and “to be”. The rest are not my words. The reason I used “considers” is because there is no law that says East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory, rather the judges have interpreted the law and considered the territory to be for a future Palestinian state, I used “to be” because again, there is currently no Palestinian state, and it is unknown if there will be one in the near future. So “to be” seemed more appropriate than “is”. ] (]) 00:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|because there is no law that says East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory}} Please cite the law that says West Jerusalem is Israeli territory.
::::::::::{{tq|the judges have interpreted the law and considered the territory to be for a future Palestinian state}} Citation please.
::::::::::{{tq| there is currently no Palestinian state}} What's ]?
::::::::::ICJ says Israel has committed illegal annex(es) and is conducting an illegal occupation. Of whom/what? ] (]) 08:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::] wiki page says “ The Oslo Accords did not create a definite Palestinian state.” ] (]) 13:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And? ''']''' - 13:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::This is also from the wiki page “ Seth Anziska argued Oslo provided the "vestiges of statehood without actual content", formalizing the "ceiling of Palestinian self-rule". Pointing to statements from Rabin that referred to a permanent solution of Israel existing alongside a Palestinian 'entity' that was (in Rabin's words) "less than a state", “
:::::::::::::If the Oslo Accords didn’t create a state and were considered a failure, then what Accord created the Palestinian state? ] (]) 13:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The wiki page also says “ Although the Oslo Accords did not explicitly endorse a ], they did create ] in the ] and ], and as such have been interpreted as anticipating a two-state future.” ] (]) 13:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Why is an Accord necessary to create a state? ] (]) 13:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I’m not sure but that would be a good question for the Oslo Accords organizers. ] (]) 13:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::The Oslo accords are dead, and yet Palestine exists, as recognised by the UN. ] (]) 13:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I see, so Palestine became a state sometime after the Oslo Accords when the UN recognized it as a state. ] (]) 13:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Hmm. It doesn’t seem like Palestine has been recognized as a full state by the UN. It is a ] state, which also applies to international organizations. Many countries do recognize Palestine as a sovereign state , but it doesn’t seem like the UN has recognized it as such yet. ] (]) 14:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Taiwan is not a member of the UN, it's still a state. Switzerland was a non-member observer (same as Palestine currently) until 2002, but it was definitely a state before 2002. There have been a number of states that had non-member observer status before being fully admitted; ] has the details. ] (]) 14:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::The UN doesn't recognize states, what it did was to upgrade Palestine status from an observer to observer state and changed its designation to SoP at the UN. Palestine's application to be admitted a member state has been blocked by US veto in support of the invalid contention that statehood has to be negotiated with Israel. ] (]) 14:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::I still think using “to be” is not wrong in the sentence since Palestine was upgraded to observer state which is a step towards becoming a UN member state. Like you said self determination does not require negotiation, it can be determined by force through wars, which is how Israel became a state. ] (]) 15:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Not any more, it is expressly forbidden (although Israel seems not to have heard about it). ] (]) 15:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Same could be said of Hamas and their proposed 10-100 year truce, or ''temporary'' stop of fighting. ] (]) 15:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::Hamas is not a state. ] (]) 15:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I think you're confusing a Palestinian state existing with a Palestinian state being recognized by Israel. Don't forget that Israel is not recognized by about 30 states... it still exists. Palestine is not recognized by about 40 states, by comparison. So they have about the same level of international recognition. ] (]) 13:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Yeah, I didn’t know that Palestine was already a state especially the words “two state solution”. I thought the two state solution was to create the second state, but looks like that’s not really what that’s about. ] (]) 13:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::The entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about getting Israel to recognize Palestine. (Which would require Israel to stop occupying it.) That's the thing that hasn't happened yet that (almost) everyone has been trying to get to happen for 75 years. The State of Palestine was declared in 1988, and admitted as a non-member state in 2012. ] has the details. ] (]) 14:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Israel attempts to make it such that the Palestinians are required to negotiate their own independence, aided in that by the US that also insists on "negotiations" as a prerequisite to a Palestinian state but that is not required, negotiations can take place without this condition. And as the ICJ said (102) "The Court observes that, in interpreting the Oslo Accords, it is necessary to take into account Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that the protected population 'shall not be deprived' of the benefits of the Convention 'by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power'. For all these reasons, the Court considers that the Oslo Accords cannot be understood to detract from Israel’s obligations under the pertinent rules of international law applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory." ] (]) 14:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::In other words, self determination doesn't have to be negotiated. ] (]) 14:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Palestine was declared as a state well before Oslo. This has nothing to do with anything though. ''']''' - 17:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Was confused about the critics of Oslo who said it failed to give Palestinians a state, so I thought it was stateless but I have been informed that it is a UN observer state, and I think that it established itself as a state in ‘88. ] (]) 17:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::There is even currently a section in the Oslo wiki article called “ '''Undermining Palestinian aspirations for statehood”.''' This was very confusing because all this time I thought Palestine was trying to create a state, didn’t know it already was a state. I suppose the statehood is referring to the full UN status, so there are different definitions for “state” ] (]) 17:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::That just relates to the Israeli refusal to recognize. States are states when they meet a few conditions (which people play around with a bit) and/or when other states recognize them as states. The US turns to the "conditions" part (Montevideo) and says "not a state" (which suits us because we and Israel are best friends an all) while 3/4 of world states say we recognize it as a state because that's cool and they deserve it.
:::::::::::::::::Some people argue (not a bad argument but an old one now and not likely to get tested) that Palestine was a state in waiting as a class A mandate and that it became a state when the mandate ended and from there, multiplications, 64, 74, choose your poison. Oslo was more like promising recognition as a state and then reneging on the deal. ] (]) 17:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::The PLO declared the State of Palestine in 1988, and it was recognized by some 70 states within a month. In the 26 years since it has been recognized by a total of 145 other states. Now it exercises no sovereignty, and all of its recognized territory is held by Israel under military occupation, but it *is* a state because the only group that determines if a state is a state is other states, and they do that by recognition. The so called "peace process" is about establishing Palestinian sovereignty. But, once again, this has nothing to do with anything here. ''']''' - 17:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Got it, basically Oslo has nothing to do with Palestinian statehood, and its critics were talking about recognition of statehood. Conversation arose because I wanted to use “to be” in a sentence. ] (]) 17:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Palestine has been a state since it was recognized as a state by other states. ''']''' - 12:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::This may be a good time to mention that the ] is recognized by 75% of the world. ] (]) 12:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, less waffle, more accepting the facts. ] (]) 13:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I’m not only person “waffling”, about the Palestinian state. Reliable sources write things in June 2024 like “Why is there no Palestinian state, despite so many states recognizing it?” and talks about protestors calling “for the creation of a Palestinian state.” So I thought there was no state.
::::::::::::This 2022 Cambridge source on international law says “The issue of whether Palestine is, at present, a State remains controversial.”There are legitimate reasons behind the “waffling”. ] (]) 22:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::For every source that says it isn't, there is a source that says it is. At the end of the day, it is difficult to argue with 3/4 of UN member states, it is only recently that another 3 Euro states joined their number, with the possibility of more. And this still has nothing to do with Israeli illegalities, which I believe is what we are actually discussing here. ] (]) 22:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I thought we were discussing my pre RFC proposal:
::::::::::::::Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though international law '''considers''' East Jerusalem '''to be''' Palestinian territory illegally occupiedby Israel. ] (]) 22:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Renewed focus at last, that's three proposals now. ] (]) 22:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Now that I am thinking about it, I think I want to change “to be” to “as”. ] (]) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though international law '''considers''' East Jerusalem '''as''' Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel.
:::::::::::::::::I think it sounds less awkward, and also I realized the sentence is not talking about a Palestinian state or future state, it’s talking about Palestinian territory. To be would be appropriate if it was talking about a state. ] (]) 22:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::international law doesnt consider anything, it is considered Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel ''under'' international law. ''']''' - 22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::International law considers many things ] (]) 22:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{outdent|6}} It does not consider individual circumstances. That link is a definition of international law. Sheesh. ''']''' - 22:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, the link is to all the Google search results with sentences that use the phrase “international law considers”. So that phrase is used, but Selfstudier is more the international law expert currently in discussions so I will defer to his opinion if that phrase is not being used accurately. ] (]) 22:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::The first one is from a chapter in a Springer book chapter, which says {{xt|International law considers the norms that govern these relationships (and many other important transactions)}}. The next one is an overview of an OUP book which says {{xt|'Implementing international law' considers the different ways in which international law is implemented}}. Which isn't quite what you say it is. The others are giving views on general topics (what international law considers to be a free election and so on). I think your suggestion is poorly phrased, and it implies that international law itself is making some consideration. And it is not. ''']''' - 23:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though '''the ICJ''' '''considers''' East Jerusalem '''as''' Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel under international law.
:::::::::::::CNN is attributing the ruling to the court opinion ] (]) 00:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It is more than the ICJ, it is nearly the entire ]. ''']''' - 01:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::You can add that to your RFC proposal then. ] (]) 01:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::There isn't really one in colloquial use, it's an official distinction only in the Netherlands and a couple other countries. Here it's just superfluous language which I've proposed removing for the sake of clarity and brevity. ] (]) 01:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|The qualification of "limited recognition" for Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem is the result of a longstanding consensus.}} you of course are missing that the "longstanding consensus" is irrelevant given the recent ICJ advisory opinion. Not only is it described as "limited recognition", EJ is considered Palestinian territory and illegally occupied by Israel. And of course RS do not say that "Jerusalem is the capital"--it is the *proclaimed* capital. ] (]) 16:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::Again, Misplaced Pages consensuses are not overturned because some UN lawyers gave an *opinion* orthogonal to the relevant question.
::The capitals of countries are indeed set by proclamation. And the word "Jerusalem" of course implies no specific borders. If those desired by the ICJ were implemented, the Israeli capital would still be there. In deference to this reality plenty of mark Jerusalem with a star for the capital (not "seat of government and proclaimed capital") whilst adhering to the Green Line as a border.
::I reiterate my proposal for a new compromise:
::"Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, but its occupation of East Jerusalem is internationally considered to be an illegal annexation of Palestinian territory."
::(Or something to that effect.)
::] (]) 17:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Consensus on Misplaced Pages is not a vote, it is determined by fidelity to our policies. And these are not {{tq|some UN lawyers}} who {{tq|gave an *opinion*}}, it is the highest body in international law saying what international law means. And not orthogonal, actually directly related. ''']''' - 18:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tqq|some UN lawyers}} I think you meant to write "] judges"? a.k.a. "The World Court." ] (]) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Aka, a panel of lawyers who work for the UN and wrote something explicitly called an "advisory opinion". It's of course a notable reflection of current world politics - that's all "international law" has always been - but it doesn't require us to pretend that up is down or that the Israeli capital isn't in Jerusalem.
::::I would like to hear an actual case against the wording I proposed, which I would point out drops the ambiguously incorrect notion of "limited recognition" for Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem in particular. ] (]) 19:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I would like to hear a case against the wording that has been reverted. ] (]) 19:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I believe my proposal incorporates the gist of it, that East Jerusalem is internationally deemed to be usurped Palestinian territory. I agree this is better than the current vague version.
::::::I also think saying Israel's capital is in Jerusalem would be better than the current vague version. I don't see how one could seriously disagree with removing all the euphemistic cruft here about "proclaimed seats of government" and "limited" recognition where none exists, and instead getting straight to the facts: the capital is in Jerusalem but the UN says East Jerusalem is rightfully Palestinian. ] (]) 19:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's a panel of judges, and they represent an organ of the United Nations, they don't {{tq|work for the UN}}. It is an "advisory opinion" because it is *advising* the UN General Assembly on what international law says about this topic. ''']''' - 19:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I guess the US Supreme Court is just a panel of lawyers working for the US. But guess what they get to do: rule on what is and what is not illegal. ] (]) 19:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::SCOTUS has ruled that "advisory opinions" are illegal for failing to present an actual ]. The Wikimedia Foundation being registered in the US, perhaps we could take that opinion under advice.
::::::Or we could recognize that "international law" isn't akin to domestic legal systems, namely because it is based on the principle of recognizing each domestic legal system as equally sovereign. The UN isn't the ] and we should treat its missives accordingly: notable, not prescriptive. ] (]) 20:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::How about we treat SCOTUS as not prescriptive, since that's a partisan, parochial legal lemon? ] (]) 20:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::At least its partisans are chosen by legitimately elected politicians and not the dubiously elected regimes which dominate the UN. But this is off-topic. ] (]) 20:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It does not matter in the end what we think of the ICJ, what matters is what the world and third states in particular, think of it.
:::::::::
:::::::::"It was further asked whether the federal government now recognised that the Israeli occupation as such was unlawful. The spokesperson for the Federal Foreign Office replied:International law is not an à-la-carte menu – international law applies. There is now a non-binding opinion from the highest court of the United Nations that says exactly that. In this respect, there is ultimately little room for interpretation." ] (]) 21:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::And that's a wrap. Because blinkered as even the German government might be on Middle East issues, they don't want to be actively on the wrong side of international law when it has been so clearly and expressly outlined. ] (]) 21:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Uh huh. Relevance to my proposal? ] (]) 21:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, the most obvious objection is that the annexation is not recognized at all, by anyone or the ICJ. The territory is instead considered illegally occupied. And the removal of "proclaimed" another unnecessary tweak since the actual proclamation/purported annex are both illegal as well, Note that this has nothing to do with recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by third states which carries no sovereignty implication over all or any part of Jerusalem, it's just like saying well done you (those few that have said that). ] (]) 21:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::So is it "not recognized" or do recognitions carry "no implication"? (Personally I'd go with the latter, "recognition" politics are silly.)
::::::::::::How about "Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, but its annexation of East Jerusalem is internationally considered to be an illegal occupation of Palestinian territory."
::::::::::::Stating the fact that Israel has annexed East Jerusalem isn't an endorsement thereof, quite the opposite in international law terms. Or we could just say "control of East Jerusalem" if you prefer.
::::::::::::"Proclaimed" is an unnecessary word since all capitals are proclaimed and as you said, whether they're "recognized" or not is beside the point. It would only be a relevant distinction if the seat of government was in fact elsewhere. The phrasing "in Jerusalem" precisely avoids implying Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem and is thus NPOV. ] (]) 22:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Literally the two of those links which describe jerusalem as the capital (the third does not, it only has a star on the map) qualify that it is the proclaimed capital. Let's move on from this point now. ] (]) 18:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I also think that "proclaimed" shouldn't be there. Most sources don't use it. If we do an RfC this should be asked too. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Not separately, need to choose one of the options. I'll relist them shortly if no-one else has any more. ] (]) 20:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
=== Current status ===
Just to keep things on track, I see three proposals atm, any more?
:1. "Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though under international law East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel." (the reverted one)
:2. "Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, but its annexation of East Jerusalem is internationally considered to be an illegal occupation of Palestinian territory." (PrimaPrime)
:3. "Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though the ICJ considers East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel under international law." (Wafflefrites)
(Existing is "Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally.")
] (]) 10:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I would like to change my proposal, please, (following Levivich’s input/feedback below) to: “'''Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem. The ICJ has ruled that Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal under international law.'''”] (]) 16:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Selfstudier, you forgot all the ones that don't mention the Palestine word and also the old consensus version:
:The old consensus version (I propose it, because it is the best compromise and looks like it was a good consensus for a long time):
:Israel's governmental seat is in its ] of ], though Israeli sovereignty over ] is not recognised under international law and only has ].
:Also HaOfa said this
:''Israel's governmental seat is in its capital, Jerusalem, which Israel asserts as its undivided capital. However, international recognition of its sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited.''
:Also you forgot PrimaPrime
:Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but its control over East Jerusalem is internationally considered to be an illegal occupation." ] (]) 11:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::Prima Prime proposal is included at No 2. The "old consensus version" is the existing version mentioned at the bottom. Do you actually read before you type? ] (]) 11:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Whoops my mistake. The other two you need to include. Maybe you can say instead of " Do you actually read before you type?" something that is nicer in tone?? ] (]) 13:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Fwiw I strongly dislike all of them as I think they're all very wordy and awkward. First part should be: {{tqq|Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem.}} Which could just be a sentence on its own (for the lead), and doesn't need a "though" clause following it. We don't have to argue the conflict in each and every sentence. If we do have a second sentence or clause, it should be something like {{tqq|... but international recognition is limited.}} Israel's occupation of EJ doesn't really need to be in the same sentence as the one about the proclaimed capital. I'd rather just a straight up {{tqq|Since 1967, Israel has illegally occupied WB, EJ, and GH, and, until 2005, Gaza.}} The fact of occupation should be in the first paragraph. ] (]) 13:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::I don't know what Fwiw means.
::But this is what was proposed by people and Selfstudier needs to add it. ] (]) 13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't even understand what that means? (fwiw means for what it's worth). ] (]) 13:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::What don't you understand? ] (]) 13:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::What I need to add? ] (]) 13:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for explaining fwiw ] (]) 13:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::I think an option without “though” is good. Did the ICJ rule that the occupation has been illegal since 1967, or was it initially legal and then became illegal sometime afterwards? What does the ICJ say? ] (]) 13:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::You want to change "though" to "however"? to "but"?
:::Sure. ] (]) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The occupation became illegal by virtue of all the reasons given in the opinion. ] (]) 13:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::No problem (for me) to have separate sentences, capital + occupation. Gaza might be troublesome tho. ] (]) 13:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::Gaza remains occupied. ''']''' - 13:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Not sure the RSes would support "remains occupied" (surely something happened in 2005) but we could mention the blockade 2005-present, and maybe re-occupation 2023-present though I'm not sure if this is an "occupation" or just bombing/shooting. ] (]) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::No, the view of the UN and the ICRC (, ) Scholarly opinion is more split than it is for the WB/EJ, but the majority view is that Gaza has continued to be occupied despite the disengagement. The ICJ ruling also included {{xt|In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip.}} ''']''' - 14:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq| Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip}} aka the "functional approach", see ] (]) 14:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
*<blockquote>Israel's seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of ], though ] is widely recognized as ] held under ]. ... (further down in the lead) The International Court of Justice has found that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories of the ], including East Jerusalem, and the ] is illegal under international law.</blockquote> ''']''' - 13:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
*:That's two more options, (Levivich) and (Nableezy), I make that 5 in total (or 6 if we count the existing as an option). ] (]) 15:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
*::Selfstudier, do not forget to add these options:
*::# Israel's governmental seat is in its ] of ], though Israeli sovereignty over ] is not recognised under international law and only has ].
*::# Israel's governmental seat is in its capital, Jerusalem, which Israel asserts as its undivided capital. However, international recognition of its sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited.
*::The first option is what I think is the best compromise. It is the old consesus version.
*::] if you want it can be "however" or "but" instead of the word "though". ] (]) 15:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::The first one is already included in the 6, I don't remember any discussion about the other but if it is included as well, that's 7. ] (]) 15:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::No I was responding to Levivich who said “ Fwiw I strongly dislike all of them as I think they're all very wordy and awkward. First part should be: <q>Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem.</q>Which could just be a sentence on its own (for the lead), '''and doesn't need a "though" clause following it.''' ”
*:::But, however, and though are all ] words to watch. I agree with Levivich that the sentence should be split into two sentences. ] (]) 16:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Reading his additional sentences, he does later propose “but”. Ahhh! If I had to choose, I prefer “though” to “however” and “but” because it’s closer to Britannica’s Israel article. Britannica uses “although”. The wording is actually really similar to Misplaced Pages. Britannica writes: Israel, country in the Middle East, located at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bounded to the north by Lebanon, to the northeast by Syria, to the east and southeast by Jordan, to the southwest by Egypt, and to the west by the Mediterranean Sea. Jerusalem is the seat of government and the proclaimed capital, although the latter status has not received wide international recognition.] (]) 16:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
=== Quickie straw poll===
One sentence or two? Should the sentence "Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem." be a sentence separate from the occupation material?
Atm, Levivich, wafflefrites in support, I don't mind either way. ] (]) 16:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:I don’t think the same structure necessarily has to apply to everyone’s proposal. Others can use “however” “but” “although” “though” if they want. They can also include additional information if they want. I just simplified my proposal and left out the “Palestinian territory” part because I think it’s too much detail and info/content that needs to be dealt with in the body. ] (]) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::If this bit has consensus separately then we don't need to include it in any RFC. ] (]) 16:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:'''one sentence''' and the use of "though" makes it immediately clear why we are saying "proclaimed capital". If this becomes two sentences I can also easy see a few weeks from now someone coming in an moving the second sentence further down in the lead, and another edit removing "proclaimed". The sentence is explaining the status of Jerusalem which at this point really is straightforward enough to present in a single sentence. ] (]) 17:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::OK, since nableezy isn't on board there either, no consensus and it will have to be part of the RFC. ] (]) 17:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::I didn’t realize RFCs were this complicated. Thanks, Selfstudier, for keeping us organized. I think once RFCs have been voted on, we are not allowed to change the wording/remove words unless there’s another RFC. ] (]) 21:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
=== Revised current status ===
Currently, the article says "Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally."
Here is a list of the proposals for change so far (If I got anybody's wrong, just change it):
:1. Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though under international law East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel. (the reverted one)
:2. Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, but its annexation of East Jerusalem is internationally considered to be an illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. (PrimaPrime)
:3. Israel's capital is Jerusalem, and the ICJ has ruled that East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel under international law. (Wafflefrites)
:4. Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem. (possibly but not necessarily with "but international recognition is limited.") as a separate sentence from "Since 1967, Israel has illegally occupied WB, EJ, Gaza and GH." (Levivich)
:5 Israel's seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though East Jerusalem is widely recognized as Palestinian territory held under military occupation AND (further down in the lead) The International Court of Justice has found that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip is illegal under international law. (Nableezy)
:6 Israel's governmental seat is in its capital, Jerusalem, which Israel asserts as its undivided capital. However, international recognition of its sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited. (Maximov)
:7 Israel's capital is Jerusalem with limited international recognition, and the ICJ has ruled that Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal under international law. (Wafflefrites’ version 2)
As for "proclaimed" (currently in the article), the proposals include 4 with and 2 without, if that is a sufficient choice for that matter. ] (]) 09:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:@] Thanks for the overview. I would drop the word "proclaimed", as I don't think it means anything. All national capitals are proclaimed, if you want to say that, but nobody ever does. Also, there is no such thing as international recognition of a capital. We recognize countries, they choose their own capitals. I don't see the problem with saying simply that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That doesn't in any way conflict with also saying (preferably in a separate sentence) that Israel's claim over east Jerusalem is controversial. ] (]) 11:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::Atm, just collecting different proposals for an eventual RFC since there is no consensus on what the article should say. As things stand, in such an RFC, you could choose one of the four options that does not contain the word "proclaimed". ] (]) 11:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:::five options now, since Wafflefrites can't make up his mind. ] (]) 14:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::::It’s four. I think you need to double check your counting. ] (]) 15:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Do you need to add any more alternatives or are you done now? ] (]) 15:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think it’s nice to give people more choices. Since this is an RFC, I think the wording is important since we can’t change it once it is implemented without another RFC. Actually, I think the original edit warring was whether or not the wording should be changed from “limited recognition internationally” to “being illegal under international law”. It’s probably easier to do an RFC first on the limited recognition vs illegal under international law part first, but since it seems we want to do more than one thing in the RFC, I think more options for people is good. ] (]) 15:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::The issue is that Jerusalem isn’t in Israel, or at least a large portion of it. ''']''' - 12:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::Editors' ] about int'l recognition of capitals is irrelevant; the issue is whether ''reliable sources'' use "proclaimed." "Nobody ever does" is quite easily disproven when it comes to Jerusalem. ] (]) 14:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:Feel free to tell me to shut up and stop overly complicating things, ''but''... would it be better to approach this more piecemeal, rather than voting on a series of complete alternatives? Meaning, instead of a series of options, should the RFC ask a series of questions, and then we can form a final sentence based on the answers to those questions? Questions such as:
:#Should it say "proclaimed"?
:#Should it say "seat of government" in addition to " capital"?
:#Should it say "limited recognition"?
:#Should it say "illegal occupation of EJ"?
:#Should it attribute to ICJ?
:#Should it specify "under int'l law"?
:Maybe those aren't the exact questions, but you get the idea. Not sure if this approach is better or not. ] (]) 16:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::In an ideal world, there would be some number (seven is a lot, eight if you include existing) of alternatives that had some traction in talk, unfortunately what we appear to have here is everybody's favored alternative, regardless of whether it had traction.
::What I would ask (not demand, ask) is whether the proposers (I will take option 1 as mine, since we haven't a name to go with that one) can have a little think and maybe plump for a version they could live with rather than insisting on their own ie if you couldn't have your own, which one would you go for? (Wafflefrites excepted, you have to pick an alternative that is neither of your two alternatives).
::So I will kick off, if I cant have 1 (the reverted one), then I would go for 2.
:::1 (reverted one) then 2. It is an indisputable fact in RS that EJ is under occupation since 1967, that was only '''re'''-affirmed by the ICJ. We do not to attribute facts. Facts are also not up for democratic voting.
:::] (]) 11:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::2 or 3 are fine by me. ] (]) 07:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Looked at after this, altho not everyone has pitched in, Options 1 and 2 are currently the only options mentioned more than once (conveniently, one has proclaimed and one not) and no-one seems interested in the existing wording.
::::Anyone object to running an RFC based on those two options? Should we add 3, 4 and 5 as well, each mentioned once, for a total of 5 options? ] (]) 12:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::2 and 3 ] (]) 14:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::"seat of government" in addition to " capital" + "limited recognition"
:::Basically old consensus version. ] (]) 14:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:The elephant in the room, currently we have this in the third paragraph:{{green|The 1967 Six-Day War saw Israel occupy the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has established and continues to expand settlements across the occupied territories, which is widely considered illegal under international law, and '''has effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which is largely unrecognized internationally'''}}. To avoid repetion, I think that the first paragraph should keep a sentence like "Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem, but Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem remains largely unrecognised internationally." while anything about East Jerusalem and the other territories being Palestinian and '''illegally''' occupied should be in the third paragraph. ] (]) 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::Choose an option from the available 8 (along with a secondary, assuming you could not have your first). ] (]) 14:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::Hmm sounds good. But I also think we have to mention that one says it is Palestinian illegal, others say Jews have a right to Jerusalem and the region because it is their ancient homeland. That way, we have both. But I agree it should be explained in 3rd paragraph and kept very brief in first. ] (]) 14:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Option 4, including in the lines "but international recognition is limited". ] (]) 15:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::An option 9, then (and no secondary). At which point I hand the baton to {{Re|Levivich}} as there is no consensus on the long form options for an RFC, would you care to try your series of questions method instead :) ] (]) 15:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::This is going to be way too unwieldy, need to focus on individual choices, and not that many of them. ''']''' - 15:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::{{yo|Nableezy}} (and everyone else) Which individual choices would you suggest we focus on, and in what format? (Questions, proposed drafts, or something else?) ] (]) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::1. Should Jerusalem be described as the capital, the proclaimed capital, or seat of government in its proclaimed capital? Should it also include "largely unrecognized", "limited recognition", or nothing further?<br>2. Should East Jerusalem be described as occupied, illegally occupied, or not at all? ''']''' - 14:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Based on your list of seven options above I would ask only 5 questions instead of 6 as Levivich did.
::#Should it say "proclaimed"?
::#Should it say "seat of government" in addition to " capital"?
::#Should it say East Jerusalem is considered Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel under international law or something similar?
::#Should it say only that Israel's control over East Jerusalem have limited recognition or is largely unrecognized?
::#Should it exclude East Jerusalem from the sentence and just say that Israel's claim of Jerusalem as its capital have limited recognition or is largely unrecognized? ] (]) 16:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::#:Simple. Proclaimed ... Capital ... EJ annexation both illegal and internationally unrecognised. ] (]) 17:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::#:I am in favour of 2. Government + capital. I think 4 is the best reasonable one. It is unclear if it is occupied from Jordan, from Mandatory Palestine, others say there is no occupation. So it is 100% disputed. Best Neutral thing to say is that there limited recognition because there is the significant recognition of America. ] (]) 14:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Selfstudier! You put HaOfa's version! Not mine.
:Mine is the original one from before all this.
:# Israel's governmental seat is in its ] of ], though Israeli sovereignty over ] is not recognised under international law and only has ]. (Maximov)
:# Israel's governmental seat is in its capital, Jerusalem, which Israel asserts as its undivided capital. However, international recognition of its sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited. (HaOfa)
:There is a difference. ] (]) 14:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::The discussion has moved on since then. ] (]) 15:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Wait, are you saying there is no place for versions proposed earlier?
:::Why?
:::I have to speak here every day? ] (]) 06:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I was telling you got mixed up. You put one version by another editor and not mine! I was involved in the talk, so why is mine not here? ] (]) 06:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
All gone quiet, how about
:"Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital as its although most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. Palestine claims illegally occupied East Jerusalem for its capital." ] (]) 12:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:based on the votes above, isnt 2 the obvious winner? ] (]) 14:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::It seems to be the most popular among the choices. If anyone is strongly opposed to it, I'd be curious to hear why. ] (]) 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I put it in, see what happens. ] (]) 15:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I mean 2 is the bare minimum even though I have reservations about " is internationally considered," which is effectively a redundant attribution for what is widely an undisputed fact among relevant RS. ] (]) 15:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Why did you not just tag people involved in discussion? You said we are heading for RFC. Now you do this? Bro. Do the RFC with different opinions. I don't understand why you just put this after prior discussion we said we are doing an RFC. Also from what I know many people have been saying different things and there is no agreement. So if you feel it is not advancing. Do the RFC. Start the vote. But you need to keep the old consensus version until vote end. ] (]) 07:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::No MDH RFC is to call different people right? ] (]) 06:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Different people who are not always in topic and then there are more opinions. ] (]) 06:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
== Edit request: Richest country in the article ==
{{old heading|Edit request: Continued appeal to remove antisemitic tone from article}} ] ] (]) 21:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
The word “richest” does not appear in any other country’s lead. Why does that word appear in Israel’s lead when it doesn’t appear in any other article’s lead?
The sources linked define “richest” as GDP per capita.
A sample of wordings from the leads of other Asian countries:
Thailand - “It has the second-largest economy in Southeast Asia and the 23rd-largest in the world by PPP, and it ranks 91st by nominal GDP per capita.”
Singapore - “As a highly developed country, it has one of the highest GDP per capita (PPP) in the world.”
Qatar - “The country has the fourth-highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the world and the eleventh-highest GNI per capita (Atlas method). It ranks 42nd in the Human Development Index, the third-highest HDI in the Arab world.”
Saudi Arabia - “The Saudi economy is the largest in the Middle East and the world's nineteenth largest by nominal GDP and seventeenth largest by PPP.”
South Korea - “It is considered a regional power and a developed country, with its economy ranked as the world's fourteenth-largest by nominal GDP and the fourteenth-largest by GDP (PPP)”
China - “Making up around one-fifth of the world economy, the Chinese economy is the world's largest economy by GDP at purchasing power parity, the second-largest economy by nominal GDP, and the second-wealthiest country”
Japan - “A highly developed country with one of the world's largest economies, Japan is a global leader in science and technology and the automotive, robotics, and electronics industries.”
Turkey - “Turkey is an upper-middle-income and emerging country; its economy is the world's 18th-largest by nominal and 11th-largest by PPP-adjusted GDP.”
UAE has the 5th or 6th highest GDP per cap PPP in the world and this is how it’s described in its lead - “The country has the most diversified economy among the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. In the 21st century, the UAE has become less reliant on oil and gas and is economically focusing on tourism and business. The UAE is considered a middle power.”
United States (for reference) - “the United States has had the largest nominal GDP since about 1890 and accounted for 15% of the global economy in 2023. It possesses by far the largest amount of wealth of any country and has the highest disposable household income per capita among OECD countries.”
Even the actual richest country in the world (by the GDP PPP metric), Luxembourg, does not use the word “richest” in its lead:
Luxembourg - “Luxembourg is a developed country with an advanced economy and one of the world's highest GDP (PPP) per capita as per IMF and World Bank estimates.”
Israel - Israel has one of the biggest economies in the Middle East and is one of the top ten richest countries in the Middle East and Asia, depending on various rankings.
I request we edit the sentence to conform to the standards of style in every single other country. Remove the word richest and add the universally used GDP per Capita (PPP). According to the sources, it has the 8th highest GPD per capita (PPP) in the Middle East and Asia.
] (]) 19:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
: {{Partly done}} Rewritten a bit differently. It's absurd to argue that the term "rich" is antisemitic. However, the term is also too vague and too poorly defined (rich in what? Natural resources? Human capital? Bank reserves? etc.) to be used in this manner in the lead. — ] ] 22:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, "richest" isn't encyclopedic, as mentioned – too vague. ] (]) 19:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::@] Actually, it's not absurd. Don't underestimate the cliché of the rich Jew, from Shakespeare's Shylock to the supposed bankers behind the "International Jewish Conspiracy". It's a pretty potent motif. ] (]) 11:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: ]s are not the same as ethnic hatred. Conflating the two is absurd. — ] ] 11:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::::@] This particular ethnic stereotype has a long history of being used hatefully. The recommendation to use more thoughtful language is good advice. ] (]) 13:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I guess you'll have hard time to convince many editors that ''Israel is a rich country'' amounts to hate speech. EOT for me. — ] ] 13:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
== Edit request: grammar ==
4th paragraph of lead reads:
“It also has of the highest GDP per capita as well as standard of living in the Middle East and Asia.”
As written, I think the intent would be “It also has ONE of the highest GDP per capita as well as standardS of living in the Middle East and Asia.” ] (]) 14:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}, good catch! ] (]) 22:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
== Invasion ==
{{ping|nableezy}} As far as I remember the phrasing that Arab countries "invaded" Palestine in 1948 was discussed here previously and decided to be dropped from the lede. I think the previous version was better and more concise. The events of 1948 are generally termed the ], of which the ] was a subset; and not the other way around. ] (]) 11:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:Invaded was already there, I just specified it was Palestine and not Israel that was invaded. ''']''' - 11:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::Never mind, rusty memory. {{ping|nableezy}} Would you support this phrasing: "By the end of the ], which also ] neighboring Arab countries, Israel was ] on most of Mandatory Palestine, and saw the ] of the majority of the mandate's predominantly Arab Palestinian population. ] (]) 11:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
== Arabic in infobox ==
Misplaced Pages articles on states that have languages of lower status than official language do not generally list the names of the state in those languages. For example's ]'s name is only presented in its official language of Mandarin Chinese, despite other languages having legal recognition in China. This is just one example, but feel free to take a look at countless other examples of this. It's also in line with the essay on style presented at ].
In the same way, because Arabic is not an official language of Israel, it should not be in the infobox of the English language Misplaced Pages's article. I understand that Arabic was formerly an official language in Israel. However, given its current status, it should be removed. ] (]) 12:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:It's still an officially recognized language ] (]) 17:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::That's not the standard. "Officially recognized language" and "official language" are two different things. Moreover, as the ] article notes:
::''The 2018 Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People declared Hebrew as the "state's language" and Arabic as a language that has "a special status in the state" whose use "in state institutions or by them will be set in law."''
::In fact, Arabic is not even an "officially recognized language." Instead, it is simply a language that has "a special status in the state." The Israeli government's sole official language is Hebrew, with some laws mandating that in addition to Hebrew, Arabic (and English) is used as a supplementary language for street signs and other limited situations. However, as was made clear in the 2018 Basic Law, Arabic is explicitly NOT an official language or co-equal language to Hebrew in any way. For this reason, the infobox of this article misrepresents the status of Arabic by having the country's name in Arabic. In fact, as noted in ], other languages besides Arabic are also granted certain special statuses, such as English, Russian, Amharic, Yiddish and Ladino. The ] article, for example, only uses the German language for the native name line, despite the German government recognizing several regional and minority languages. In contrast, the ] article, in recognition of the country's three co-equal official languages, uses all three for its native name. So then that brings us back to the main question: why is Arabic, which is explicitly NOT an official language in Israel, used for the native name line in the infobox, while Russian, Amharic, Yiddish, and Ladino are not? There should be consistency here. ] (]) 20:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::And you want to take as our guiding star here the very nation-state law that has been castigated as being straight up racist? One in every five people in the country is Arabic; and that's ignoring the millions more who ultimately live under ]. Show me the policy or guideline that prohibits significant minority languages with "special status" being referenced in the infobox, or let's end this here, thanks. ] (]) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::My concern is that using Arabic for the native name gives a false perception of inclusiveness, when in fact it's an apartheid state (as you've pointed out) that discriminates against both Arabs themselves and the Arabic language. Of course, the nation-state law is racist. Including Arabic in the native name downplays the racism in the state of Israel, especially since the actual native name in Arabic for the land is Palestine. ] (]) 03:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I’ve changed “Recognized language” to “Special status” to reflect the language in the footnote, body paragraph and reliable sources. Yes, there is an Arabic word for Palestine. There is also an Arabic word for Israel: And there’s a Hebrew word for Palestine ] (]) 04:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
== Edit request: neutrality ==
The wording in the lead for the article for Palestine is “Its proclaimed capital is Jerusalem while Ramallah serves as its administrative center and Gaza City was its largest city until 2023.”
No mention of West Jerusalem or any disputed territory there. The info box for Palestine says limited recognition next to Jerusalem as the capital and the info box for Israel says limited recognition next to Jerusalem.
In the interest of neutrality, I recommend we match that wording here as much as possible and change:
”Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally.”
to:
”Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem.”
The third paragraph of the lead already contains the exact same content I recommend removing from the first paragraph:
”Israel has established and continues to expand settlements across the occupied territories, which is widely considered illegal under international law, and has effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which is largely unrecognized internationally.”
It is redundant and against policy to repeat information in a lead in this manner. Previous discussion of this sentence has not addressed comparative neutrality or redundancy of content
] (]) 15:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
== Disputed Nakba content ==
needs to be discussed. Multiple editors have changed and reverted this wording now.
The version reading "Over both phases of the war, a majority of Palestinian Arabs were ] for ]" is ], minimizing the expulsions by vaguely suggesting there were "various causes".
The version reading "Over both phases of the war, ] from the territory Israel would come to control" is the more accurate. In fact, "or were forced to flee" would be more accurate than simply "or fled". ] (]) 08:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The various causes version has been restored with edit summary of simply "there is no consensus for this new change" -] (]) 09:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Before (X): 2024 Estimate
This content has been edit warred over since at least June 23. I don't know which version was the "status quo" version but it really shouldn't matter that much. I'd like to point out ] and ]. ] (]) 09:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
GDP (PPP)
• Total
Increase $541.343 billion (47th)
• Per capita
Increase $54,446 (29th)
GDP (nominal)
:I don't have an opinion on which version, but your edits are highly problematic for two reasons. (1.) The sentence is based on a source, yet you change the sentence while keeping the same source. Can you point out which sentence in the source support your wording? If there's none, you violate ] (whereas if there is, this first point can be ignored). (2.) You speculate on the motives of other editors, which violates ]. ] (]) 22:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Total
::]? See the article ] and all the sourcing there. ] (]) 23:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Increase $528.067 billion (29th)
:::My question was where in the articles by Ghanim, Stern, and Cleveland you find that claim. ] (]) 23:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Per capita
Increase $53,110 (18th)
This content continues to be edit warred over without being discussed. ] (]) 20:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC) @], @]. 20:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
After (Y): 2025 Estimate
== Edit request: info box Establishment ==
GDP (PPP)
• Total
Increase $565.878 billion (47th)
• Per capita
Increase $55,847 (29th)
GDP (nominal)
In the Establishment section of the info box, for Basic Laws, it says “1958-2018.”
• Total
Increase $550.905 billion (29th)
• Per capita
Increase $54,370 (18th) ] (]) 18:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{Done}} Thank you. ] ] 16:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
This formatting might be interpreted as saying that the Basic Laws existed from 1958 through 2018. But it’s actually that the first was passed in 1958 and the most recent Basic Law was passed in 2018.
== Edit Request ==
This may not be the most perfect of solutions, but maybe it would be more accurate to change the date range to a list of the years each Basic Law was passed:
At the end of the History section there are a few sentences about accusations if genocide against Israel. Since there's an ongoing RfC about its very inclusion shouldn't it be removed until the RfC is concluded? ] (]) 18:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
source for years is https://m.knesset.gov.il/en/activity/pages/basiclaws.aspx ] (]) 22:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:Was discussed at ], EC editors are aware of the addition, in the RFC the majority is not really objecting to due inclusion of material in the article body, the principal debate is as to whether a link is due in the lead. ] (]) 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:I did this: First Basic Law passed in 1958. Most recent Basic Law passed in 2018
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Israel is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 74 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2023, when it received 13,344,140 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report13 times. The weeks in which this happened:
view·edit Frequently asked questions
Why is Jerusalem listed as Israel's capital in the infobox?
Israel declares Jerusalem to be its capital, and has its seat of government there. However, the lack of international recognition is notable, hence the subtext was added "(limited recognition)" as the result of this RfC. For further information see Status of Jerusalem.
RfC
Should the article Gaza genocide be linked from this article, and if yes, where?
Possible answers:
No, it should not be linked
Yes, it should be linked in the lead.
Yes, it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Yes, it should be linked in the lead and the body of the article, attached to content similar to that Selfstudier developed above, and content similar to that Huldra developed in would serve well in the lede. It's obviously something readers are going to be coming to this page to learn more about, and the information exists on the encyclopedia, the conversations about whether it belongs here or not have laready been had, so there's no reason this page should not serve reader needs. — penultimate_supper 🚀 21:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph + add a single sentence to the end of lead like this, Huldra (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why it would be necessary to add it as a completely separate paragraph (if we were to add it) instead of just putting at the end of the third paragraph, which is far more related, and less abrupt. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes,adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph and add a single sentence to the end of lead per Huldra, but I would modify their suggested text ("In 2024, Israel was accused of committing the Gaza genocide)" to "In 2024, Israel was accused of committing genocide in Gaza" or similar. My logic for the change is that the accusation/dispute centres on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide (or are legitimate self-defence/similar), rather than whether the 'Gaza genocide' is being committed by Israel (as opposed to some other State or body) which Huldra's text otherwise implies.Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes to Selfstudier's suggestion in the body per the weight of reliable sources given (I'll leave to others to determine where), with a summary in the lead. Only suggestion is to add the arrest warrants on. TarnishedPath09:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
No The article "Gaza genocide" presents claims that lack broad consensus within the international community and are subject to significant dispute. Linking to such an article may mislead readers into perceiving these claims as established facts rather than contested allegations, thereby compromising the integrity of the host article. Eladkarmel (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
No per MaskedSinger, Allthemilescombined1 and Eladkarmel; feels like including this would unduly shoehorn something in that doesn't belong in the general overview article. Andre🚐21:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes. There's a relevant section where it can be mentioned: Israel#Israeli-occupied_territories. Right now, this article doesn't mention two important things: That the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a fugitive wanted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, and that Israel is being charged with genocide by South Africa in the International Court of Justice. I think there can be a new subsection in the "Israeli occupied territories" section, that mentions both facts. I see Selfstudier has given a sample text. I support that paragraph being added to the relevant section, but I think a mention of the ICC's arrest warrant of the Prime Minister of Israel (and Yoav Gallant's warrant too) could also be added, since it's also international litigation for crimes against humanity in Gaza. Mohammed Deif's arrest warrant doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. I think we can have a new subsection titled "Gaza Strip" that moves text that already exists in the section. So in addition to Selfstudier's text, I would add the first sentence of the arrest warrant article to the end of it, and make it look like THIS (A link to a sandbox page that would show what the article would look like).--JasonMacker (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
As far as adding it to the lead, the already existing sentence in the lead, "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." seems to be a good enough summary, but I guess I would modify it to "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations, the International Criminal Court, and United Nations officials." The ICC is technically not a UN body, so it should be mentioned separately. But other than that, I think such a sentence would be fine. I'm open to suggestions on this though. JasonMacker (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*No. The genocide allegation appears to be, at the moment, primarily a tool of propaganda. Unless substantial new evidence emerges, analyzed by impartial, non-politicized sources and supported by more than two vague statements and casualty figures (which include a significant number of Hamas militants but the Hamas-run Health Ministry prefers not to differentiate militants from civilians), such claims lack the rigor required for inclusion in serious, encyclopedic coverage. ABHammad (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
No. This article is about the State of Israel. Not news. Should the articles about the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and many others feature the various proven genocides that actually took place, or even in the lead? Might as well say "also known as the Z.E.", in the lead or anywhere, with some extra brackets for good measure? This is a matter of an ongoing armed conflict, with fog of war and disinformation throughout. Not only would it be "commenting on an ongoing investigation" as they say, but entirely inappropriate and irresponsible. Skullers (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes Per WP:LEDE, required mention of significant criticism or controversies, clearly true and which several of the No !votes have acknowledged as being the case. A mention should be added via inclusion within the sentence "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Not in the lede - a good chunk of the lede is already criticism, so adding additional accusations would seem like POV shoehorning. Not necessarily against inclusion in the body, but there isn't a specific proposal to comment on. — xDanielx /C\ 23:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
User:XDanielx there is a question about whether it should be in the body. ("Yes, it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph") So, if you agree: which paragraph? Huldra (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@Huldra: Relevant material is currently in the body, unless it is reverted. The original dispute was about a sentence being added to the lead not material being added to the body, something which is not usually a source of dispute unless the amount of such material is undue. Option 2 already assumes material present in the body, no?. And option 1 just says no, so the third option is not really necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: When I started this RfC on the 22 nov, it wasn't in the body (that was first added the 27th) so the the third option is useful (necessary?) for keeping it there, Huldra (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I just think the two things should not be mixed up, this RFC should not attempt to rubber stamp the addition that I made to the body, that should just be subject to the normal editing process. Imagine that I had not added it and people voted option 2? Then there would have had to have been another discussion about what should be in the body, so yes I have attempted to remedy a deficiency in the way the RFC was drafted and hopefully it meets with approval. Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes in the body and the lede: There are prominent RS (UN Special Committee, Israeli holocaust scholar Omer Bartov to cite two examples) supporting the charachterization that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza, so there is no reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the body. Accordingly, lede summarizes the body, so it should include that, given that it is one of the most prominent controversies Israel is facing second to the crime of apartheid in the West Bank (I am in favor of including both in the lede), though admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed, that's why for now it can be described as an accusation. The perfect short phrasing in my opinion for the lede can be:
“
Israel's practices in the occupied territories has drawn sustained international criticism for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including for maintaining an apartheid regime in the West Bank, as well as being accused of committing a genocide in Gaza.
Update to my "admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed," that is beginning to change as Amnesty International launched a report today charachterizing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. While this does not yet mean the threshold has been reached, but it gives a whole new significance to the inclusion of the "accusation" to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
1) Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. WP:Tertiary sources can be used to assess WP:DUE. My understanding is that once DUEness is established, Misplaced Pages articles can be kept up to date. This is actually a strength of Misplaced Pages. For example, no one would argue mentioning something about the economy in this article is WP:UNDUE. WP:Tertiary and overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel would include something about the economy. It could be too much or too little, but something about the economy would be DUE in this article. However, economic stats in this article would probably be much more up to date than many published overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel such as Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Israel.
Similarly, WP:Tertiary sources mention Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict at length. As such, Gaza genocide would be DUE. If in several years, newly published WP:Tertiary sources do not mention this, it can be taken out of the lead. If in several years, both newly published WP:Tertiary and overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel do not mention this, it can also be taken out of the body. But for now, to keep the article up to date, this is DUE. (Update: quote from intro chapter in overview secondary source provided belowBogazicili (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC))
...That conflict, which became known as the Arab-Israeli conflict, has heavily influenced Israel's development, as security issues have dominated Israeli politics and society since 1948...
World Encyclopedia, Israel entry (accessible through Misplaced Pages library). There's nothing similar to the Misplaced Pages lead. The "lead" in encyclopedia entry is just few sentences about geography. But the history section mentions these issues.
A Guide to Countries of the World (4 ed.) Israel entry (accessible through Misplaced Pages library). There's no history section, but large coverage, especially under Contemporary politics section.
3) MOS:LEADLENGTH. The above proposal would trim the lead word count by something like 26 words. It'd still be more than 400 words, but even many featured articles are longer than 400 words. Bogazicili (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
You linked to four tertiary sources, but I don't see the word "genocide" in any of them? (Britannica links to recent news about it, but that seems temporary.) Maybe this is a sign that our lede's focus should somehow be different, but in terms of accusations of genocide, if anything it seems like a sign that we should omit them.
I don't think there's any dispute that something like accusations that it has committed genocide would pass WP:V, but that isn't really an argument for highlighting material in a lede. That comes down mainly to WP:DUE and to MOS:LEDE, which tell us to briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. — xDanielx /C\ 01:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I gave my reasoning for this.
This is a recent and ongoing event. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, published in 2008, would not have mentioned 2024 events. It's a reliable source, but they are not clairvoyant.
My DUE argument was due to heavy coverage of Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict in Israel entries in tertiary sources.
If sources published in the next few years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, it can be taken out of the body or the lead.
But for now, we can keep the article up to date. I believe this is the precedent in Misplaced Pages. Otherwise Misplaced Pages would be several years or longer behind everything if we had to wait for overview WP:Secondary or WP:Tertiary sources for everything. Once those type of sources covering recent events are available however, those sources would determine how we proceed. Bogazicili (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it should be linked in the lead, at the end of the third paragraph where it discusses war crimes and crimes against humanity. This text has been through various iterations, but would benefit from greater precision by means of specificity. A great many countries have been accused of war crimes, making that a rather generic, not outstanding observation. While it is probably more notable that Israel has been accused of a particularly voluminous number of different war crimes in the post-WWII period, sitting above that are the very specific crimes against humanity in which it has been implicated –namely apartheid and genocide. Now apartheid has already been through the RFC process and denied a mention (based on rationales that grow poorer by the day) but to the question here, yes, it is extremely pertinent to mention the particularly nation-defining crime against humanity of genocide – the so-called crime of crimes. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but not in the lead. There's some discussion of genocide in the 21st century section of the article and this link could be put there, but it's not clear why this should be added to the lead. I am strongly opposed to adding it to the lead and most of the arguments for inclusion into the lead can be discounted on WP:10YT/WP:NOTTHENEWS/WP:RECENTISM grounds. Nemov (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes for the body, no for the lead It is certainly notable enough to mention in a relevant part of the article, but I think it is too recent to mention in the lead, since we cannot assess long-term historical importance yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The bar for something being included in the lead is pretty high, much higher than inclusion in the body. According to MOS:LEADNO, emphasis on material, such as the Gaza genocide, should reflect its relative importance to the topic as described by reliable sources. I think the current state of the lead is fine, although I would also be fine with adding a sentence or two about how Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal. I don't think the Gaza genocide by itself has enough weight to warrant inclusion in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly warrants inclusion in the lead. However, is the Gaza genocide itself heavily covered in those entries? It is the level of coverage for the specific topic that matters, not the level of coverage of the wider subject it is part of. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It says summarize the most important points. I am simply contending that this is not one of them. Israel is a sizable country with a lot of history, and I don't believe that this has enough DUE weight in reliable sources about Israel as a whole to warrant including prominently in the lead, although I think it is important enough to mention in the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict definitely warrants inclusion in the lead, and we could probably add a sentence about the legality of Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, but I think including the Gaza genocide specifically in the lead would be recentist and UNDUE, especially since the Israel-Hamas war is only covered by "several wars" in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
See the wording suggestion above. This could be added into the lead while trimming the lead. For WP:DUE, we can look at coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict. If newer tertiary sources in the upcoming years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, Gaza genocide can be taken out. Do we have any tertiary sources published in the past few months?
If the only sources were newspaper articles, recentist arguments would succeed. However, we have so many secondary sources on Gaza genocide now. Bogazicili (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we have many secondary sources on the Gaza genocide. We also have many secondary sources on a variety of other things, like the 7 October attacks or the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes. Those aren't included in the lead either. My question is whether secondary or tertiary sources on the topic of Israel as a whole mention the genocide. If not, it shouldn't be in the lead yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Arguing that we should rush this into the lead because we can't assess long-term importance yet is pure recentism. I'm not saying we can't update the body to add this information, but we should wait on adding it to the lead until the long-term impact is more clear. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It says summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies I can assure you this is a prominent controversy. Well, unless you can convince me it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It is a decently prominent controversy, but the State of Israel has had a lot of prominent controversies in its short history, and we can't stuff them all in the lead. I think mentioning that their occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal would cover the most important controversy, being their illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The Gaza genocide is arguably a subtopic of that. For an applicable example from another article, the featured article Japan does not mention the atrocities they committed against China in World War II in the lead, even though it was, and still is, a very prominent controversy. Similarly, the lead of Germany only gives the Holocaust two words in a sentence about the Nazi government. Similar considerations apply here. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The only one I have been able to find is Brittanica, which has been updated recently and makes no mention of the genocide. Very few overview sources have been published in that timeframe, and you are asking me to prove a negative. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Only in the body while it’s a non-insignificant criticism, it’s not sufficiently significant to be included in the lead. Both based on the uncertain status and the recency of the accusation, the lead should instead continue referring to other, certain misconduct, per the relevant policies cited above, instead of referring to a disputed interpretation of some of the very recent actions. FortunateSons (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I would defer to the cited Britannica here; more importantly, the fact that we’re discussing less than a handful of sources and a timeframe of 6 Months (or a year) is a strong indication that this is in fact recency bias. FortunateSons (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
That seems like an WP:OR explanation. We do not know when Britannica updates their articles. It could be once in every 5 years for example. Bogazicili (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Since 1955, the population of Palestine has steadily increased. The life expectancy has increased, the infant mortality and child death rate has decreased. So I don’t understand how Israel has been genociding the Palestinians if all these numbers are improving for them. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Without even getting into if the advocacy group source you provided is a reliable source, for accusation of genocide, we would use WP:Secondary sources such as , so the source you provided does not invalidate those, per WP:NPOV. Bogazicili (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
In this context we should not overlook the latest turning point in the history of Palestine – the attack by Hamas on 7th October 2023 on Israeli settlements adjacent to Gaza and the subsequent genocidal war that the state of Israel has carried out in the Gaza strip
Given no recent (second half of 2024 for example) overview secondary or tertiary sources about Israel have been provided in this RfC, and given the lengthy coverage of Arab-Israel conflict in older tertiary sources about Israel, and given the above sources, I now think that three things are due both in the lead and in the body:
The lack of recent overviews (I don't think many have been published) does not mean that we should include these things in the lead. I support adding the Israel-Hamas war, I think the other two would be both be giving UNDUE weight to recent events. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The lack of recent overviews means we have to use what we have (above), while keeping in mind the heavy coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict in older sources. I just pinged you to ask for newer sources though, no need to discuss what we already discussed above. Bogazicili (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the available sourcing here and on the related article indicates that it's a major part of the coverage and history of Israel. The arguments against inclusion don't make any sense, either; whether individual editors agree with it, or whether it's disputed, are reasons to be cautious about the precise wording for how we cover it, but they're not what we use to determine if we cover it at all - that question comes down to how broad and high-quality the sourcing is and how significant they treat it as. And the extensive academic sourcing clearly justifies treating it as a high-profile aspect of the topic worth discussing prominently here. A lead is supposed to contain mention of significant criticism or controversies; we don't exclude high-profile stuff just because it's controversial. The sourcing disputing it above doesn't help; while it's not terribly high-quality, I'm sure higher-quality sourcing for that perspective exists... but it's written from the perspective of "this is an important and central argument over Israel", ie. a controversy worth covering even if they have a clear perspective on it. The sort of coverage that would be necessary to exclude it isn't just academics who disagree, but sourcing that establishes that it is broadly fringe, which doesn't seem to be the case. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes in body (end of 21st century para) and lead per Selfstudier and Iskandar323, as well as WP:10YT - while I've seen several comments opposing the change on 10YT grounds, I actually think that as increasing amounts of information - backed by RS, of course - comes out on this topic, it will look increasingly strange in 10 years time for us to not have included this. Regardless of how one personally feels about the matter, this is a significant charge to be levied against a state, and it will be significantly more confusing to omit or downplay this information than to just include it. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
This doesn’t seem that actionable an RfC, or that productive a question. The content of the article is what is discussed, and links serve as navigational aids for delving into the content. Considering a link alone in the aether rather misses its purpose. CMD (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't seem very neutral to cover statements from sources like Albanese without also covering accusations of bias on their part. — xDanielx /C\ 23:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
It doesn’t make sense to cover things that aren’t relevant to the topic, like accusations of bias instead of addressing the substance of the statement. nableezy - 00:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
If we don't want to get into such accusations of bias then we shouldn't be using sources like Albanese in the first place. — xDanielx /C\ 17:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
That makes no sense to me. We dont include accusations of bias against the Times of Israel anytime we use them as a source, or the NYTimes, or Benny Morris, or whatever other reliable sources we cite. The ad hominem of "she's biased" is not relevant to the argument she makes or the qualifications she has to make them. At most, such accusations belong in the biography of Albanese, or Morris, or whatever other article that covers the sources themselves, not whenever they are cited. nableezy - 17:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
That's not at all comparable. NYT and Morris are occasionally criticized by both sides for various perceived biases. Accusations of bias against Albanese are far more significant, e.g. with officials from several different governments openly calling her antisemitic or unfit for her role. — xDanielx /C\ 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
They are directly comparable, and governments arent reliable sources for anything other than the views of the politicians heading those governments. It is a basic ad hominem, and it has nothing to do with the actual content of her comments. nableezy - 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't really make sense to call this an ad hominem, when source selection inherently involves evaluating sources rather than the content of their statements. Surely the WP:BESTSOURCES here would be uninvolved ones with some semblance of objectivity.
Covering Albanese's claim here is like covering Biden's claim that there isn't a genocide. Clearly neither is among the BESTSOURCES, and neither claim is noteworthy enough that it would need to be covered anyway. — xDanielx /C\ 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Biden is a politician speaking as a politician. Albanese is an expert in international law, speaking as an expert in international law. nableezy - 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
And Jews and others praising her, no? She must be doing something right. Afaics, she has tended to be ahead of the curve on most matters. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
^ "Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people". OHCHR. 16 November 2023. Archived from the original on 24 December 2023. Retrieved 22 December 2023. Grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians in the aftermath of 7 October, particularly in Gaza, point to a genocide in the making, UN experts said today. They illustrated evidence of increasing genocidal incitement, overt intent to "destroy the Palestinian people under occupation", loud calls for a 'second Nakba' in Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the use of powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts, resulting in a colossal death toll and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure.
undue because its nothing but military history....no memtiom of any other history. Sounds like the most unstable country doing nothing but being at war. Moxy🍁 13:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Agree so much details - over info that can be and is covred in sub articles that can be trimed like :The Jewish insurgency continued and peaked in July 1947, with a series of widespread guerrilla raids culminating in the Sergeants affair, in which the Irgun took two British sergeants hostage as attempted leverage against the planned execution of three Irgun operatives. After the executions were carried out, the Irgun killed the two British soldiers, hanged their bodies from trees, and left a booby trap at the scene which injured a British soldier. The incident caused widespread outrage in the UK" Moxy🍁 13:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The section that has been tagged is Israel#21st century, a short section, the material The Jewish insurgency continued and peaked... is not even in it, that material is in Israel#British_Mandate_for_Palestine section, which has not been tagged.
Sorry I thought I was pretty clear.... the whole section is just about military.... in fact we have two paragraphs for something that's happening in the past year. What we are looking for is substantial historical significant information about the country's social and historic evolution in that time. Best we simply don't regurgitate American news headlines. For example should mention Disengagement Plan... What kind of social human rights progress has there been? In 20 years there must be some sort of legal process that has changed.... democratic decline perhaps? What has happened on the diplomatic front.... like the mass increase in foreign aid? Moxy🍁 20:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
the whole section is just about military Which section? The only section that you tagged is the 21st Century section. If you meant to put the tag for the entire history section, then do that, I would also agree with that inline with multiple prior discussions asserting that it was way too long. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Which section? Not interested in some sort of gameplay. Your initial post was about a tag in a section this is the topic of the ongoing conversation..... with mention by another and myself about the excess detail overall in the history section with an example that I gave. You either agree it's excessive or you don't.... best course of action would be to come up with some sort of prose for the section.... and a better summary. Moxy🍁 21:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
What you have to ask yourself is does your approach to this conversation help improve that article or not. There is clearly a problem all over the history section...but the info in this tagged section is the topic of conversation...do you have any input what can be done to help the section? Then perhaps we can move on to other sections. Moxy🍁 15:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I asked you what the problems were and your response was to quote something else from an untagged section, so if you can answer the original question that would be good. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Best you let someone that is competent deal with the tag. My bad just frustrated that the post has not moved forward in actual improvements. Will address the problem with prose after the content addition dispute is over. Moxy🍁 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In 21st century history, please change
−
A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".
+
A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars who were polled believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".
"mostly US-based Middle East scholars" is not an identifiable group, the phrase as written doesn't have a concrete definition. Which Middle East scholars' beliefs are being talked about here? The scholars who were polled are being talking about. Adding language that clarifies the source of these statistics and defines the group in question could make the statistics more useful. Thank you for your consideration. Mikewem (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@Terrainman: Are these your first edits to articles on WP that relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If so, please familiarize yourself with WP:ARBPIA and WP:ONUS which states that adding contested content requires achieving consensus on the talk page, not reverting. This responsibility is known as onus lying with the inserter of the material. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thank-you. The information I added was to improve the context of the paragraph, in a much needed way. From what I can see, nothing contested was added. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Terrainman: Your additions to the lede/lead were reverted so the material is by definition is now contested, meaning you will have to gain consensus for them in the talk page, not revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand but your edit reason was to keep the brevity of the lead when my edit was rather brief in my view. It has been further edited by another user to make the additions more concise. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Terrainman: Your additions still increased the material about the 1948 war from six to eight sentences in the lede. This needs to be trimmed even below six sentences. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand since that para is already very long, however unfortunately the topic is extremely complicated; hence why it was the longest para in the lead long before my edit. My addition provided essential context in my view, I also received thanks for it and it has been refined since by another editor. In my view if this para is to be made more concise we need to explore other options for that. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Terrainman: Receiving thanks is not a measure of consensus, but discussion on the talk page. Your addition still duplicates mention of the UN partition plan in the second and third lede paragraphs, as well as non-summarizing elaborations on the Oslo Accords, which is also a duplicate mention in the third lede paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph explains that the partition plan failed, which is crucial context!
Furthermore, if we are setting this low a threshold in what is essential to the lead, there are multiple parts of the third paragraph which elaborate to a significant extend, rather than merely state the existence of key historical events which are in-fact needed to provide context for the rest of the paragraph. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Lede and Lead are legitimate alternative spellings; both refer to the intro material which, in Misplaced Pages, should summarize the major points of rest of the article. A major issue for many Misplaced Pages articles is putting too much stuff in the lede. Erp (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Minor edit Request
Remove "synonymous with Canaan" from the lede.
1. The borders of ancient Canaan don't line up with modern day Israel.
2. No real reason to mention ancient Canaan just like we don't mention that it's synonymous with British Mandatory Palestine or the Judea province of the Roman Empire.
Comment Not currently a subject of dispute? Maybe just create one and see what happens first? I wouldn't object personally but do we need an RFC for this right now? Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
That might have been just the into the sea thing? @Remsense:. I would have thought a hr top level section would have involved moving stuff from elsewhere in the article into it? Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
No How many countries have human rights violations? I would maybe accept a top level section for Israeli-occupied territories because that is pretty unique and a big part of what Israel physically is. Absolutely no for HR violations generally. Bitspectator⛩️23:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Coverage of Israel in RS is very often centered around human rights. That's not the case for most other countries. We should follow RS and similarly give top level attention to coverage of human rights. DMH223344 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed that Israeli-occupied territories should be a top level section. There could be a Human rights subsection under Government and politics section Bogazicili (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Information should be integrated into the article where it would be relevant rather than standing out on its own... WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS = "Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections. " This poor article really needs some work..... most of the articles is focused on military actions and one point in time.Moxy🍁00:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
Sweep them into the sea
Original sentence: 'The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state and to "sweep them into the sea".'
Proposed change: 'The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state.'
The quote that allegedly supports the inclusion of the the statement 'and to "sweep them into the sea"' is:
A week before the armies marched, Azzam told Kirkbride: "It does not matter how many there are. We will sweep them into the sea.
This quote is of course not consistent with the claim that the purpose of the invasion was to sweep the Jews into the sea. The other citations for this sentence include:
Morris 2008, p. 396: "The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal."
David Tal (2004). War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy. Routledge. p. 469. ISBN 978-1-135-77513-1. Archived from the original on 19 December 2023. Retrieved 1 December 2018. "some of the Arab armies invaded Palestine in order to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, Transjordan..."
Morris 2008, p. 187: Ahmed Shukeiry, one of Haj Amin al-Husseini's aides (and, later, the founding chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization), simply described the aim as "the elimination of the Jewish state." ... al-Quwwatli told his people: "Our army has entered ... we shall win and we shall eradicate Zionism""
None of these support the claim about sweeping Jews into the sea.
Additionally:
Ben-Ami: The Arab states were driven to war in great measure by theperception that prevailed in their societies as to the Jewish state andthe threat it posed to the Arabs.
Rouhanna: One goal of some of these armies was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; the Jordanian army, however, also sought to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state by conquering and annexing (after achieving the tacit understanding of the Zionist leadership) parts of Palestine for the Hashemite Kingdom.
Shapira: As the sheer magnitude of the Palestinian Arabs’ defeat emerged, and as the horror stories of the Jews’ alleged brutality spread throughout the Arab world, the pressure exerted by public opinion on the Arab states to come to the aid of their Palestinian brethren intensified. Despite difficulties arranging a unified military command, as well as mutual suspicion regarding each other’s objectives in Palestine, on April 30 the Arab states decided to invade.
Shlaim: Seven Arab states sent their armies into Palestine with the firm intention of strangling the Jewish state at birth.DMH223344 (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Edit Request
Change the new "Human Rights violations" section, no other country the I checked (including those with serious human rights violation claims like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Myanmar) have any kind of section named anywhere near as negatively. Those claims are usually found in the Government and Politics tab. The way it is now is a violation of WP:NPOVFyukfy5 (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confused by a comment Remsense left. I think it's an extremely controversial addition. Is there some WP rule reason that I have to revert, or is there consensus I'm not seeing? Bitspectator⛩️02:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
There's definitely an open discussion.... Best leave it out till the process is done. Thinking about adding undue tags in relation to three or four sections... there's more to this country than it's relationship with with Palestine. Will gather some thoughts together and bring it up at the project page see if we can help. Moxy🍁02:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
there's more to this country than it's relationship with with Palestine, right, and its relationship with Palestine and Palestinians is a core part of the coverage of Israel in RS. I'm curious where you think the undue tags should go. DMH223344 (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Article is to big ingeneral and suffers from in the new style - 21st century should be summarized much better. Israeli-occupied territories, International opinion and Accusations of Apartheid should be integrated into history and/ or foreign relations with just a few sentences for each topic leading our readers to main articles. See Germany for how its done.,see also Misplaced Pages:Summary style and WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS. Moxy🍁03:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
That seems like a strange suggestion, of course the occupation is relevant to the history, but it is also a crucial aspect of Israeli politics today. DMH223344 (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I am writing to express concern about the recent changes to the map. The current map includes territories marked in green, representing areas such as Palestinian territories and even the Golan Heights. This change departs from the previous map, which accurately reflected the internationally recognized borders as endorsed by the United Nations. Marking these territories in green introduces a controversial interpretation that is not widely accepted by major international organizations.
1. Lack of Consensus: Major international bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union, and other globally recognized entities do not depict these territories in a distinct color that implies sovereignty or control by specific nations. The new map’s coloration could mislead readers into assuming a level of recognition or legitimacy that does not exist.
2. Neutrality Concerns: Misplaced Pages strives to maintain a neutral perspective, especially on contentious geopolitical issues. By adopting a map with disputed territories marked differently, the page risks appearing to take a stance, which could alienate users and detract from Misplaced Pages’s reputation as an impartial source.
3. Consistency with Historical Usage: The previous map, in use for over 20 years, was widely accepted as a neutral representation of the region. It respected international consensus and did not introduce contentious visual elements. Returning to this map would preserve the neutrality and credibility of the content.
4. Precedent for Reliable Sources: Most authoritative atlases and online mapping tools, including those maintained by major international organizations, avoid marking these territories in distinct colors to sidestep misinterpretation. Aligning with these standards would bolster Misplaced Pages's reliability.
I respectfully request that the map be reverted to its previous version, which better reflects the official and internationally recognized borders. This change would ensure that Misplaced Pages adheres to its guiding principles of neutrality and accuracy. AIexperts (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
You don't have the needed qualifications to edit about this topic(you don't yet have 500 edits), please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The map reflects Israel's international recognized borders and the territories it claims (East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) and occupies militarily (West Bank excl. East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). This is mostly consistent with other country articles, such as Syria (map depicts unrecognized claim over the former Sanjak of Alexandretta) and Russia (map depicts claims over the Ukrainian territories it occupied since 2014). However, there is an argument to removing the West Bank (excl. East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip from the map and using File:Israel (orthographic projection) with disputed territories.svg instead, since Israel does not de jure claim the territory and it is internationally recognized as being part of the State of Palestine. 2018rebel22:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
There is no basis for Israeli claims to either EJ or the Golan, they are unrecognized annexes and along with the West Bank and Gaza are considered as occupied territories. Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
However, for consistency reasons, it would be justifiable to exclude territories not annexed by Israel, as locator maps don't typically include territories under military occupation, but do include territories unilaterally annexed. For example, the map of Russia does not include Abkhazia and South Ossetia in light green, despite them being internationally recognized as Russian-occupied territories, but does include Crimea, as it was illegally annexed in 2014. Similarly, the map of the United States does not include Al-Tanf. as it is not annexed territory of the US. 2018rebel23:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone that wants to can see Green Line Israel by clicking on a radio button, the initial question really is what we want the default view to be, that or with occupied territories shown. If it were up to me I would show Green Line Israel, excluding Golan, as default.
If all territories under military occupation are to be included on the map, why are Southern Lebanon and parts of Southern Syria, newly occupied since 2024, excluded? There is also a significant difference in the legal status of East Jerusalem versus the rest of the West Bank. Israeli civil law is applied in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, whereas it is extended to Israeli settlers in the rest of the West Bank only via emergency regulations. Gaza remains militarily occupied due to control over its airspace, territorial waters, and borders, but Israeli civil law is not extended and Israel does not formally claim the territory as its own. Meanwhile, if militarily-occupied territories are to be included, Southern Lebanon nor the newly occupied parts of Syria are shown in light green.
The map of Russia excludes Ukrainian territories that are occupied but not annexed, and the Ukraine map omits its military occupation of parts of Kursk Oblast. The Russian article map did not include the four annexed oblasts until after they were annexed, despite Russia beginning settlement activities before then . Other Misplaced Pages articles consistently differentiate between annexed and occupied territories, marking only annexed areas.
The map should either show all territories under Israeli military presence or limit itself to lands Israel formally claims as its own. Unrecognized or illegal claims should be marked in light green, in contrast to the West Bank (beyond East Jerusalem) and Gaza, which are solely claimed by the State of Palestine. This distinction is already visible on the map for the State of Palestine, where annexed territories like East Jerusalem and Latrun are marked differently from areas claimed exclusively by Palestine. 2018rebel19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Just to repeat that what we do here on this page for the map here does not depend on what is done at any other page.
Southern Lebanon and parts of Southern Syria have not as yet been declared as occupied territory by any competent authority afaik.
Lands that Israel formally claims (EJ/Golan) are also illegal claims, so designated by the UNSC (reaffirmed recently by the ICJ in respect of EJ), so this distinction is of no import.
As things stand, I simply want to note the OP request as not done (no consensus of EC editors). Presumably you do not want to do that. So I suggest we wait and see if any other editors have a view. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2025
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I request an edit change of the GDP (Nominal), GDP (PPP), GDP Per Capita (Nominal), and GDP Per Capita (PPP) of Israel to 2025 in Accordance to IMF's October 2024 Database. The source will remain the same as the source currently shown, but the access date will be changed to "2 January 2025". Please Change Before (X) to After (Y).
Before (X): 2024 Estimate
GDP (PPP)
• Total
Increase $541.343 billion (47th)
• Per capita
Increase $54,446 (29th)
GDP (nominal)
• Total
Increase $528.067 billion (29th)
• Per capita
Increase $53,110 (18th)
After (Y): 2025 Estimate
GDP (PPP)
• Total
Increase $565.878 billion (47th)
• Per capita
Increase $55,847 (29th)
At the end of the History section there are a few sentences about accusations if genocide against Israel. Since there's an ongoing RfC about its very inclusion shouldn't it be removed until the RfC is concluded? Fyukfy5 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Was discussed at #Tag, EC editors are aware of the addition, in the RFC the majority is not really objecting to due inclusion of material in the article body, the principal debate is as to whether a link is due in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Why is Jerusalem listed as Israel's capital in the infobox?
Israel declares Jerusalem to be its capital, and has its seat of government there. However, the lack of international recognition is notable, hence the subtext was added "(limited recognition)" as the result of this RfC. For further information see Status of Jerusalem.
Resolved
The redirect "Israel" has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 7 § "Israel" until a consensus is reached. Ca 15:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Done QuicoleJR (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
_with_disputed_territories.svg)