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.
On the ], the Prime Minister ] inaccurately is above the President ]. I thought you put the head of state first, then the head of government. Can someone please sort it out? I can't because of this semi-protection (I'm a new Wikipedian). Thanks
:It was originally the way you say, then changed, citing the fact that the PM holds the power. However, that doesn't seem to be a relevant argument, as the head of state is the first mentioned in all the articles I looked at, such as ], ], and ], all of them countries where actual power is wielded by the PM, not the president/monarch. Thus, I'm changing it back. ] 20:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
|action6date=03:02, 20 April 2012
::See my comment above (section 23.1 in the table of contents), from a couple of days ago, after this change was made. I agree, the president should be listed above the PM. It is a matter of "protocol", not actual power. ] 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::Head of State should go first. This shouldn't even be an issue. ] 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
|action6result=reviewed
|action6oldid=488238454
|maindate=8 May 2008
== NPOV Tag for Human Rights ==
|topic=Geography
|currentstatus=FFA
Editors on this page have consistently deleted a vague listing noting a few major organizations that criticize human rights in Israel. As it stands now, there is no indication there is any criticism whatsoever. This is not a representation of the reality of the situation, and represents a severe bias. Therefore the article does not have neutrality. I suggest we work on a way to address this fairly together, so that a handful will stop hurting the article by deleting anything they see as criticism. ] 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
}}
:There is a nice link to the main article on ] just after the heading, and there is plenty of fodder for those who wish to find fault with the state of Israel in that article :) So, what exactly is your gripe, if I may ask? Thanks. -- ] 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attacks. "for those who wish to find fault with the State of Israel" -- we've been over this. Any "fault" is from the attributed Human Rights Groups, not the personal view of the editor. You need to work on not taking documentation of human rights issues as an individual assault from the editors working on such articles in good faith.
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Top}}
Humus Sapien's edit note: replaced Sarastro's cherrypicking of irrelevant groups with a variety of relevant ones, mention freedom of press within Israel)
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Countries}}
the "irrelevant groups" he deleted were:
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=Top}}
*Human Rights Watch
{{WikiProject Western Asia|importance=Top}}
*Amnesty International
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
*The United Nations General Assembly
*The International Court of Justice
*Association for Human Rights in Israel
To say these groups are irrelevant is so funny it is hard to believe he actually expects anyone to take him credibly.
Each group was followed with a specific reference to insure verifiability.
The "Freedom of the Press" is already in the main article. This out of context and isolated mention is inviting a lengthy examination of exceptions, which are already well documented. I don't see why it is helpful to go down this road. Your very smug response seems to indicate that you accept a bias issue in the section but are comfortable with it because you think the HR article contains "plenty of fodder." That viewpoint is not productive.
] 05:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
: Here is my edit: . Note how I added a variety of relevant links of the groups highly critical of Israeli govt. policies, rather than Sarastro's cherrypicked selection of reports. Certain orgs have controversial relations with Israel (covered elsewhere: follow links), and issues of the conflict are also covered elsewhere. To say that freedom of speech does not belong to human rights section is ridiculous. Your constant efforts to besmirch Israel are duly noted. ←] <sup>]</sup> 06:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see ] & ] ] 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:Humus please refrain from personal attacks. I do not see any besmirching by any party other than yourself. Can we please focus on the improvement of this article and not attacking Sarastro777.--] 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
::Said the thrice-blocked vandal. ] 03:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
::The section on Human Rights in Israel is a joke, and censors any criticicism of the state of Israel by human rights groups. It even contradicts the main article on the subject, which includes statements giving a fair assessment.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 10:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>
What follows is the paragraph I added in the Human Rights section to correct the obvious bias present there:
:On the other hand, ] reported that in 2005 ''"The Israeli army killed more than 700 Palestinians, including some 150 children. Most were killed unlawfully — in reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian residential areas; in extrajudicial executions; and as a result of excessive use of force. '''' The Israeli army destroyed several hundred Palestinian homes, large areas of agricultural land, and infrastructure networks. Israel continued to expand illegal settlements and to build a fence/wall through the West Bank, confining Palestinians in isolated enclaves cut off from their land and essential services in nearby towns and villages. Israeli settlers increased their attacks against Palestinians and their property and against international human rights workers. Certain abuses committed by the Israeli army constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes'' ''In August the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called for the revocation of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, passed the previous year and extended for six months in July. The law institutionalized racial discrimination. It barred Israeli Arab citizens married to Palestinians from the Occupied Territories from living with their spouses in Israel, and forced families to either live apart or leave the country altogether."''.<ref>{{cite web
{{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__
I see no reason why ] has deleted it. He justified this deletion telling that the article is not about "the conflict". Neither the AI report is (indeed, half of the cite is about a '''law''' enforced by the State of Israel, it's about domestic policy). Moreover, I find it quite absurd to consider the Human Rights' record of Israel irrespective of its role in the Occupied Territories and irrespective of the "little detail" that this country is unfortunately involved in a conflict with its Arab neighbours since its very foundation! I reversed the deletion. If I did wrong, please explain me why before redeleting it. --] 13:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
== RfC ==
: Certain organizations have controversial relations with Israel (covered elsewhere: follow links), and issues of the conflict are also covered elsewhere. In particular AI is not a ] for such claims. ←] <sup>]</sup> 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
<!-- ] 23:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1735340468}}
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 fact that "somebody" (ie: you and probably the government of Israel) consider Amnesty International to be unreliable (without giving any explanation of the reason why) doesn't mean that such a famous and widely known organization shouldn't be cited in Misplaced Pages. I think that other organizations (ie: the ones that you and the government of Israel like to quote) are much more unreliable (because they are strongly biased in favour of the USA and their allies, and I have an unverified theory on the reason why, too), and yet I didn't delete their ''astonishing'' statements from this article.
::Moreover, as you can see on the same Misplaced Pages article you linked, AI is not being accused by anybody of falsification, it's just being accused of attacking democratic countries ''more than the others''. Since I didn't quote a comparison between Israel and other countries (if we just want to understand whether Israel violates human rights, what Egypt does has no importance), these allegations simply don't fit in the debate.
::You didn't give a good justification for your aggressive deletion, so my edit will be there again, and I really urge you to avoid deleting it again (that's what most people call an "edit war" and it's not allowed on Misplaced Pages). Let the readers decide if they feel AI deserves their confidence, and let the readers decide if they want to find by themselves some more information on this issue. Don't just ''prevent'' them from getting information because you believe you know what's best for them to read or not to read. Thank you very much and forgive my bad English. --] 08:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
===Polling (RfC)===
::: I do not represent the government of Israel. Unfortunately, AI's is one of groups (another is HRW) whose record towards Israel is highly controversial. Again, do not turn this article into one about the conflict. "Let the readers decide" is a really bad argument not worthy a response. ←] <sup>]</sup> 11:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
{{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) ===
== Forcing civilians to leave their homes/country ==
: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}}
Is considered terrorism. I added an NPOV-tag until this issue is resolved. --] 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
== Tag ==
{{wiktionary|terrorism}}
{{resolved}}-tag removed !<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
'''terrorism'''
----
{{Re|Moxy}} Reasons for , please? ] (]) 13:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
# The deliberate commission of an act of ] to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a ] or social agenda.
# ] against civilians to achieve military or ] objectives.
# A psychological ] of ] for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the popuation of a state.
'''ANY QUESTIONS?'''
--] 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if someone is trying to argue the IDF are terrorists for civilian deaths in Lebanon or if it is Hezbollah for the rockets. In either case, the definitions above hinge on the internal motive of the perpetrator. That is almost always hard to 'verify' and makes the label "terrorist" problematic and frequently based on the POV of the person using the word. ] 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with you that the motive is important. There is no need to read their mind to verify it, just listen to what they say to learn there intent (the quote in the article). BTW the citation in the article is broken I think, here 2 with the same quote that works, I'll add them to the article later (or if someone want to add them feel free) --] 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So... I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with a factually accurate and less loaded term like "forcing civilians to leave" or "making civilians leave"? Could TheYmode or Daniel575 explain? Thanks. --] 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:That makes it sound like there was no crime. It is a completely warped version of what happened. I do not know how else to explain this to anyone who does not understand. --] 22:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
::The term Terrorism IS factually and accurate in this case, its as simple as that. And calling it something else is POV. --] 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Correct. --] 22:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
::::For better or worse, we are all obligated to justify our edits, even if they make common sense to you. And I appreciate your efforts to do so (sincerely).
::::I disagree that describing the situation as Hezbollah as trying to "force" Israelis to leave is "completely warped". Given that we provide a direct quote, why can't the reader be trusted to make up his or her own mind about the criminal nature of Hezbollah's intentions? --] 22:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::So I guess we should remove the entire characterization "He further outlined his organization's strategy of terrorizing Israeli civilians into leaving their country", especially since the reference attached to it is a dead link. We don't really need a characterization one way or another; "We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis" is sufficiently vile (or, if you prefer, inspiring) that anyone can figure it out on their own. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've come up with a description which is accurate, but which doesn't use the contentious word "terrorising". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Is somebody here actually trying to say that Israel is a terrorist state? No way this should be allowed. Ackoz 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
*Ah, no, I don't think anyone's saying that right here. Actually, it was a question of how to characterize a specific statement by a Hezbollah leader. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
== Haim Ramon Quote ==
This should be in the portion as much as the quote from the Hossein Safiadeen. Both are notable; unless of course you think it's NPOV to put in the quote that he said about justifying the killing of women and children and calling them terrorist as much as the Arab stating "They will not make Israel safe for Israelis."] 13:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Edits by someone who states "Just because you are a Jewish" and will never, ever stay on this article. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:: So do you have a personal problem or can you respond to the question? ] 18:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:I've responded. Now, why don't you go or , or go rant about and how the media is unfair to "white people", or go on about , or rant about how the "Jews of the world" are shoving ? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::For someone with a German name translating roughly as "the people's ghost" I am not surprised. I already noticed his weird username immediately when he had just registered. --] 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Actually, "volksgeist" was some mystical notion about "the people's spirit", something the Nazis thought the "Aryan race" had an abundance of. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::So, Jayjg, is your problem that the quote is accurate or that you simply have a personal problem with me? ] 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Our problem is with someone who has on multiple occasions expressed clear antisemitic thought. --] 18:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::: Does that not mean Mr Ramon did not state the quote at an Israel Security Cabinet meeting as Israel was bombing civilian targets in Lebanon? ] 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Is there a policy that supports that, or is this just your POV? You can't just decide to disregard and attack a contributor because you have some personal animus against them. There are plenty of Editors on here who express clearly biased thoughts in other realms. I don't see any outcry against them, nor should there be as everyone's input counts. You can disagree with someone politically and still ]. I don't see that happening... very bad example from an Admin. ] 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Sarastro, I would like you to check out and the two things linked to there (July 1947 and November 1947). Also read and also read . That is my position. It is quite hilarious of you to accuse me of having a pro-Israel POV. If you check my talk page, you will see that Zionists threaten me and call me a poison, a dog, and other things. Your accusations of me being pro-Israel are plain hilarious. --] 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::::On a different board I referred to people "here" (Misplaced Pages) having a Pro-Israel POV. You took this as a personal reference, which it was not. Your assumption that Daniel575 = "here" is equally hillarious :-) ] 22:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Sarastro777, I'm not sure what "political disgreement" you are referring to; are you referring to Volksgeist's beliefs that apartheid was wonderful, Hitler was great, the British and French started World War II, the Jews are forcing race-mixing on Europeans and controlling the United States? If so, I happen to disagree with that, but I don't view those as necessarily political positions. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::: Please cite something that is an example of how I think "Hitler was Great" or that the "British and French started World War II." You can see my contributions to articles and none of them are biased. Furthermore, this quote was in the article for at least a week before someone started throwing in NPOV and changed a lot of things (which I rewrote and still stand). The quote is in numerous sources and belongs here. You are removing it simply on the fact you do not like my opinions. Furthermore, from your history, you seem to have a pro-Israeli viewpoint, is that why are you removing the quote? Because you certainly don't want to value free speech if you feel on removing a citable quotation because you do not belief with the person who added it. ] 19:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::"I don't get why Germany is blamed for the start of WW2 when the Soviets did the same. I would argue that France and the UK did by declaring war on Germany". Now why don't you go and find a citation for your claim that the Uruguayan birth rate is low because of "" ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: You still have not answered me. Did the Haim Ramon not state the quote (and it is an acceptable contribution to the article) or are you simply removing it on your own personal bias of a wikipedia user? ] 19:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: I would like to add this quote was in the article for a two weeks before someone decided to delete it. That's the RV. ] 19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::: And that's really the issue in this discussion, not what editors disagree with in entirely different articles. That's a distraction tactic from the point at hand. ] 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::You asked me for a quote showing your claim that the British and French started WWII. I provided it. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think this quote should not be included in the article, because, veritable or not, it does not reflect the official standpoint of Israel in its conflict with Lebanon. The Israeli Defense Army's aim was all along to destroy Hezbollah's launching posts and eliminate its members. Unlike Hezbollah, the IDF warned the civilians in the areas it was about to bomb by means of leaflets dropped from aircrafts. The fact that many civilians didn't leave the attacked areas, for various reasons, and subsequently killed is another issue, and the death of civilians was unintentional. Therefore, using Ramon's slip of the tongue as a representation of Israel's standpoint puts it out of context. It is very curious indeed, Volksgeist, that you chose to quote this out of all the things said by Israel's political representatives, a quote which totally condratics the Israeli government's perception --] 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:First, let's address your totally misconstrued and biased summary of leafletting. Civilians that were "fleeing" per leaflet instructions were blown up by the IDF using guided missiles, including at least one incident of an ambulance. Later Israel banned all vehicles South of the Litani river and targeted any violators. The routes of evacuation such as bridges were blown up along with other infrastructure preventing any civilians from fleeing. The fact that Israel dropped some leaflets made no effective difference to the civilians. You insinuate they stayed in a dangerous warzone completely by their own volition, which is one the largest stretches of imagination I have yet read on this "Encylopedia" Unlike the state of the art guided bombs and missiles given to Israel by the U.S., which are precise... Hezbollah had 40 year old Soviet missiles which basically point and shoot without any pinpoint accuracy. Even if we discount this, they additionally do not have an airforce like Israel, again a la the United States. So no mechanism to drop propaganda on the soil of sovreign foreign countries nor any way to know precisely where the missiles would land... so no area to leaflet even if they had the means and the desire.
:But as you said, that is another issue. Why would it be curious to quote a State Official that said ""Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hezbollah." ] That's an extremely belligerant and controversial statement. It's notable at the very least because of his positions as Minister of Justice and Minister of Internal Affairs, not to mention because of the content. Your position is nothing can be cited unless it is publicly passed by the Knesset as an official policy? I'm sorry, but that position is not supported by any Misplaced Pages guidelines. ] 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Then, Sarastro, we are also going to include some of this: ''"If they go from Sheba'a, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine... can go back to Germany or wherever they came from.”'' (Hassan Ezzedin, Hezbollah spokesman) And this: ''Secretary-General Nasrallah’s official stance is that “Israel is an illegal usurper entity, which is based on falsehood, massacres, and illusions, and there is no chance for its survival.”'' And this: ''"There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."'' Next we also have this one: ''Nasrallah said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle."'' So if you insist on including out-of-context quotes by Israeli politicians, we are also going to include these. Feel free to put Haim Ramon's quote back. But if you place it back, be aware that these quotes are going to be placed next to it. --] | <small>'']''</small> 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like you are threatening retaliatory vandalism because you disagree with what is clearly a relevant quote. Is it supposed to punish me personally that you say you are going to put a quote from Nasrallah? I am really confused by what you are trying to prove here other than you have a very strong bias. ] 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
So what it looks like is the reason certain people do not want the quote in is because of a personal bias towards myself. Furthermore, it seems the people complaining about it also seem to be ones who are members of Jewish groups on Misplaced Pages. Is because the quote displays Israel in a negative light is somehow not appropriate? ] 00:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
*Jew-haters get short shrift on Misplaced Pages. Get used to it. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:: So, I guess, NPOV does matter if the original article has something to do with Judaism or Israel? Is the NPOV only for article not relating to the aforementioned? ] 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::My $0.02....first and foremost, in this case I think Volksgeist's credibility is irrelevant. The fact is that the quote in question is validated in major media (though I suspect it lost something in the translation) and I think we would need more factual grounds to keep it out. My recommendation would be to include it in a fashion that recognizes its context...a cabinet meeting discussion where the speaker's views were not adopted as the majority. A suggested inclusion: "Haim Ramon, the Israeli justice minister, fueled controversy and opposition to Israeli military actions when he said that 'Everyon in Lebanon etc etc.' The official Israeli position, however, remained one of attacking specific Hezbollah targets, some of which were in civilian areas." ] 03:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've rewrote the included quote and placed it inline with the comments from Hezbollah (this should appease both parties). They seem to go in par with each other. I've realized that when it comes to articles relating to Israel and Judaism, Misplaced Pages is hardly a place for a NPOV as articles will be reverted and Misplaced Pages administrator members of the "Judaism project" on Misplaced Pages will swoop in lock/delete/ban/whatever. ] 13:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk about ] ] -- ] 13:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Volksgeist, you did not rewrite anything. You placed it back exactly as it was. The rest of what you are talking about is a big hallucination. As I said before, I am a virulent anti-Zionist who thinks Zionism is the biggest evil in the world. Zionism defiles the entire world with its impurity, Zionism causes wars, bloodshed and tragedies. The cursed Zionists, may their names be wiped out, such as Theodor Herzl, were atheist criminals, dirty traitors to the Jewish people. I do not want Israel to remain in existence, it should be dismantled as soon as this is practically feasible and replaced by a UN government. This is what those rabbis whom I consider to be the biggest Jewish leaders ever have determined. It is just laughable of you to accuse me of having a pro-Zionist POV. --] | <small>'']''</small> 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:: I accused you of nothing. This is getting ridiculous, the quote was in the article for weeks and suddenly everyone that is part of the "Judasim project" here on Misplaced Pages keeps deleting the quote. It's verifable and should be included in the article, I have yet to hear a reason why it is not except by some idiot's personal bias. As I stated eariler it's quite obvious that anything having to do with Jews and Israel here is kept on a tight leash if it portrays them in anything that may be considered negative. ] 14:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Not wanting input from Jew-haters into Jewish-related articles is hardly "some idiot's personal bias". Since you've expressed your position regarding Jews so clearly, it should hardly be a surprise that your contributions are looked at with skepticism and disgust. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::: There doesn't seem to be a problem that the article is virtually controlled by an iron curtain, all of users of which are part of some sort Judiasm project on Misplaced Pages. Seems like a conflict of interest as well. I guess that's how "the tribe" operates, independent of the nation stupid enough to take them in. Soon they will find themselves destitute and finaically ruined as Spain was by "the tribe." ] 18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yes, Volksgeist, you did. And you're doing it again. How many times do we have to repeat that this quote is a misrepresentation? It was one minister's opinion. It is not and was not and has never been the official opinion of the Israeli government. The way it was written and the way you want to put it back makes it sounds as if it is. It is not. That is a misrepresentation of the facts. Yes, Ramon said that. And the other cabinet members do not agree. It is not Israel's official policy. If you clarify that, it would change things. --] | <small>'']''</small> 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::I find that hard to believe. Bombing women, children, civilians, etc and then going "wait, it's not government policy?" Whatever. They (Israel) are the sole reason they are in this situation but I'm sure others will have to fight, die, and pay for it for them. ] 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
{{quotation|They (Israel) are the sole reason they are in this situation but I'm sure others will have to fight, die, and pay for it for them.|]|18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)}}
Unfortunately, the above is ], and is not grounds for adding something to the article. -- ] 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:The above (18:41) is plain antisemitism. Any credibility Volksgeist ever had was just thrown out of the window. This is it. Volksgeist, just as a final desperate measure, take a look by Rabbi ] to a member of the British parliament. --] | <small>'']''</small> 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::How is saying Israel will get others to fight, die and pay for it for them... how is that anti-semitic (Is the nation of Israel a religion)? Do you not see the billions the United States gives Israel each year? (Even though their living standard is first world.) ] 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::What I see is that you are seeing complot theories on Misplaced Pages, talking about 'nations stupid enough to allow the Jews in', and 'how the Jews ruined Spain'. --] | <small>'']''</small> 19:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
===Back on Topic===
Please, this section is for discussing the Chaim Ramon quote, not attacking ]
So the issue at hand:
'''Pro:the quote was made by an official during an official meeting and is notable and verifiable
'''Con:the quote does not represent official Israeli policy and therefore cannot/should not be included.
We need to come to a consensus on the above and stop the petty bickering/namecalling. ] 19:27, 17 August 2006 (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)
:Maybe you intend to say that Volksgeist neads to quit throwing around complot theories about Jews on Misplaced Pages, claiming that countries that let Jews in made a mistake, and that Jews ruined Spain? --] | <small>'']''</small> 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::You tag says undue not that the section needs updating, which material is undue? And why? ] (]) 13:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:Anyway, on topic. The quote can be included if it is accompanied by a clarification that the rest of the cabinet does not agree, and that this is not and has never been the official government policy. In which case I do not see why it should be included in any case. As I said before, if this quote should be included, some nice Hezbollah quotes should also be included. They are as irrelevant as this one. --] | <small>'']''</small> 19:55, 17 August 2006 (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)
::::History on its own at 5116 words is half an article by itself. A lot is likely undue. ] (]) 13:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Agree so much details - over info that can be and is covred in sub articles that can be trimed like :''The Jewish insurgency continued and peaked in July 1947, with a series of widespread guerrilla raids culminating in the Sergeants affair, in which the Irgun took two British sergeants hostage as attempted leverage against the planned execution of three Irgun operatives. After the executions were carried out, the Irgun killed the two British soldiers, hanged their bodies from trees, and left a booby trap at the scene which injured a British soldier. The incident caused widespread outrage in the UK" <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 ==
Your guideline presumes that readers are going to assume a quotation from one minister represents official policy. I don't see this as being the case, or something that is assumed in other articles. The Hezbollah stuff belongs in a different discussion that is not about Chaim Ramon. ] 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:This article is not about Ramon either. It is equally irrelevant. Add the Ramon quote and I will add Hezbollah quotes about all Israeli citizens having to die etc. Or don't add it and I won't add anything either. I would prefer the latter. --] | <small>'']''</small> 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well clearly notable items related to Israel belong in the article about Israel. Obviously Ramon being a Gov't Official in an official meeting meets this criteria. So is your viewpoint really that you think it is irrelevant, or it is just not notable enough to include? Please stop the ] threats. I am not interested in discussing irrelevant (to Chaim Ramon), Hezbollah quotations with you in this thread. ] 20:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Neither am I interested in this whole thing. We leave the quote out and we present the official stance held by both (well, all) sides in the conflict. No problems then. We are not going to include extreme statements by leaders on both sides which are not official policy. Problem solved, right? --] | <small>'']''</small> 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:: If Israel's justice minister does not constitute an offical stance, then why is their a quote from "Hezbollah's envoy to Iran" on there? Certainly it looks like there is an Israel policy to virtually destroy Southern Lebanon as there is of Hezbollah to make life unpleasent in Northern Israel.] 20:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Argh, do I really need to explain this?? The TASK of an envoy is to convey the POSITION OF HIS MASTERS. That is the whole purpose of an ENVOY. So yes, if Hezbollah's ENVOY says such a thing it is RELEVANT. Just like that if Israel's ambassador to the US says something it is RELEVANT. Because his words ARE assumed to be Israel's official government policy. I cannot believe that I am actually explaining this. Please go learn basic international relations and politics and come back afterwards. --] | <small>'']''</small> 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::Exactly. I commend you for your patience. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's use your logic. "You can't include quotes by Hezbollah because they don't represent the official policy of Israel." The argument you are making for deleting the quote is that only official policy of Israel can be included, but yet you admit to breaking that guideline by having other quotes. Obviously what you really believe through your actions and what is substantiated by policy, is a requirement for notability and verifiability. Both of these requirements are meant by the Chaim Ramon quote. Not liking the contents does not entitle you to suppress the POV of a major official. ] 20:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:No, you idiot, I never wrote that. Grow a brain. You are really acting like your brain is in your behind. And I am not going to apologize for this. You are completely twisting my words around and lying about what I said. I said that we should either include ''no'' statements by Israel or Hezbollah officials which are not official policy, ''or'' we include them both by Israeli and Hezbollah officials. Not only Israeli remarks and no Hezbollah remarks. You, apparently, fail to understand what I am saying here after I explained it at least five times. Grow a brain. --] | <small>'']''</small> 21:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Haim Ramon to quit over sexual misconduct charges: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5262884.stm ] 14:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, so what? This article isn't about the news. --] | <small>'']''</small> 21:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The Ramon quote does not belong in this article, since this article is about Israel, and not about Ramon (however it might be a good idea to put the quote ''in the article about Ramon'', if there is one). Similarly, the article does not need to be flooded with quotes by Nasrallah about Israel and Judaism. Those quotes belong in ] (where they do indeed appear) and/or ] where *checks* they also appear. Anyway, the only quotes that would be relevant here would be by ''military'' policy makers such as Olmert, Peretz and Halutz. Other quotes may be of note, but only in relation to the individual making them. - ] 14:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
{{edit extended-protected|Israel|answered=yes}}
== Israel's Military ==
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)
How does Israel's Air force and Army compare with Canada's? Which one is better, which one is better funded? Israel does not have a Navy right? ] 18:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Israel has a navy, that's what was blockading the ports of Lebanon. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::The Israeli navy is not a separate part of the military, I believe. You have only the IDF - Israel Defense Forces - and the IAF - Israel Air Force. The navy is part of the Army, formally. I believe it is the same way in China. Don't take this to court, I'm not sure of it. --] 18:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::No, no, no. There are three seperate arms of the Israeli military - army, air force and navy. The IAF is an integral part of the IDF (the whole military). ] 21:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Thanks for clarifying! --] | <small>'']''</small> 20:37, 17 August 2006 (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)
How does Isreal's overall military power compare with Canada's? ] 21:30, 16 August 2006 (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 ==
:It doesn't, because while Israel has and is allowed to have nukes, Canada has no nukes. What's the point having a weapon that you can't use? "you can use nukes" lol use it and see what happens. This is 2006 ] 21:42, 16 August 2006 (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)
Why are you discussing Canadian military? Its totally irrelevant to this topic. What you should be discussing is why the US will "allow" Israel to have nuclear war heads and are so against the Iran even developing nuclear energy.
: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)
:Hi Jamesino...there is no comparison between the Israeli and Canadian militaries. Israel's battle-hardened armed forces are among the best trained and best supplied in the world. Canada's military, by contrast, lacks the strength and combat capability of many nations with less than 10% of its wealth and resources. Even without the nuclear issue, Israel is still militarily worlds ahead of Canada. Factor in Israel's nuclear weapons capabilities and the comparison becomes even more ludircously lopsided. Put another way, Israel's armed forces are certainly among the 10 most formidable in the world. Canada's would likely not be in the top 50 by most standards. Hope this gives you some idea. ] 03:21, 17 August 2006 (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)
:::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)
::::{{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)
:::::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)
::::::{{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)
:::::::The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph explains that the partition plan failed, which is crucial context!
:::::::Regarding Oslo accords, it is not a duplication. The second mention references them in a sentence about progress since then. ] (]) 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)
:::::::::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 ==
::I'm pretty sure that the existance of Israel's nukes was never made official by the government, rather, it's just a "ghost weapon", to be used as a deterrant for any WMD usage upon it. To answer the above's question, Israel has never said that an entire country, or race should be killed, Iran has. Iran is run by a religious leader, which is never good news, wheras Israel is a democracy. Israel has never publically and completely persued a goal through ways unbecoming a democractic nation (I'm sure that many people will stand up tall and say "MOST CERTAINLY NOT, DEAR SIR!" but I've been around this country for a few years, and I know that if anyone messed up during a war, he pays for it afterwards, unlike Iran, where he is praised for it. ]
::: Where has the leader of Iran suggested killing an entire 'race' (I thought race didn't exist?) of people? Here's an interesting URL I found, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm "Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?" ] 20:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Remove "synonymous with Canaan" from the lede.
::::See the article on mahmud: http://en.wikipedia.org/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad and I quote from the article: "According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to Israel as a "disgraceful stain the Islamic world" that would be eliminated." I would say that saying that something "has to be eliminated" rarely means that the people should be whisked away with first class airplane tickets and flown to the french riviera. The person has denounced the existance of the Holocaust, he has called for the destruction of Israel, which is why he supplied Hizbollah with money and weapons, they are an indirect arm of execution for him, meaning that he can damage Israel without being "directly" linked to the damage, just like he can't be literally caught calling for the destruction of Israel. Just because someone doesn't spell anything out doesn't mean that he didn't say it, put 2 and 2 together, it's not hard. Stop being overly objective and neutral, because at situations like these, you don't need all that much personal judgement to see the truth. By the way, I respect the fact that you want to remain neutral, but neutrality tends to be overrated, especially when it comes to words that come from the mouths of politicians. ]
1. The borders of ancient Canaan don't line up with modern day Israel.
Mongoose.....I dont care to compare Canada/Israeli armies....but ake away the $5 billion in arms the US supplies Israel every year and we will see how big there army really is.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 16 August 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>
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.
Last I checked, it was around $3B, of which something like 2-2.5 comes back to the US and supports the US economy, but I could be misremembering. -- ] 14:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
3. The fact that Canaanites lives there is in the following sentence. ] (]) 22:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's $1.8 billion, and I believe most of it is used on American products. Other than military equipment, many simple things in the IDF is often bought from US firms, such as some office equipment, water coolers, etc. I don't know why items exactly are US-made though. -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] (]) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
So, Avi, what you want to say is that Israel receives $3B aid from the USA. 2-2.5B happens to be spent on US products. It is still a gift of $3B to Israel and an (inefficient) subsidy of the US economy. Tobi. {{unsigned|86.129.112.179}}
::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 ==
:It basically works as a subsidy to American arms manufactuers, the US gives the money to Israel with a provision that Israel spends it on American arms, even if Israel has better domestic ones (which they often do) so you really can't seperate the subsidy without the provisions to how it is being used. Anyways the money is just a fraction of what Israel spends on its military (which comes from normal domestic sources) so even without the subsidy Israel would still have one of the best financed armies in the world. By the way, if you count up all the money that the US gives to potential enemies of Israel (like Egypt and Saudi Arabia) you would find that it dwarfs the amount that Israel gets.- ] | ] 21:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
<!-- ] 18:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738692065}}
::Please remain on topic, that is how to better this article. This is not a discussion forum. Thank you for your consideration. See ] and ]. ] <small>] • ]</small> 22:58, 19 August 2006 (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)
:::Is that the only thing you have to contribute to this talk page?- ] | ] 06:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
"Israel is allowed to have nukes" not according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, they are outside of the non proliferation treaty, same boat as North Korea, Iran, ect. but no one seems to like to mention that fact. August 23rd JustinMcL
*They're not signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, so they're not bound by it. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
===Survey===
"Israel has nukes" comes from foreign sources, most of these unverified. The Israeli government never declared it has nukes.
'''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)
== 2006 conflict section ==
::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 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)
::::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)
::::::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===
Firstly, it should not be its own sub-section, any more than the Yom Kippur war and the 1982 conflict are their own sections. Secondly, it is inconsistent with the main article. It is suffering from the conflict being so recent. This should be dramatically cut down, following the pattern of all of the other conflicts. We have a main article for a reason. -- ] 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:It's logical, since Misplaced Pages didn't exist in 1973 and 1982. I think this phenomenon is unavoidable. --] | <small>'']''</small> 15:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
== Sweep them into the sea ==
I understand '''why''' it happened, but I believe we should restore the symmetry and balance. Summary-style and all. ] -- ] 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Original sentence: 'The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state and to "sweep them into the sea".'
For the record, I was pleased to find this sub-section exactly as it is, and it felt very natural balanced to me. I came to the Israel page looking to learn about the history of Isreal, and specifically how that history relates to the current conflict. I suspect the vast majority of visitors to this page will be interested in similar information. The current layout gave me exactly what I was seeking, and the fact that the current conflict is highlighted in its own section seems perfectly reasonable in light of its current importance to readers. No doubt, in another 5 or 10 years, this conflict will be no more important than other conflicts of other decades, and the section can be rebalanced at that time to account for the changing perspective. ] 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Proposed change: 'The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state.'
:That is why we have ]. Clicking on the blue/purple ] is just as good, and does not disrupt the flow of the text. -- ] 03:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The quote that allegedly supports the inclusion of the the statement 'and to "sweep them into the sea"' is:
== Israel ==
{{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.}}
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."}}
Israel, why have you violated the cease fire five days after it started? I know some israeli is gonna come and delete this. {{unsigned2|15:36, August 19, 2006|86.143.234.154}}
{{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..."}}
^
!
!
Are you under the impression that the Israeli consulate reads Misplaced Pages talk sections?
{{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"" }}
*What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
None of these support the claim about sweeping Jews into the sea.
As I said previously, we should have pro Israeli view and pro Arab view. Even though they are both points of view, they would neutralize each other due to both being included. ≈] 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:No, actually, we should have facts. Also, it's a bit ignorant to say "pro-Israeli and pro-Arab" as though the two are in conflict. Arabs enjoy more rights and a better standard of living in Israel than they do in any of its neighbours. ] 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally:
According to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan Israel's raid violated the U.N ceasefire agreement. ] 02:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
*And you put it in the article, thank you. Why are you pointing it out here also? It's certainly an uncontroversial addition. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:34, 20 August 2006 (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.}}
That belongs in the main ] article, not here. -- ] 03:19, 21 August 2006 (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 find the person who keeps changing that Israel violated the ceasefire to "violations have occurred" a bit misleading. It's been all over the news the violations have been on the Israeli side, it's a bit ridiculous to say "although violations have occurred," I would appreciate if you stop changing it. I know you're from Israel but lets be real here, even the UN is upset about this one. ] 21:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
*Yeah, but as has been pointed out, your Jew-hating comments have made every edit you do here suspect. Perhaps you shouldn't have outed yourself so thoroughly. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:56, 21 August 2006 (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.}}
:: That does not mean Israel's cease-fire violations have not occurred and does not mean that my edits are not truthful. How am I any more biased then someone with 9 different wikipedia Judaism stars and resides in Israel? The bias in the same. To say "although cease-fire violations have occurred" is ridiculous and I saw this coming when Israel's violations occurred. The Jews and Israelis here will not allow anything that puts them in a negative light. It's quite obvious there is also a disproportional amount of administrators with the above. ] 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::There have been Israeli violations, and there have been Hezbollah violations. to mention only the Israeli ones is POV. ] 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::: I have yet to have heard any in the news or I would of added them. Even Annan's statement only talked about Israel's raid and the airstrikes, where are the ones about Hizbollah? ] 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::You don't read much, do you? Or rather, you are quite selective in what you read. Here you go, boy:
] 23:58, 21 August 2006 (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)
Hrm... (aug15th) "UP to a dozen rockets have been fired at Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon, the army has said, in what Israel has called a violation of the hours-old ceasefire in the area." Rockets in Southern Lebanon? Is that part of Greater Israel yet? Why did the UN not issue a statement about it being a violation? They were pretty quick when Israel invaded Lebanon again in a raid and then issued air strikes. Way to go Israel, bombing a nation back into oblivion. It's quite obvious in this whole incident that Israel has escalated it far out of control and continues todo so. This megaphone software must be working great...The userpage of most of the administrators here usually spells most of it out. ] 10:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:This isn't a discussion forum. If you want to argue over Israel's actions, go find an appropriate political forum, or open a blog. This isn't the place. ] 11:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:: Excuse me but I was responding the sponsors who keep changing Israel's blatant ceasefire violations to "although ceasefire violations have occurred." It's quite obvious they don't want the fact that Israel has violated them in the main article and I doubt you're no exception hailing from Tel Aviv. Nothing on Judaism or Israel on Misplaced Pages is unbiased because of the overwhelmingly disproportional amounts of administrators. ] 13:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Excuse you me... Are you asserting that there is an "overwhelmingly disproportional amounts of administrators" that are Jewish? Even if that was the case, in Misplaced Pages we do not discuss an editor's religion, political views, or otherwise. See ] that reads in reference to personal attacks that: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" is a personal attack, and not allowed in this project. Comment on the edits, and not on the editor. OK? ] <small>] • ]</small> 18:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: I find it hard to believe an editor from Israel is going to post unbiased accounts of the Israel-Lebanese conflict and the edits in this forum have backed this up. Furthermore, there is a disproportionate amount of Jewish administrators on Misplaced Pages and I think there is a reason many consider Misplaced Pages to be biased with certain subjects, namely Israel. ] 04:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)1
:::::::You just keep burying yourself deeper. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::You're confusing Misplaced Pages with a newspaper. Misplaced Pages reports what other reputable sources have reported, not original accounts. Thus, the nationality of the editors doesn't matter. And I remind you of ] - editors' nationality or religion is NOT an legitimate issue here. ] 06:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
::: You do not understand what a "ceasefire" means (or rather, you understand very well, but pretend to be obtuse so as to bash Israel). A "Ceasefire" means you stop shooting. when a ceasefire is reached while one side is occupying part of the other side's land, and shooting by that other side, even if it is wholly within its land, is a vioaltion of the ceasefire. It's actually a good question to ask why the UN did not issue a statement regarding this vioalation. It speaks volumes about the UN's lack of objectivity. ] 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::::That is not for us to say, however. Surely the UN is the appropriate judge on whether its own resolution is being abided by, no? ] 16:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sure, and we can say "Kofi Anan said..."; that's not the same as "The UN said", I don't think, since neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly has made such a determination. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
== Edit Request ==
==Foreign relations pages==
Please see ] and ]. They could both use the perspectives of Israelis. There appears to be a revived movement to merge the Israel-Ven relations page into ] so I urge other users to vote '''against''' this. Respectfully, ] 19:13, 20 August 2006 (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)
== "Israel" -> "State of Israel" ==
:Yeah, this is extremely unusual. ] ] 23:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
How about moving the title of the article to ]....to be, you know, precise? ] 02:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::Looks like we need an RFC after all. ] (]) 00:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I don't know what you mean. The HR violations section was created accidentally, right? ] ] 00:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Nope. ] (]) 00:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Are we both talking about the top level section I just deleted? ] ] 00:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I created it. It was not created accidentally, please revert your edit. ] (]) 01:55, 1 January 2025 (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? ] ] 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. <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)
:::::::::{{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)
::::::::::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)
:::::::::::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)
:::::::::::Israel != Germany ] (]) 09:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Edit request regarding the map ==
That makes sense, actually. Bibically, "Israel" refers to the Jewish people, not to the country. ] 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
: See the ]. It has one word: Israel. Are we now renaming all the country articles to whatever is their official name? If so, why start with Israel? For Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, we have article ], for Arab Republic of Egypt - ], for Syrian Arab Republic - ], for Italian Republic - Italy. Shall we continue? ←] <sup>]</sup> 03:43, 21 August 2006 (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.
::There is no need to move the article. Most people will look for ], and those looking for ] will find it as well. ] <small>] • ]</small> 04:33, 21 August 2006 (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.
The fact that, as Sneech says, "Israel" has a major meaning entirely independent of the State of Israel is worth considering, and makes the case different from those of the other states mentioned. That being said, I think that ultimately most people looking up "Israel" will be looking for the state, and moving the article is unnecessary. A disambiguation notice at the top, which is already present, seems sufficient. ] 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:Agree. ] 03:10, 22 August 2006 (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.
::Thirded. -- ] 15:02, 23 August 2006 (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.
== Detail of 2006 conflict in this article ==
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.
This article is supposed to be about the State of Israel. There should be short entries about each war, with wikilinks to the specific articles. This is '''not''' the place to start copying every detail from the 2006 conflict article, that is why we have it, and its myriad daughter articles. -- ] 14:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
: Agreed. In the last few months, there are incessant attempts to turn WP into a blog ]. ←] <sup>]</sup> 23:02, 21 August 2006 (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)
==Over-swift reverts by ====
:]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)
I am concerned that some of my edits are being reverted by pro-Israeli forces within 1 minute of them being written and I am being accused of undue POV. I suggest that due consideration has not been given.
::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)
::::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.
::::Then the alternate view should show all occupied territories, including purportedly annexed territories. Btw "disputed" is not a NPOV term here, see ].
::::Other article maps do not affect what happens with the situation here. ] (]) 11:02, 2 January 2025 (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.
:::::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 ==
I was attempting to provide balance about the Lebanon-Israel war. Ar present it appears that the only casulaties have been Israelis (mentioned 4 times I think: my attempt to mention Lebanese casualties was immediately deleted.
] 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
:The article ] does not have an extensive section on Israeli casualties, why should this article have one about Lebanese? But if you ask my opinion, the 2006 conflict should take up only a few lines in this article, not several paragraphs like it does now. -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
{{edit extended-protected|Israel|answered=yes}}
I haven't been working on ] so I can't really comment. I suggest that ''''both''' articles should show balance - it's not that each one is meant to balance the other article! (However, maybe the whoel lot should be in the ] article.
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
(But my main comment was that my revisions had been removed without due consideration.)
GDP (PPP)
] 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Total
Increase $541.343 billion (47th)
• Per capita
Increase $54,446 (29th)
GDP (nominal)
What about revisions ADDED without due consideration?
• Total
Increase $528.067 billion (29th)
• Per capita
Increase $53,110 (18th)
Dear Anon. (please sign in future -thanks!)
Oh I agree - there are '''lots''' of those! ] 16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
After (Y): 2025 Estimate
== State of Israel ==
GDP (PPP)
• Total
Increase $565.878 billion (47th)
• Per capita
Increase $55,847 (29th)
GDP (nominal)
This should be redirected to the State of Israel with ''Israel'' being a disambiguation page with links to other articles.] 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Total
: No it should not. Pls. see above ]. ←] <sup>]</sup> 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
== lutherians ==
== Edit Request ==
is in israel a lutherian church? simon mayer.
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)
== Needs a major clean up ==
: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)
This talk page is 90% bickering. It's about time that most of this was wiped clean. It's difficult to see any reasons for edits among all the PoV comments. If you want a chat room go meet in one but try to use this page for discussing the '''content''' of this entry rather than your own agendas. ] 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
::alright np, I just don't know all the rules regarding the process ] (]) 20:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Latest revision as of 14:28, 11 January 2025
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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)