Talk:Israel/Archive 105

Archive 100

←

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

Historically accurate information removed

User:Makeandtoss, who clearly edits with a pro-Palestine bias, has removed historically accurate information to perpetuate an inaccurate viewpoint. While the original article may have addressed the remaining territory, it's essential to note that the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza constitutes only 23% of the British Mandate for Palestine. This information holds significant importance for maintaining neutrality.

Compare:

The [[1949 Armistice Agreements]] saw Israel's borders established over most of the former remaining Mandate territory, which is not including the 77% which was previously used to establish [[Jordan]] on 11 April 1922, while the rest, the [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|West Bank]] and the [[Occupation of the Gaza Strip by the United Arab Republic|Gaza Strip]], were taken by [[Jordan]] and [[Egypt]] respectively.

EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I stopped reading at: who clearly edits with a pro-Palestine bias. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Why not simply examine his edit history to either invalidate or validate my claim? EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

He promptly archived my talk post, which called out his edits, indicating a clear intention to conceal actions that could be viewed as biased editing from initial viewers. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Please cease your ad hominem attacks immediately before action is taken against you. Archiving talk pages is within my right, which is even optional and not mandated by Wikipedia that even allows blanking talk pages. As for my editing is supported by reliable sources and according to WP guidelines, unlike the last recent edit you tried to insert without a source. If it is an "indisputable fact", then I am sure it would be easy for you to provide a reliable source. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/05/opinion/is-jordan-palestine-of-course.html

80%, it's an obvious fact for anyone with any knowledge of history of the Levant, here's your reliable source. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I will gladly provide 100 more if you'd like... EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. And if it exists it is a fringe viewpoint in the literature. Doesn't belong in the lede as a summary of the body anyway. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a geographical fact, geography is not an opinion. The British Mandate for Palestine included both "Palestine" and "Jordan". Jordan constituted 80% of the British Mandate for Palestine. This is not an opinion, this is fact. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Here I have provided additional sources to support the geographical fact that Jordan comprised roughly 80% of the british mandate for palestine. Do you think this is satisfactory to update and correct the article?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/28/dueling-histories-debate-over-historic-palestine/

https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/cmenas-assets/cmenas-documents/unit-of-israel-palestine/Section1_BritishMandateInPalestine.pdf

https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/The%20League%20of%20Nations%20Mandate%20for%20Palestine%20-%201920.aspx?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template#:~:text=The%20territory%20of%20the%20British,separate%20administrative%20entity%20called%20Transjordan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/israel-palestine-gaza-west-bank-borders

EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

it's essential to note that the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza constitutes only 23% of the British Mandate for Palestine. Rubbish, this is the propaganda nonsense that includes Jordan in the Mandate. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Your response is completely unconstructive and baseless. Jordan was indeed a part of the British Mandate for Palestine, ummm Mandate for Palestine. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

And excluded from the Zionist provisions for nearly all of it, administered totally separately, and the border was not set until later so it wasn't even Jordan, it was just the other side of the Jordan. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance between that and the fact I am trying to include for the sake of neutrality. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Me either, stop writing rubbish and I won't respond to it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The administration of the area that constitutes Jordan today does not alter the historical fact that approximately 77% of the land allocated under the British mandate was used to establish the state of Jordan. The timing of border agreements made by outside additional parties does not negate the established borders and the allocation of land. Your argument appears to rely on a strawman fallacy EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source showing this 77%. When you can't find one, let me know. Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Are these not Wikipedia:Reliable sources?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/28/dueling-histories-debate-over-historic-palestine/

https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/cmenas-assets/cmenas-documents/unit-of-israel-palestine/Section1_BritishMandateInPalestine.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/israel-palestine-gaza-west-bank-borders

EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Idk, you tell me. Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. They are obviously reliable sources. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You mentioned the Mandate for Palestine -> "Whilst the Mandate for Palestine document covered both Mandatory Palestine (from 1920) and the Emirate of Transjordan (added in 1921), Transjordan was never part of Mandatory Palestine." and 4 reliable sources cited to that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, from strawman fallacy to now changing the goalpost. :) I provide reliable sources, now they are not good enough. We're not talking about Mandatory Palestine, my edit CLEARLY said British Mandate for Palestine. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

British Mandate for Palestine was a document, but your edit falsely and misleadingly makes a geographic connection with the area size. This point is irrelevant as far as the literature is concerned. And it still does not belong to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Israel Hebrew Name

in the Hebrew name of Israel the vowels are very hard to read. Rishypeasy (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rishypeasy not everyone can read niqqud. Ahri.boy (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

English

Just like Arabic, English is also a recognized language in Israel. Please add English alongside Arabic in the "recognized languages" section in the infobox. Here are the sources, as added to the article List of countries and territories where English is an official language.

MylowattsIAm (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add English alongside Arabic in the "recognized languages" section in the infobox. The sources I already gave. MylowattsIAm (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: English is not a de jure official language in Israel as stated in your cites. The article text appears to cover this correctly. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Then why not add it as a de facto recognized language with these citations and footnotes explaining it? It's stared that it's use comes even before Arabic so it makes no sense to leave it out of the infobox. MylowattsIAm (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There are a very large number of languages spoken in Israel as can be seen in the article on this at: Languages of Israel linked to in the languages section of this article. We cannot put them in an infobox. Please stop reopening this request. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

But English has a completely different status. One of the sources literally states "after Hebrew but before Arabic". It's not just another language used by someone in Israel, it is a working language of the state, a bit less important than Hebrew but more important than Arabic. Some articles use a row titled "working language" so perhaps we could use that here. I will reopen the request again for the last time. MylowattsIAm (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to support this suggestion. More sources are needed to back the claim of English as the working language. Ahri.boy (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

English is used around the world, somewhat like French centuries ago. I've been to many countries in South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific and had little problem using English. {OK, some difficulty in parts of the US.) This is partly due the prevalence of tech related documents written in English, and partly due to pop music and movies, and partly due to the annoying American tourists countries put up with. Israel is a special case. But these factors still exist. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Separate section for "Criticism (of Israel)"?

In the Government and politics section, there is a "see also" link for the Criticism of Israel. I wonder if there should be a separate section altogether for that, especially considering some of the criticism for the state is not entirely about "government and politics" (examples: islamophobia, antisemitism, etc). Josethewikier (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Not what we are looking for...WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure..." WP:CSECTION " Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. " Moxy🍁 03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

NPOV in the lede

Does anyone disagree with the content or the phrasing in this paragraph:

Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Judahite states, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. The region was successively conquered and assimilated by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine empires, the Arab Caliphates, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks and the Ottomans, causing the region to become very cosmopolitan. The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in Europe, a movement seeking a Jewish homeland, which garnered British support during World War I. During the war, the Ottomans were defeated and the British Mandate for Palestine was set up in 1920. Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine increased considerably, leading to intercommunal conflict between Jews and Arabs. The 1947 UN Partition Plan triggered a civil war between the two groups, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population, a central component of the fracturing, dispossession, and displacement of Palestinians known as the Nakba in Palestinian society.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I've added

...exacerbated by British colonial policy of divide and rule.

at the end of the sentence on intercommunal conflict Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you remove the cosmopolitan part in the lead OR add the corresponding info in the body as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body? Also could you please check the article length as this article was previously tagged as being too long? Wafflefrites (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a small paragraph summarising thousands of years of history, I think it is very concise, and smaller than a lot paragraphs in other ledes or even in this lede. Are citations included when discussing the article length?

Is that not a basic fact backed up by sources, therefore not needing to be in the body as per WP:Lede? Regardless I agree it needs to be mentioned in the body of the article, I'll work on it now. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal: Please revert first and seek consensus, rather than the other way around. As much as I agree with the framing of your edits, but this is really overdetailed. Lede should be as brief and factual as possible, without any analyses or the mention of multiple other things. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll shorten the final sentence to

...Arab population, a central component of what is known as the Nakba in Palestinian society.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Still overdetailed, especially the cosmopolitan and the whole Nakba thing. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

They're small one clause sentences. The cosmopolitan part summarises the effect lots of different ruling empires had on the region and links that sentence back to the region/rounds it off. The Nakba sentence is just a few words long to add a highly relevant page link. Furthermore, the paragraph still remains quite short. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I changed very to fairly cosmopolitan Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a couple words we could add to imply previous Jewish migrations such as after the Spanish inquisition Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I am ok with shortening the sentence and don’t mind keeping the link to Nakba, but I will admit I my reasoning is completely biased, so I cannot really provide appropriate reasoning on that. Please see WP:LENGTH for article length guidelines. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The guidelines are quite ambiguous, there might be a way to include the information in this paragraph with less words without killing the flow but I'm not seeing it Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s under WP:SIZERULE. I can check the length later and trim appropriately if needed. I think I am ok with keeping the link to Nakba because the link was previously in the lead and seemed important to some editors, but that is pretty much the reason. Probably need additional feedback from others. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the part saying in Palestinian society is key to state the perspective Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Would it not be easier to trim the sections down a little rather than the lede?

Also would very cosmopolitan be lede worthy? The only reason I put fairly was because I only had two sources. I suppose the word assimilated alludes to this, idk, but it wasn't necessarily the various empires causing this but waves of migration Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I do really think this is key to the history of Israel/Palestine region and I'm amazed it wasn't already talked about in the article. Also, I don't understand why you referenced malaria Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that part of the history. Is it in the Wikipedia article for Palestine (region)? I mentioned malaria because I am wondering how cosmopolitan the region was if malaria was endemic. Also I am wondering if the cosmopolitan part is not mentioned because this article is mostly focusing on the region when it was/is named Israel. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it’s the age old focus on political history rather than social history Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites how about rewriting the sentence that lists empires and replacing it with:

Located at a continental crossroad, the southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine empires, the Arab Caliphates, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks and the Ottomans, with its wide array of holy sites in various faiths attracting waves of immigration throughout history.

This leads into the next sentence well and flows well, and we could trim the 26 words from elsewhere. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I would remove “many” and “its wide array of” for concision Wafflefrites (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I suppose 'many' is rendered superfluous by the long list immediately after Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is mass changes by 2 new editors....... let's make sure we give good edit summaries. And let's make sure if there are reverts this is not taking personally....we can discuss things. Moxy🍁 03:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I get impatient Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Obv the premise for discussion shouldn’t be me defending changes but rather multiple people contributing to a consensus on the changes Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The list of empires wasn’t random, it was a list of empires in the order of those that ruled over the region. I really don’t think it makes sense for this period of history to be entirely ignored here. Alexanderkowal (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the copyedit; naming the various empires is unnecessary detail for the lead; "many different empires" is better. Although, I think even better would be improved by mentioning (in some brief formulation) that the different empires included Jewish, Islamic, Christian, and "other" empires. The whole "crossroads of three continents" thing. It explains why the area is important to Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others. Levivich (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that, although the many different empires refers to the time period after Judah. I think that would have to be in the first sentence of the paragraph Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

How about “… Holy Land, and has been controlled by Jewish, Muslim, and Christian polities throughout history.” Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Nakba in the lede

On whether to include the Nakba pagelink in this paragraph in the lede:

Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Judahite states, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Situated at a continental crossroad, the southern Levant subsequently came under the rule of different empires, such as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, Seljuk, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman empires. The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in Europe, a movement seeking a Jewish homeland, which garnered British support during World War I. During the war, British occupation led to the setting up of Mandatory Palestine in 1920. Increased Jewish immigration combined with British colonial policy led to intercommunal conflict between Jews and Arabs. The 1947 UN Partition Plan triggered a civil war between the two groups, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population, known as the Nakba, while a minority remained and became Arab citizens of Israel.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm linking to this on Talk:Nakba and Talk:Zionism in the hope we can build a strong consensus on this issue. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Can someone more experienced and more neutral than me please take over and manage discussion Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be an WP:RFC? See WP:RFCOPEN. And where is the WP:RFCBEFORE? (ie Is this even disputed by anyone other than yourself?) Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t dispute it, I’m for its inclusion. Two people have stated either opposition or wariness. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a weak consensus at the moment to include it. On such a controversial issue, a strong one is infinitely better although the merit of this RfC would depend on a good facilitator and efforts to build a consensus from both sides. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, where is the discussion where any editor queried the inclusion of the word nakba? Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It was reverted with a valid reason, I reinstated it due to weak consensus and started this RfC so as to hear arguments Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If all we are talking about is an insertion, a removal and a reinsertion without any subsequent discussion, then there is presumed consensus.

Btw, if the removal was for a valid reason, then it would have been better, although not compulsory, to have started the discussion per WP:BRD.

But if there is no current discussion, then this RFC is not required and you should close it (remove the RFC tags). Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ll close it and maybe reopen it if there’s further disagreement Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, include -- this is a different article from 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, so it makes sense to mention Nakba in the lead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is redundant, we already mention the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. HaOfa (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is a discussion not an RFC so no need for support/oppose comments. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Would it be an improvement if it were to say:

  known as the Nakba in Palestinian society.

  in order to make it clear that that article is written from the Palestinian perspective, and frame it. If this were done, would you support its inclusion in the lede here? Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  that article is written from the Palestinian perspective If that's true, add some other perspectives so that it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have stated that the Israeli perspective on the Nakba, current and past, should be included in the body and the lede of the article. It's too intense a topic for me to write on it without a deeper understanding. Until then, I do think it'd be good to frame the article here. This also clearly differentiates it from the expulsion and flight article, so the reader understands why we included them both. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Nope, you can't frame the article as not being NPOV merely because it hasn't been edited to your satisfaction, that's not the way it works. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Of course you can, this is entirely how it works, via consensus of editors. If multiple editors question the NPOV of an article, it gets an NPOV banner until that is addressed. I think the Nakba article is very good article, and it's right that the bulk should be written from the Palestinian perspective, but there also needs to be a bit from the Israeli perspective, that isn't just apologia. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  this is entirely how it works, via consensus of editors. If multiple editors question the NPOV of an article, it gets an NPOV banner If that was the way it worked, every contentious article would have a permanent NPOV tag. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ahaha true Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  There is no neutrality tag at the Nakba article, therefore it is NPOV and not written from the Palestinian perspective only. If you add such a tag, then go to the article and explain what needs to be fixed there and it will get fixed, either way it is not "Palestinian". Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'll move discussion to that page and clarify my argument. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024

There is a typo. JewIsh instead of Jewish. Please fix it. Grakkus (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

done Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2024

The page states that Israel is located in the historic Canaan and “Palestine” areas. This is supposed to be “Judea” as historically “Palestine” only existed as a British Mandate from 1918-1948. Please update this language to be historically accurate as Canaan and Judea are the correct terms for this point in Israel’s history. Canaan does not exist today, and the land of Judea is where Israel currently exists. (Submitted by a Middle East historian) 98.246.173.176 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Unsourced opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent lede edits

@Alexanderkowal: The lede is a summary, and your recent edits do not treat it as such. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you specify which edits? The sentence about migration after WW2 has a paragraph on it in the body. I admit my incentive to edit was not to summarise the body but make a good summary of the topic, and that that is problematic. There should be a paragraph about the rise of antisemitism in Europe which gives context to the climate that Zionism was born in and popularised in. Whether I can write that and do it justice, idk, although the research is easy Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Alexanderkowal: The recent edits are overdetailed and editorial, please summarize as follows:

• From "Situated at a continental crossroad, the southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as" to "The southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as"
• From " with holy sites of various faiths attracting waves of immigration throughout history." to "with holy sites of various faiths" [all countries have witnessed waves of immigration throughout history, nothing special here]
• From "Increased Jewish immigration and British colonial policy of divide and rule led" to "Increased Jewish immigration and British policies led to"
• From "most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population, known as the Nakba in Palestinian society, however a minority remained and became Arab citizens of Israel." to "most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population, also known as the Nakba"

Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the first change but not the others.

The point of the sentence on waves of immigration is to allude to it being historically ethnically diverse, and page link to a relevant page on social history of the region.

For the British policy one, maybe just page link to divide and rule through British colonial policy? I’m surprised the British empire page doesn’t have a section on their style of rule in comparison to other colonial empires.

The one about Arab citizens of Israel is key to clarify, although it is controversial due to the accusations of apartheid. I think it’s very open to discussion Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the Nakba one, not just known to Palestinians, to many. Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that sentence was key to stating the perspective, and it is predominantly and primarily known in Palestinian society Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That is just false. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

My point is that the English Wikipedia reader is unlikely to have heard of it Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

There are many things that an English reader might not have heard of, Aliyah for example, but both these things are explained in the text so not a problem. Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

the Aliyah page is linked to via "Jewish migration" precisely because an english reader is unlikely to have heard it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Its loci is in Palestinian society, just like the loci for the much wider known holocaust is in Israeli society. Any remembrance of Nakba is focused on Palestinian society Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought you just made your point, is this another one? How many do you have? Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes and you'd do well to address it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal: As seen here there is no consensus for "in Palestinian society" so please remove it. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There also wasn’t consensus for him to remove it, but since I initially acted without consensus I’ll revert.

I have a really hard time knowing when consensus has been reached as people often don’t admit defeat in an argument when the outcome is binary Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I added it because I felt I’d totally refuted his points or argument, if I had left it a day with no response would that have been the time to change it? Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing was refuted, merely asserted.the loci for the much wider known holocaust is in Israeli society Jews everywhere, I would have thought. Any remembrance of Nakba is focused on Palestinian society, see The U.N. is marking the 75th anniversary of Palestinians' displacement Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I assumed your comment decrying my persistence was admission of refutation. I know Nakba is quite widely commemorated, especially in the Muslim world, however the loci is very important, Palestinians primarily commemorate it, if they stopped everyone would stop. The link you put also emphasises Palestinian society Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

No-one disputes that Palestinians commemorate the Nakba. That was not the objection, it was the idea that Nakba is known only to Palestinians. In any case, that sort of detail is not necessary in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

it introduces the perspective of the Nakba article, and page links to Palestinian which is necessary for Israel's lede. Note that it isn't linked elsewhere Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The Nakba link is sufficient for the perspective. The reason that Palestinians are not linked anywhere is due to the practice of referring to them as Arabs "which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population" for example, that "Arab population" is Palestinian, and the vast majority of "Arab citizens of Israel" are as well Palestinian. But it is not crucial for this article, links to the conflict, the territories and the hr issues are sufficient imo. Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll page link Palestinians from Arab Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

No such thing as "defeat in an argument". On Wikipedia in particular decisions are made by consensus and consensus involves following the guidelines and making compromises. Also familiarize yourself with WP:1RR. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

What if you're discussing something with someone and they don't reply Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Also you removed the bit on waves of migration without consensus, I do really think this Demographic history of Palestine (region) needs to be linked to. I think putting

... and experienced waves of migration.

with waves of migration linking to the page. This leads into the next sentence very well Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but not only are you editing aggressively and without compromise, but also without regard to any WP guideline. It is you who inserted the waves of immigration bit without consensus. You have also violated -and continued to violate- 1RR multiple times despite being told to familiarize yourself with it. I won't be filing a complain at WP:AE, but someone eventually will and AE will outright sanction you. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree I made an error in my first few edits and that this has wrongly changed the premise of discussion. However I started this discussion on the talk page and multiple editors have critiqued the edits and not stated opposition to certain inclusions, meaning there is a weak consensus, and I continue to engage in discussion. Can you please address my initial comment. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I hope any administrator would recognise that I am editing in good faith. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Gave a better wikilink for British policy. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

In retrospect the ‘situated at a continental crossroad’ explains the succeeding sentence about why it came under the rule of lots of empires, but if you do still feel it’s too editorial than we can remove it Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The bit on the social history is context for the region having no real owner until the rise of ethnonationalism in the 19th century Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire owned it for centuries, that's a real owner. Levivich (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was more cosmopolitan than other regions, and the many series of migrations it saw meant that there wasn’t really an exclusive ethnic ownership Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow how migration or demographics means there wasn't exclusive ownership. The migrants didn't own or control the land. New York City is a cosmopolitan city with lots of migrants; it's still owned and controlled by the USA. Exclusively. Levivich (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s just my impression, it might be wrong. If New York City had changed hands 10s of times over the course of a millennium combined with waves of immigration and emigration I can imagine how strong ownership wouldn’t be felt. I suppose the Ottomans held onto Palestine for long enough for it to change. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know whether the nominal ownership by Turkish, and the Arab population, would’ve negated sentiment of ownership Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I suppose they possibility of losing something doesn’t always make people loosen their grip Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

In the next paragraph I think it should mention that there was immigration to Israel from people displaced by WW2 (and the holocaust) Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderkowal: Since the "with holy sites of various faiths attracting waves of immigration throughout history." has no consensus, please have it removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, can we discuss it? I can look through sources Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• [1] states "Typical of the cities of the Levant was a mixed population. ‘Levantine’ was an omnibus term used especially to refer to the Armenian, Greek, Italian and Jewish merchants...Conversions of individuals from one cultural environment to the next and back again were everyday occurrences. A new light is shed on minorities here. Neither marginalised nor treated as objects of tolerance or intolerance, in a social system based on communication and flexibility, they were the system's pillars and driving force." That's just in the abstract, I don't have access to the article
• [2] states "Anyone who studies the material culture of Egypt and the Levant will agree that migration, trade, translation, and assimilation were common practice." unsure if this is talking generally or about the first millennium BC
• [3] states "Migrants of various ethnic, religious and social origins made their way to Palestine, or crossed it while heading to other locations, or relocated their place of permanent residence, virtually in any given period between the mid-seventh century and the turn of the twelfth, as well as later on." I don't have access so can't see it talk about motives
• [4] states "the westward migration of the Jewish merchants from Iraq [during the 10th century]...contributed greatly to the economic prosperity in Palestine and Egypt"
• [5] states "This means that the peoples living here have an identity distinct from the neighboring peoples but they have nevertheless always had an ongoing exchange through trade, inter�marriage, migration, exile, and displacement with many of the other regional peoples."

It appears Arabs migrated for economic prosperity, so saying holy sites was wrong. It is a good page to link to though. I do think mention has to be made of migration from across the old world, or something referring to it being cosmopolitan and relatively diverse. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, that is not how WP works. When material is challenged, reversion first and then discussion per WP:BRD. Even if true, it is not a unique piece of information and does not belong to the lede of Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

?? I did revert it. I then started discussion. Please WP:Assume good faith Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I only noticed now. I am not arguing against the factuality, but against the prominence of this to the summary of an article about Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's context for the later Zionist migrations. Palestine was fairly cosmopolitan and was effectively built on migration with no real indigenous people compared to other regions. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the connection with Zionist migrations. On the contrary genetic evidence has shown that Palestinians show a large degree of genetic continuity with Bronze era Levantines. Still not relevant to the lede of the state of Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant, it summarises the social history of the region. If you disagree with the phrasing then we can rework it, but the content is very relevant in my view. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

How would you summarise the social history of the region? I think the clause would have to refer to flow (migration) and stock (settled population), however I don't know where to place the emphasis. I think indicating ownership of the region by an ethnic group violates NPOV for this article and would also be WP:Synth. Maybe talking indirectly about the population and stating the Islamisation of the region? I think that's a good compromise Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"ownership of the region"? "social history of the region"? I really don't see any of this as due for the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The social history of the region is discussed in the body and the lede and it’s incredibly relevant to the conflict. It doesn’t make sense to only start talking about social history from the 19th century when the periods before that are so relevant. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Palestinians were the indigenous people of Palestine. Levivich (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but it’s not as clear cut as other regions, and I think it’s natural for Israel’s page to have a slight Zionist bias. I’m more trying to correct for the lack of Zionist voices on this page, which I find surprising, to impale the content on the fence Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m more trying to correct for the lack of Zionist voices on this page Seriously? Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

? The only people I’ve engaged w on this page have been very anti-Israel, as much as I disagree with Zionism, particularly this manifestation of Zionism, in order to maintain NPOV Zionist arguments need to be involved and the grains of truth in them used, if what we’re trying to do is build a neutral encyclopaedia. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The other way of looking at it is there are a lot of pro Israel (not Zionist) editors at this page (there are) but they don't agree with you. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't received much disagreement, I'm surprised the Nakba inclusion didn't need an RfC. Also, see WP:Enemy Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't received much disagreement except from the very anti-Israel people who have engaged with you? Think you better ease off with the them and us rhetoric, tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah you’re probably right, it’s just the topic is often very partisan. I wouldn’t say I’m an us, more an irrelevant bystander with no deep understanding Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

in order to maintain NPOV Zionist arguments need to be involved and the grains of truth in them used No, that's not WP:NPOV. The "V" in NPOV is the viewpoints of reliable sources, not the viewpoints of the subjects of the articles. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

There are many RS that have a Zionist view or bias, including academic sources Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

See Israel#Modern period and the emergence of Zionism.

I think this article should mention the motives for the Arab migrations from the 7th to 12th centuries. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

because it's relevant detail and I think it's a question the reader might have. Just say for economic prosperity I think Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss I disagree with your reversion of my edit, the Islamisation of the region does summarise content in the body and is entirely relevant and lede worthy as it provides context for the current conflict. I don't understand your argument here, it seems a very common sense inclusion. Unless you think there's negative connotations with the term "Islamisation"? Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Same applies to paganism, Judaism and Christianity. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s included there as context for the subsequent sentences. Would you rather it referred to Arab migrations rather than Islamisation? Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

How about:

with the region having received many Jewish immigrants displaced in Europe during the Second World War

I’d argue this is more lede worthy than the exodus from the Muslim world, it also page links to a relevant page on Jewish history Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You can’t have a summary of Israeli history without mentioning WW2 Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Btw feel free to revert my edit about migration following WW2, I altered it so 1RR doesn't apply, but I should've discussed it first. Why don't you feel migrations should be included in the lede? It seems a central component of Israeli history Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

"It seems like..."? Respectfully, I think you should read/learn more about this before making or proposing changes to these articles. Like: how many Jews moved to Israel, when, from where, and according to what sources? There is a lot of literature on these topics, the answers are complex, and they may surprise you. Levivich (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That's valid, however my statement there is correct. The migration from Europe occurred largely from 1920 to 1953. The Aliyah#Early statehood (1948–1960) section has a table that shows where they migrated from, and how many, from 1948-1953, with 338,000 total from Europe. Ofc there was migration to Palestine during the war and before, which I struggled to include in my edit without splitting it into two sentences in different places. Bricha and Aliyah Bet discuss this. My edit was based off of what I read on wikipedia, ideally I'd be more knowledgeable and accustomed with the topic. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That's why I wrote "... and according to whom?" If you are reading things on Wikipedia articles and then changing other Wikipedia articles based on that, that's not a good approach. WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that table, for example, is itself not very well sourced. Not terribly sourced, it's sourced to scholarship at least, but it seems to have one source, a paper, that's 20 years old. There are many entire books written about this, and history is always updated, so there are just better sources available for these numbers. And of course not all the sources agree with each other. And then there's context (which Wikipedia articles are particularly lacking in): 338k out of how many total? While there is no disputing that the Holocaust was very important to the history of Israel, IIRC it's also true that most Holocaust survivors did not move to Israel (many more went to the US, for example), and most Jewish immigrants to Israel were not Holocaust survivors.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that you're volunteering to improve these articles, but the best way to go about that is sources->body->lead, of the same article, as opposed to changing the lead (or body) of one article just based on what it says in another article. (Keeping in mind that main articles will often have better information than sub-articles, but not always, which is why one always has to check the sources.) And sources, plural, never depending on just one source. Sources from a variety of viewpoints, not just one American, Israeli, or Palestinian author. And preferably, best sources, not just "any" paper or book.

IMO, the best way to figure out what to write about immigration in the Israel article is to take a few recent books about Israel's history from the most reputable scholars from a variety of viewpoints, and see what they say about immigration, and then summarize that. Levivich (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay I'll do more research in the future, thank you. Yeah cherry picking sources isn't the best way to go about it. In the sources I gave, one was from an Israeli journal, and one was critical of Israeli exceptionalism so I thought it was a wide consensus.

Pogrom#Europe after World War II lists pogroms after WW2, and a lot of Jewish migration was prior to the Holocaust Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, and also, off the top of my head, one thing sources from the '90s may not accurately capture (as compared to sources from, say, the last 10 years) is the significance of post-Soviet Jewish migration to the current demographics of Israel. IIRC, more Russian Jews came in the '90s and 2000s than Holocaust survivors in the '40s and '50s. How much a Wikipedia article talks about one wave of migration vs another should be based on how the current best sources treat the issue. And seriously, thanks for volunteering to work on this, Wikipedia could use all the help it can get. Levivich (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm surprised at the lack of active editors, no worries, I'll look into it. Thanks for the advice Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

My impression does seem to be accurate, and I was very confident on it despite the weasel wording

[6] is a journal article with the title: Immigration is Israel's History, So Far

[7] is a book titled: Country on the Move: Migration to and within Israel, 1948–1995

[8] is critical of Israeli exceptionalism and states: Migration has been a major social issue in Israel for well over 50 years. Indeed,its centrality in the value context of the society goes back to well before the establishment of the state in 1948 (Leshem and Shuval (Eds), 1998). Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

My edits on the word 'pre-emptively' were wrong and naive, I just wanted to counter the narrative that people flee their homes willingly Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Map: add main towns, Isr. settlements outside Isr.

Maybe it's not the best place to open the discussion, but let's have it started.

Regarding maps of towns & regions:

It is important to have the main features on the map also on the other side of border or armistice lines. For the PA these are Palestinian towns & Israeli settlements, elsewhere Lebanese etc. towns, trans-border roads etc. Why? Because white surfaces aren't informative. There is peaceful and violent interaction across those lines - main roads into the West Bank, border crossings, common industrial zones, border incidents (shooting, terror attacks, IDF incursions, historical battles), ecological issues, and so forth. One comes here for inf. and gets - hic sunt leones.

Use a different colour, of course - keep the white or whatever - but border or armistice lines are porous, not the ultimate confines of Flat Earth. We should only add important features, but those are needed. If a selection or graphic alteration is too difficult to achieve, technically or otherwise, then keep all there is, but in pale grey. Arminden (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Concrete example. One reads about shooting from Tulkarem toward Bat Hefer. Going to B.H. page, there is no Tulkarem on the map/location plan. Current solution:

1. go to coordinates
2. choose type of map
3. figure out places, often spelled differently.

Tulkarem is a big town, should be on that sketchy map/location plan. Arminden (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Minor wording change in lede

Hopefully this is uncontroversial and accurate, but I am open to guidance if mistaken.

Please make the following change to the article:

−

During the war, British occupation led to the setting up of Mandatory Palestine in 1920.

+

During the war, British occupation led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine in 1920.

Infectedfreckle (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Apartheid in Lead

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

---

I think it's time for us to have this discussion.

I propose that the apartheid allegation be explicitly mentioned in the lead. This is an incredibly well-sourced allegation, and I think the current lead which vaguely talks about "crimes of humanity" and "war crimes" is avoiding the core of the issue — precisely which crime is Israel being accused of? Apartheid is the principal one.

Specifically, I propose that the current version "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." be replaced with "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." JDiala (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Option A: Mention apartheid.

Option B: No change.

Option C: Other.

Survey

• Bad RfC we already had a recent discussion regarding the language in the lead. No significant change has happened since. FortunateSons (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we wait for an action by the ICC or the ICJ before discussing this issue again, as that will probably influence the situation drastically. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, a binding decision by one of those could be such a significant change. FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

A court decision by the ICJ supporting apartheid charachterization would turn the claims in to factual reality; i.e. Israel is maintaining an apartheid system, rather than Israel is accused of maintaining an apartheid system; i.e. Israel and apartheid would be turned into Israeli apartheid. In both cases this has nothing to do whether this should be mentioned in lede, because the lede is a summary of the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You voted in the wrong place, and you misunderstood my comment: As there is no significant change (and a decision would be such a change), there is no reason to re-open a discussion so soon. FortunateSons (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support of option A: this mention is long overdue and this is pretty much the elephant in the article. This is supported by the world's leading human rights organizations, including HRW and Amnesty International which are RS per WP. The lede is a summary of the body and given that we have a subsection on apartheid charges, then the least we could do is provide a simple mention of this. WP:LEDE specifically says any prominent controversies should be mentioned; the charges of apartheid is obviously and most certainly a prominent controversy, which has its own WP article Israel and apartheid, and is being mentioned in international forums including the ICJ genocide case. We are quite literally beautifying the horrors of this long-standing occupation and increasing settlement construction by not mentioning the findings (yes findings, not accusations) of major human rights groups. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option A Per Makeandtoss. JDiala (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate you reformatting the RfC; would you be so kind as to actually do it by fully next time, by not excluding my vote? could you please include my vote next time?FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Your snarky attitude towards honest mistakes is not congruent with policy. I refer you to WP:GF, WP:CIVIL. JDiala (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  That wasn’t meant to be (overly) snarky, I just wanted my second correction regarding formatting to be less aggressive, I’ll fix the tone. :) FortunateSons (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  there should also be a reference to apartheid in its government type. Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  That being said, just a technicality: it’s not an AGF violation (as no bad faith was assumed) and likely not yet a civility violation (those require a de minimis bar to be crossed that wouldn’t have been reached even if I had meant it in a mean way). However, I definitely could have gone for a nicer phrasing, and apologise for that. FortunateSons (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RfC per FortunateSons. Marokwitz (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support for A per Makeandtoss. I would have assumed the allegations of apartheid were already mentioned in the lead, it should absolutely be added. Professor Penguino (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option A: sufficient weight for inclusion. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option A: Definitely sufficient weight and the weight has only become more pronounced over the past seven months as the state has sunk deeper into racial prejudice and persecution. Even before that, in August, a former head of Israel's northern command was calling it as apartheid. There's more in the HRW December update on the topic. And now we have the thousands of additional administrative detentions underscoring the complete legal inequality, among the litany of other abuses in the West Bank, including unlawful killings without charge. There was even a whole conference on the topic of the apartheid this past week. Or try one of the many journal pieces written already in 2024 alone on the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support for option A: per Makeandtoss and Iskandar323. There is absolutely strong enough sources to support it. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Modify slightly: Though, I think that the specific organizations should be listed with the phrasing ...including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations, including X, Y, and Z, as well as United Nations officials. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay actually maybe different phrasing: I think it's better to use the more definitive phrasing suggested in discussion of what Israel is doing amounting to apartheid, as supported by the ICJ and Amnesty. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• A per Makeandtoss and Iskandar. Even if you remove from consideration activist groups like HRW, just plain old scholarship and journalism now mention apartheid often enough that it's WP:DUE for the lead. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. The previous RfC ended only a few months ago in December 2023, the initiator has not indicated what has changed to warrant a new RfC. Also, the RfC's wording is not neutral ("This is an incredibly well-sourced allegation") and so a new RfC should be opened, per one of the options suggested in the summary of the closure review. Alaexis_¿question? 09:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: as a compromise, I would support the wording proposed by DMH223344 on 02:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC):

“most human rights organizations consider Israel to enforce an apartheid system in the occupied territories."

This wording had received consensus from ~5 editors. I would oppose the wording suggested in this RfC. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

‘’’Support this’’’ as well as Makeandtoss’ reasoning. In order to employ more explicit wording there needs to either be a monopoly of sources or a high court judgement imo and we don’t have that at the moment Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment There is an upcoming ICJ ruling on Israeli practices in the OPT. As per The Implications of An ICJ Finding that Israel is Committing the Crime Against Humanity of Apartheid during the recent public hearings, "24 States and three international organizations made the further claim that Israel’s policies and practices amount to a system of institutionalized racial discrimination and domination breaching the prohibition of apartheid under international law and/or amount to prohibited acts of racial discrimination.". Personally, I would like to wait for the ICJ deliberations on this matter to conclude before addressing what should be in the lead (although it being in the body is straightforward). Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective, apartheid is already a fact since Amnesty and HRW are reliable sources, without regard to what western governments are claiming. Given this contradiction we have chosen to treat these conclusions as allegations. But in either case, whether conclusions or allegations, apartheid as a fact or as a claim should be in the lede as a summary of the body. Currently, the least we could do is have it described as a claim. After the ICJ deliberations, if affirmative, I think we would all be inclined to treat it as fact. So I would view it more of how to describe apartheid in the lede for now and later as two separate discussions. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

When saying lede are you talking about the first paragraph or the third? The allegation of apartheid should be in the third if there are many reliable sources for it, it fits with what's already there in the same vein. If the ICJ concluded it was apartheid then it could be included as a fact imo Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEDE is the summary of the body that is present before the article's contents; i.e. the four paragraphs. The first lede paragraph is under MOS:OPEN. Here I am referring to the third lede paragraph indeed. and I agree with your reasoning. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I actually like the ICJ wording. The ICJ was careful in how they worded it, and the wording is more accurate. Apartheid is linked to race, and "Palestinian" is not a race, so the apartheid accusation is not really accurate. The ICJ wording doesn't say "there is apartheid" but that the system amounts to apartheid. Human Rights Watch also used "amounts to" up in DMH223344's comment on 00:21, 22 March 2024.

The ICJ wording:

"Israel’s policies and practices amount to a system of institutionalized racial discrimination and domination breaching the prohibition of apartheid under international law and/or amount to prohibited acts of racial discrimination."

I would also prefer to wait for the ICJ deliberations. The current info in the Wikipedia Israel article about apartheid is not very good because it is basically "here is are bunch of organizations accusing Israel of apartheid.. a quote from a 2021 survey... these accusations were criticized by governments...here is a opinion by a Canadian law professor." Written like this, the content is not very lead-worthy, but content supported by more well-rounded/balanced ICJ deliberations and findings would make the apartheid accusations more lead-worthy. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Definition of race: a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know. I use duck.com as a default browser on this device and when I typed in Is Palestinian a race it said “ Palestinian is not considered a distinct race. Palestinians are an ethnonational group residing in the Southern Levant, sharing broad religious, linguistic, and cultural practices with other Arabs, with variations unique to Palestine. They are part of the broader Arab world and encompass Muslims and a minority of Christians.”

Also ethnicity and race are not the same. Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity but not race. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes but no one in this discussion has talked about whether Palestinians are a race except yourself. It is imo not germane to the discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid is a system of racial segregation. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

But according to the second definition in the American Heritage dictionary race is , “ A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.” So it could work if we go by that dictionary picking the second definition. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid (South Africa version) and the Crime of Apartheid are not the same thing. In addition, the definition of racial group nowadays is more fluid. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I may have gotten confused from looking at the US census race categories. Middle Easterners are supposed to fill in White as their race [9]. The census definitions for race and ethnicity are different and more strict. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid has never been that cut and dry, by that argument, Rhodesia wasn't an apartheid regime because it was largely wealth based voting, the apartheid comes from its treatment of the west bank, which it treats like a Bantustan, infact a nickname for the west bank is "bantustan" it is Segregation... Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Not just a bunch, a lot of weighty opinions on the matter and over a long period of time, this is not going to go away. Btw, that's not the ICJ wording, that is the wording used by the JustSecurity source, you would need to look at the individual country submissions to see what wording they actually used.

Amnesty view is the most authoritative finding so far "The comprehensive report, Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime against Humanity, sets out how massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forcible transfer, drastic movement restrictions, and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law. This system is maintained by violations which Amnesty International found to constitute apartheid as a crime against humanity, as defined in the Rome Statute and Apartheid Convention."

I don't think the "amounts to" is significant, is there a source for that? Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

See, Amnesty is also using “amounts to “

“ and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law.”

JustSecurity used “amounts to “ twice, Amnesty used it, and Human Rights Watch used it. I was trying to figure out why they used “amounts to” instead of is. One definition of “amounts to” is adding up. So maybe that is why they are using it instead of the race thing. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

International law is named after the most famous example, separation of European/non-European peoples. So I suppose sources on Israel use ‘amounts to’ instead of ‘is’ for language reasons. I think they are saying it fits international law because the actions taken in South Africa and Israel are materially the same, even if it isn’t the identical groups undergoing separation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

We should get an uninvolved Editor to close this..... As of now it doesn't hold up to basic integrity to have it closed by the initiator..... That being said I don't disagree with the outcome.... Just doesn't look proper.....looks sneaky if you will.Moxy🍁 21:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

True. Then again, it appears to be unanimous and was open for five weeks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Editors should do their best to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia..... this isn't it. Moxy🍁 21:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

On WP:RFCEND, it is stated that "if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor may summarize the discussion" and "[if] the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable". I decided to close in light of this. JDiala (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've reopened this RFC per the challenge at AN. I suggest that this be retried with a neutral RFC statement and widely advertised at Wikiprojects that may be interested in order to address the concerns of uninvolved parties at AN that this RFC did not gather enough participation and was not widely advertised. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Might I also suggest using {{rfc}}, which would summon a selection of (hopefully) uninvolved editors and add it to RfC categories and lists. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2024

In the second paragraph from the top, in the middle of that paragraph there is a misspelling of "Gaza Sctrip" should be "Gaza Strip". Wasphilux (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Lede

Why does the lede now jump from 1,000 BC to 1896? 3,000 years of the ancient and modern history of the Palestine region summarized in 8 words of "subsequently came under the rule of various empires."? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Because the ancient history is relevant to zionism, the founding ideology of the state of Israel. I'd personally like another clause adding to it that it involved many different cultures also? Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of lede is to summarize the body, not to highlight history relevant to Zionism. Ledes should not be biased by giving more prominent weight to 3,000 year defunct civilizations at the expense of Palestine's 3,000 year most recent and relevant history. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Definition of a state: a political entity that rules over a territory. The history of that territory is the history of the state. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. For example, the history of the United States doesn't involve telling the history of the indigenous peoples the United States took land from. Mention it, yes, but not in detail. Levivich (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

@Alexanderkowal: Also, again, when your edits are reverted, you are kindly mandated to discuss them, not re-insert them. This has happened multiple times now, so you are kindly requested to again read WP:BRD and WP:ARBPIA, and conform to these guidelines. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I never make the same edit twice, if I feel a proposal has been changed to address concerns raised, I then apply it as a different edit, which people can of course revert whilst adhering to the 1RR, and continue discussion, if people think I acted improperly or too hastily in a particular instance please tell me Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

An insertion is one edit, a reversal of its removal is another edit. That's two and that is contrary to WP:BRD. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If I've changed it considerably in tone and content, is that still a reversal of removal, especially if I didn't apply it in the first place? Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Let’s trim this lede

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

current: Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanitecity-states, and later, Israelite and Judahite kingdoms, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.

suggested edit: Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, the Holy Land, and the Land of Israel.

‘Canaanite city states’ is redundant with ‘historically known as Canaan’ ‘Israelite and Judahite kingdoms’ is redundant with Land of Israel

Even ‘in antiquity’ is redundant with ‘historically’

It feels odd to go out of our way to say it’s known as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition, but not mention that ‘the Holy Land’ is primarily from Christian tradition. Since we’re trying to trim the lede, better to remove the lone line about Jewish tradition than add extra words explaining the traditions of the other names. 2601:80:8600:EFA0:918E:34E3:B31B:62A0 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with those edits apart from removing the "Israelite and Judahite kingdoms" bit, as it is a short clause and is central to zionism, the founding ideology of Israel Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

In response to edit requests from non EC editors, either fulfill the edit request or do not, discussion is not required as non EC editors cannot engage in it anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

How about "Land of Israel in antiquity" so it's clear it's a very old name? Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Not sure if Holy Land is primarily Christian, but in regards to “Land of Israel” or specifically “Israel”... the Quran mentions Banī Isrāʾīl(Arabic: بني إسرائيل, lit. 'The Children of Israel'). Not sure if the Isra’il in the Quran is referring to a name for the region or the name of Jacob. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede too long tag

The lede has been recently expanded in a way that goes into excessive details, against four well-composed paragraphs recommended by MOS:LEDE and the 400 word ideal maximum by MOS:LEADLENGTH. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Mentions of the Holocaust, European antisemitism, Jewish immigration from Arab countries, Jewish immigration from Europe; all of this is irrelevant to the article, does not summarize the body proportionately, and is overly-detailed. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it is irrelevant, however the history section needs to be edited to go into detail about migrations, it is a core part of Israel's history. The body also needs to discuss the climate Zionism was born in, in the Rise of nationalism in Europe in the 19th century and the accompanying rising antisemitism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with all of that as well. That's all relevant to the topic "State of Israel." Levivich (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Not relevant enough, nor featuring in body prominent enough, for it to be added to the lede, a summary of the body, in this way. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If other people agree with you, I'd be okay with removing the sentences on immigration until the body is edited Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely nonsense to suggest that European pogroms, the Holocaust, or immigration to Israel, are not significant aspects of Israel. I think basically any book or article about Israel is going to mention those three things. We can compare sources if there are any that back up your view? Levivich (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think his point is that if these are significant to Israel, why are they not more prominent in the body Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The body is a giant mess. Just look at the history section, for example. But even still, in the section "Modern period and the emergence of Zionism" there is an entire paragraph about immigration and pogroms. The next section, "British Mandate for Palestine," has two paragraphs about immigration and demographics. The next section, "Establishment and early years," has a paragraph about the Holocaust (which is also mentioned in several other places). But more to the point, WP:ASPECT and WP:DUE are measured against sources. The body needs to be recalibrated to match the sources. I maintain that there literally does not exist a scholarly summary of Israel or the history of Israel that omits pogroms, Holocaust, and immigration. The pogroms and the Holocaust are foundational events leading to the creation of Israel, and immigration is a significant aspect of any country, for obvious reasons, namely that demographics are a significant aspect of any country, and immigration is like half of demographics (the other half being native-born residents). Levivich (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to work on that collaboratively with a wide range of editors after the rfc is finished Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That RFC is finished :-) The even split between A and B is unlikely to change. But, yeah, I agree with you. The right move is to collect some top sources about Israel and examine them to see what are the significant WP:ASPECTs and WP:DUE viewpoints, and then edit the body and the lead accordingly. Although it's usually "body first," there is something to be said for taking the "lead first" approach here (because the body is a giant task). Levivich (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, later today I'll try and compile some works on Israeli history here and once we have a sort of syllabus we can start a new topic, and notify wikiprojects Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

So what I've got so far:

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

There are many more here [12]

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

I am sure that you agree that a disagreement in opinion should not lead to uncivil remarks about absolute "nonsense". And yes, they are not significant aspects of Israel. The USA, the world's largest and most notable immigrant nation, does not mention immigration anywhere in its lede. European pogroms and the Holocaust are European history, not Israeli history. Why are we giving 4 years of European history more weight than 3,000 years of Palestinian history? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Saying an argument is nonsense is not uncivil. The reason we would give more weight to the Holocaust than to Palestinian history is because the sources do. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources discussing Israel and the Holocaust does not mean the Holocaust is central to Israel. There are plenty of sources giving more weight to Israel's 1982 and 2006 invasions of Lebanon and the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. Why is the Holocaust, on European territory, more important than those that occurred on Israeli territory? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say "sources discussing Israel and the Holocaust." I said, above, "top sources about Israel." In other words, the WP:BESTSOURCES for this article. Namely, we're looking for summaries of Israel, such as other encyclopedia articles (see WP:TERTIARY: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.), scholarly books about the state of Israel (particularly their tables of contents and introductions), articles in journals that provide an overview of the state of Israel. These are the WP:BESTSOURCES for this article, and what we should look at when determining questions of due weight (WP:DUE) and significant aspects (WP:ASPECT). The problem with this article, for years, is that everybody wants to argue about Israel but nobody wants to do the work of pulling the books and reading. One possible starting point would be a Table of Contents Analysis (like this or this). Another is to look at other encyclopedia articles (as was done here). Levivich (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Comparison with other tertiary sources is a great way to see if we're on the right track, balance-wise. Happy to see you dig up that analysis of yours from last year. Most of the six encyclopedias you checked (at a glance, 5/6) have a brief mention of the Holocaust, not always referencing that term exactly. The current line seems about right. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Current line seems about right to me, too; or in other words, a one-sentence or less-than-one sentence mention seems like the right amount. Levivich (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the lede can possibly exclude Jewish immigration from Arab and European countries (and I don't understand how you can argue it's "irrelevant to the article"). Zanahary (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  −

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

  +

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

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

For middle power:

For regional power:

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Moxy🍁 16:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article classification and issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some other tertiary sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too many

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was good at trimming history, see here ! [13] He trimmed it! Wafflefrites (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: mention apartheid in the lead?

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

The result of was: no consensus.

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

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

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

---

Noting the existence of the subsection Israel#Apartheid accusations in the body of the article, should the text that has been bolded below be added to the lead of this article? Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the implementation of policies that amount to apartheid, against the Palestinian people by human rights organizations and United Nations officials. starship.paint (RUN) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Option A: Include as proposed.
Option B: Do not include the bolded text.
Option C: Other.

Survey (new)

• Option A. The accusation of apartheid is very important and should absolutely be in the lead. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option A - the content is relevant to Israel, important enough to draw international coverage and scholarly discussion, and reliably sourced. There is an abundance of content, so much so that a whole sub-article, Israel and apartheid was created over it, and it currently has almost 350 references. Given this, the accusation is simply WP:DUE. starship.paint (RUN) 07:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • This accusation is in fact a mainstream academic viewpoint. The Washington Post surveyed academic experts on the Middle East ... 557 scholars responded ... the percentage of scholars who describe the current situation as “a one state reality akin to apartheid” grew even faster, from 59 percent in February to 65 percent in this latest poll dated September 2021. starship.paint (RUN) 09:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option B - The lede is a summary of the article and generally shouldn't go into specifics; at the moment we appropriately summarize this accusation under It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Adding additional details would be WP:UNDUE - I note we don't even include highly relevant details around the background to the formation of Israel, such as the holocaust. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Option A(Summoned by bot) mention of the apartheid accusation, the accusation is simply WP:DUE per Starship.paint. But one semantic quibble, is apartheid generally considered a 'war crime' or a 'crime against humanity', which the word 'including' implies.Pincrete (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Pincrete: the latter, see the lead of crime of apartheid and crimes against humanity. starship.paint (RUN) 08:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Option A per nom. We’ve got to be wary of too much detail, however this seems appropriate Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option B, The lead is already overloaded with every accusation ever made against Israel. Adding more is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. You don't see this level of scrutiny for any other country. We have to stop politicizing Wikipedia... HaOfa (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I was talking about the lede. There’s no mention of the Uyghurs or that other religious group I can’t remember their name Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option A Widespread legal, political and scholarly support for this allegation. Among the most well-known allegations of a crime against humanity by a state in the modern era. Without any doubt, this is lead worthy. JDiala (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option A The characterization is widespread and over a long period. It is also the root cause of most of the other criticisms of Israel. Apartheid permeates every aspect of life. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option B trying to put aside my own personal opinion on the matter to be objective and think of this in terms of Wikipedia policy, I do feel inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. I agree with BilledMammal - I think we do already summarise the most serious accusations against Israel in It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option A/C, as the matter is undoubtedly pertinent to the country, however the wording could be tweaked further, from focusing on Israel being accused to focusing on its policies and practice. Perhaps along the lines of: According to UN bodies and human rights organisations, Israeli policies towards [or: treatment of] the Palestinian minority may have at times amounted to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and apartheid. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  the war crimes are not only against the Palestinian minority in Israel. Tbh I oppose the inclusion of war crimes in the lede, this is not done for other countries guilty of war crimes Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Fairness is not the standard. The question that needs to be asked is, as a ratio of all of WP:RS material about a given state, what proportion of that material pertains to war crimes? In Israel's case (as with some other rogue states e.g., Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan), that ratio is exceptionally high, higher than other states. For Israel, war crimes are a sine qua non, a core aspect of its existence. For instance, consider that in the words of Israeli historian Benny Morris, "transfer", a euphemism for the recognized crime against humanity of ethnic cleansing, was "inevitable and inbuilt" into Zionism. Other states like America, China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies, with large economies, deep histories, and immense global influence beyond their militarism, and this richness is reflected by WP:RS. JDiala (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, but I'm also mindful of the fact that the process of carving out a new country nearly always involves population transfers, and theorising about it is not a crime in itself. Redefining the borders of Germany, Poland, Soviet Union, etc., after WW2 also involved transfers of millions of people – yet can we argue that it was automatically a crime against humanity? The matter is quite nuanced in my view. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  That’s nonsense, America, China, and Russia have all had population transfer as a core aspect of their history. Just because you don’t find Israeli history or society interesting is of no relevance here. There is depth to Jewish history, which Israel is a part of Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

  Perhaps, I don't object. As I wrote, the wording needs to be tweaked further. E.g., "...towards ethnic minorities, including in particular the Palestinians". — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option BThis subject is highly controversial, many countries do not agree that there is Apartheid and various organizations including the UN who support such allegations, are sometimes accused of bias against Israel. There is no place for such a suggestion. I agree also with BilledMammal Owenglyndur (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  "This subject is highly controversial, many countries do not agree that there is Apartheid and various organizations including the UN who support such allegations, are sometimes accused of bias against Israel." Does that really matter though? The implicit suggestion that you are making is that the UN is wrong and has an anti-Israel bias. I'm not accusing you of anything, but think of it this way:

  Option 1: We exclude the accusations of apartheid from the lead section. Because of this, we exclude a very important accusation against the article's subject, with the reason being simply that "it's controversial" and "it may not be an apartheid state".

  Option 2: We include the accusations of apartheid in the lead section. We include a very important accusation against the article's subject, without taking sides and simply stating the fact that Israel has been accused of apartheid.

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

  B'Tselem is often associated with Israel's hard left. I'm not sure about their end vision for the conflict, but I can imagine some people will view their opinion as biased. ABHammad (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option A per Starship.paint. Having said that I find the second sentence unnecessarily wordy. It has been accused of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and implementing policies amounting to apartheid would do. DeCausa (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Yup, that's better wording. starship.paint (RUN) 13:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Prefer starship's original wording as apartheid (and policies amounting to it) are in fact crimes against humanity. So it's better to use a word like "including" rather than "and." JDiala (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I don't have a preference on 'and' v 'including'. It was more the words at the end of the sentence I was referring to as not needed. DeCausa (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Option A and/or Option C although I think the phrasing is too long for the lede, so I would propose this shorter one instead:

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

• A/C - The proposal is fine, something shorter like "has been accused of war crimes and apartheid" would also be fine. Any reasonable mention in the lead would be fine. Israel's treatment of Palestinians as second-class citizens is an important aspect of Israel according to RS these days, making it WP:DUE for the lead. Being formally accused of apartheid before The Hague is significant, there's really no way around that. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option B, I think this is undue for the already bloated lead, which doesn't present much more important details about the country, such as its economy and major historical events. This is turning into an article on the conflict rather than on Israel itself. ABHammad (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option B We already have extensive language in the lede about Israel's alleged war crimes, under which alleged behavior that results in a similar effect to apartheid already falls under the umbrella. It should summarize, not act as a catalogus malorum and the extensive details of the alleged war crimes are quite covered in full where they ought to be, the body. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option B while the article does sufficiently cover it, there is no reasons to specifically included in the lead, instead leaving it to be covered by the categories already included after the last RFC. In addition, it would create an (even more) overweight lead regarding criticism, particularly compared to other democratic contemporary countries. We also have to be careful of systemic bias, as at least some of those involved have been accused of perpetuating a systemic bias. If it were to be included, it must focus on accusations, not actions, to represent RS coverage. FortunateSons (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  What would you add to the lede so it wasn't criticism heavy? I think removing the previous sentence would make room for this addition. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Germany seems to me like an appropriate example of due weight for the lead, but no country is fully analogous. But on a quick read, even Iran seems to be friendlier, despite the plethora of human rights violations in recent history, with: The Iranian government is authoritarian and has attracted widespread criticism for its significant violations of human rights and civil liberties. FortunateSons (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Good point, I'd argue for crimes against humanity to be replaced by accusations of apartheid, and war crimes to just be a page link, with it all in one sentence Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Even Iran seems to be friendlier I'm not at all surprised. By all accounts, Iranians in Iran have incomparably more rights than Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. An encyclopaedia ought to reflect that. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  I mean: what do Newspapers of Record (to not bring us into the situation of analysing scholarship) write about them comparatively? FortunateSons (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option A per starship.paint and others. Given its importance and how well it's covered in the scholarly sources (more than enough to dedicate an article to it), I'm amazed it's not already mentioned. M.Bitton (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

• Option B per BilledMammal, CoffeeCrumbs, and FortunateSons. The current paragraph on the conflict already overburdens the lead as it is. Israeli culture isn't covered at all. Ltwin (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option A per nom. It's absolutely vital to include the apartheid accusation in the lead considering the extensive legal, political, and scholarly support it has garnered. Skitash (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option A: As mentioned in the prior aborted RFC, there is definitely sufficient due weight for this to be mentioned, and the weight has only become more pronounced over the past eight months as the state's racial prejudice, legal inequality, injustice and persecution have become more pronounced. (Indeed, the state's mask has truly slipped and the crime of apartheid is no longer even the worst of its iniquities.) Even before this, in August, a former head of Israel's northern command was calling apartheid. HRW also released a December update on the topic. And now we have the thousands of additional administrative detentions underscoring the depravity of the military court system imposed on Palestinians in the West Bank, among the litany of other abuses, including unlawful killings without investigation or arrests, let alone charge. A month past, there was even a dedicated conference on the topic of the apartheid. For want of more established material, try one of the many journal pieces written already in 2024 alone on the topic. This particular journal paper, from January, outlines the apartheid in South Africa, Israel, and Myanmar as the three exemplars of the crime – the scarcity of cases underscoring the very rarity that makes this charge so worthy of mention. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option B/C. The lead is already bloated with this, as already noted above. Option C is merited because it is covered in the article with a subsection, so assuming that is due (a different discussion) it should be mentioned at least in passing in the lead too (the lead being a summary of the article). Option B in a binary here however, as this specific proposal is just further bloating an already overwrought sentence and paragraph. CMD (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option A. Per starship.paint, Iskandar323, and others. Bogazicili (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option B. MOS:LEDE should summarise the article. The proposed wording does not do it satisfactorily. It only mentions the accusations but doesn't mention those who dispute them (per the WP survey, if 65% of scholars think that the situation is "akin to apartheid", then 35% think that it's not). I'm open to considering alternative wordings, but it might be that it's too much nuance for the lede, which already mentions the accusations of crimes against humanity. Alaexis_¿question? 09:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  Agreed, however it is the most notable one, the others are much less notable and don’t need to be referred to in Israel’s lede imo. I’d personally like the US’ lede to refer to the use of MNC’s and state capture in developing countries, but that apparently isn’t notable enough Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  We are not referring to the individual crimes other than apartheid. The phrasing in regards to crimes against humanity was already agreed in this prior RFC. The discussion here is not whether to amend that (which would require another RFC) but whether to mention the apartheid accusation specifically. Selfstudier (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, in light of that I’d support

  “… including apartheid,”

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

  It is possible that the crimes against humanity would be better switched out in favour of apartheid at this stage, but this also seems like a discussion for another day. The present topic is a simple one: the proposed inclusion of exceptionally due information, and, not least within the precepts of MOS:LEAD, a highly notable, if not the single most notable controversy (the occupation, while being controversial, being more of a status quo than an active controversy, and the genocide still being in its infancy in terms of scholarly source build up). Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's a good question. I don't see any *other* crimes against humanity discussed in the body of the article, so the proposal may have some merit.

  However, this does not address my concern that the accusations are not universally accepted and there is a large share of scholars and states which do not agree with them. Since this is an RfC and it's too late to add new options, my vote stays the same. Alaexis_¿question? 22:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  The proposed changes aren't adding "Israel is an apartheid state", it would just add that Israel is accused of apartheid by many notable and trustworthy organizations. If the only people accusing Israel of apartheid were some fringe pseudo-intellectuals, it wouldn't be an issue. The accusation certainly notable when multiple human rights organizations and professors argue it. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Alaexis: All scholarly fields contain dispute (it is the nature of academic discourse), so for a thumping 65%, almost two-thirds majority of subject-matter experts to agree on something is actually a resounding vote of confidence. Beyond this, you may wish to amend your extremely rudimentary logical fallacy. You've concluded that 35% think the exact opposite, when the information provided to you tells you nothing of the sort. Neither you nor I know exactly what the questions or answers were, but even the most simplistic yes/no survey tends to also have an option along lines of "not decided". Your second error is to conflate the statement that accusations of apartheid have been made with value judgements pertaining to the veracity of the assertion. That the accusations exist, and as the proposed text merely affirms, is empirical fact, no more, no less. There is no balance to be had. No one quoted on any page on Wikipedia holds the stated opinion that the accusations do not exist, because such an assertion would make any such actor an unquotable, reality-denying lunatic. In summarising the page, there are currently two major sections here with expanded child pages: war crimes and apartheid. Based on this alone, both are due equal mention. It is the vaguer "crimes against humanity" that does not currently pertain directly to an existing section, although I believe that exact wording does pertain to a prior RFC (but that's another matter). Iskandar323 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you're right about the remaining 35%, I should have been more precise and should have written that 35% of the surveyed scholars did not answer that the situation is "akin to apartheid".

  Regarding your second point, I don't think there was an error on my part. The accusations are a fact, and the denials are also a fact. We cannot include all the facts in the lede, and it seems that only stating that there are accusations runs counter to both MOS:LEDE and WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 22:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think just as long as the sentence is worded so that it can be contested by the reader Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  That something is an accusation assumes that someone (likely the accused) denies it or is liable to deny it. If something was undeniable, it wouldn't be an accusation; it would be an uncontested statement of fact. The whole reason why MOS:ACCUSED generally discourages the language of accusation is because it implies inaccuracy or uncertainty, which is appropriate "when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined", but not elsewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option B Agree with BilledMammal's explanation for WP:UNDUE. Disagree that notion is due because of significant coverage, there is significant coverage of numerous subjects, not all is due, especially not controversial subjects that imply something that may not be true according to other sources, best not include in lead. Agree with Chipmunkdavis that paragraph is very long and too long. I think paragraph should be cut down. O.maximov (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is common for accusations to appear in the lede even when there is a chance they may not be true so long as they are framed correctly Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  @O.maximov: It is due on two counts per MOS:LEAD: it has a substantial dedicated section on this page that should be summarised in the lead. (This incidentally in turn links to a gargantuan child article that exists precisely because the subject is so vast and weighty that the material's direct inclusion here would drown the page.) Secondly, MOS:LEAD specifically alerts editors to the need to include notable controversies. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option B Unnecessary politicization of a complex article anyway. It is wrong to add such controversial information rejected by most of the world.

Besides, since Arabs in Israel are full citizens with equal rights, it is wrong to add the word apartheid

Besides, #2, For every person who claims that there is apartheid, there are many others who answer that there is violent and deadly terrorism from the other side, and the limitations that Israel has placed, stem from deep security challenges.Eladkarmel (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

There is no policy basis to exclude material by deeming it "political." Climate change and trans rights are also "political" yet our stance on those matters is clear. JDiala (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

There are plans to add a culture paragraph to the lede and trim down the history section Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You haven't actually provided a reason as to why the lead shouldn't summarize the information that is already on the page, as it is supposed to. Your comment instead consists of firstly a demonstration that you have either not read any the reports on the apartheid, or any other literature on Palestinian rights in Israel. "In Israel, which the vast majority of nations consider being the area defined by its pre-1967 borders, the two tiered-citizenship structure and bifurcation of nationality and citizenship result in Palestinian citizens having a status inferior to Jewish citizens by law. While Palestinians in Israel, unlike those in the OPT, have the right to vote and stand for Israeli elections, these rights do not empower them to overcome the institutional discrimination they face from the same Israeli government, including widespread restrictions on accessing land confiscated from them, home demolitions, and effective prohibitions on family reunification. [14] And then, some sort of off-topic rambling suggesting you believe that there is some sort of issue pertaining to false balance. The proposal in discussion, however, is about the lead summary, and the proposed edit merely an addendum of an already on-page accusation to the existing statement on accusations in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"Unnecessary politicization of a complex article anyway." This isn't a reason to exclude it from the lede. "Besides, since Arabs in Israel are full citizens with equal rights, it is wrong to add the word apartheid". How about equal treatment? How many settlers have been charged for extrajudicial killings of Palestinians in the West Bank? Soldiers participate in the violence. An example just from a day or so ago: [15]. "For every person who claims that there is apartheid, there are many others who answer that there is violent and deadly terrorism from the other side, and the limitations that Israel has placed, stem from deep security challenges." Read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option B . I share the view that this would be WP:UNDUE and an unnecessary politicization of the article. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Hogo-2020: What exactly about WP:UNDUE? That is about the inclusion of material on page. But this material is already on page. The proposal is merely about better summarizing prominent extant material in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead section should include a summary of the most important contents, and these controversial politicized accusations are as such WP:UNDUE there. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Yes, you are correct. But this remains a disputed characterization. It looks more like pushing a particular POV if we just mention a list of accusations, and if we go into specifics, then there is too much detail in the lead. Mellk (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think crimes against humanity should be replaced by apartheid personally, and the wording might be able to be improved Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Idk why you are mentioning that once more, we discussed that already, the existing wording was recently agreed in another RFC and that would require another RFC. The choice is only whether to specify apartheid in addition. Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

The prior consensus cannot be changed as a part of this RFC because it is not an option in this RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Sure, if they are directly related to the subject of the RFC, the topics you are raising are not. And we have already discussed this as well, below. Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead includes mention of significant criticism or controversies. The apartheid accusation is a significant criticism/controversy, there is not any doubt about this. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say it is possible to mention the separation policy, but this is probably for a different discussion. Since we already have the mention of accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, I would say this becomes undue IMO. Mellk (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The separation policy is something else, this is about apartheid accusations which go far beyond anything that is Hafrada. Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned this as it is not already mentioned (to describe official policy), but yes, this is not the focus of the RfC. Mellk (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  This RFC is about whether to specify apartheid in the lead, choices are A, B, and C. If you want to specify an Option C (other), go right ahead, if enough other editors also specify that same option, then that is a possible outcome. Since most !votes up to now are not C, that won't get very far. Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

  To what end? The choices will still only be A, B or C? If you want to open another RFC, one that does not conflict with this one, you can do that. Or you can wait for this one to finish and open another one. But raising up extraneous issues such as culture/history that are not the subject of this RFC is just a distraction. For that matter, you may also just edit the article, if you are not reverted, then perhaps people agree with you. Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Okay thanks, I might continue just putting the above comment as it communicates that their concerns are being taken seriously and directs them to other discussion where input is needed Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (new)

New RfC has been started due to the result of the closure review of the previous RfC and the recommendation above. Also there were concerns that the previous RfC initial statement was not neutral and the previous RfC was not widely advertised. I intend to remedy that so that the outcome of this new RfC will be less controversial. starship.paint (RUN) 04:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

I would note that there wasn't actually consensus that the previous RFC was bad, and that its opening statement could have simply been tweaked for neutrality in cooperation with the poster, and then more widely advertised. As it is, no one is going to read the previous arguments, and everyone is just going to have to copy and paste their answers over. WP:BURO strikes back. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: is completely out of line making this. (voluntarily removing this line as it strays outside of WP:GF) There was no consensus on WP:AN that the previous RfC should be discarded entirely and a new one made, as was pointed out above by Iskandar123. There was merely consensus that my closure decision was ill-guided. This is a unilateral and extreme decision taken bereft of any consensus. JDiala (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

After having dwelled on this for the past many hours, I think it is best at this point to acquiesce to the "facts on the ground" (as per the classic Israeli parlance for stealing Palestinian land) and avoid litigating the procedural aspects further, especially since this new RfC has gained significant traction and yet another switch-a-roo would be another headache. Thus please feel to disregard my allegation against @Starship.paint immediately above. We shall stick with this RfC. JDiala (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

We shall stick with this RfC

Under what authority do you get to determine whether an RfC is valid or not, beyond expressing your personal opinion? At least you've granted us the ability to disregard your allegation against @Starship.paint; I was already going to and I was unsure whether I was on firm ground. Do you still want to remain on the record that you think that this RfC is being justified on similar rhetorical grounds as the alleged Israeli war crimes? I want to make sure I'm able to disregard that allegation, too. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

My allegations against starship.paint are still entirely merited. I've just voluntarily chosen to withdraw them because it is in the interests of the community. It is bizarre that you are getting so antagonistic over a desire to cooperate. WP:CIVIL please. JDiala (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment An ICJ ruling on Israeli practices in the OPT is due in the near future. The Implications of An ICJ Finding that Israel is Committing the Crime Against Humanity of Apartheid says that during the recent public hearings, "24 States and three international organizations made the further claim that Israel’s policies and practices amount to a system of institutionalized racial discrimination and domination breaching the prohibition of apartheid under international law and/or amount to prohibited acts of racial discrimination." It seems the only question is whether it is now or later. Selfstudier (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

You mentioned this on the other RfC too. I don't really see the policy basis for waiting for the conclusion of the ICJ proceedings in this case when the accusation already has more than adequate merit to include based on WP:RS. Furthermore, to my understanding the request here is just for an advisory opinion, not a binding ruling. JDiala (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The related crime against humanity of persecution is already within the ICC list of crimes but not as yet apartheid. Perhaps the ICC too, is waiting on the ICJ, idk. See this discussion. At any rate it's not a policy question, I'm just humming and hawing, if you like. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Comment Wikipedia reflects the world we live in and Israel has been accused of apartheid by plenty of notable people and this has been covered by plenty of notable sources. This is just one in a list of long allegations against the state. Colonisers, genocide, apartheid. Use whatever catchphrase you can find to demonise it. What's happening on this page and with other articles on Wikipedia is an online pogrom. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

I have to say I agree. I've never been a fan of Israel, but I'm noticing a notable shift towards narrative-based rather than fact-based content about the country, with extremely undue weight given for fringe views in almost every related article. This trend is gradually destroying Wikipedia's credibility IMO. We're approaching a point where Wikipedia might no longer be considered a source for content related to Israel. ABHammad (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

extremely undue weight given for fringe views in almost every related article. Luckily this content is not fringe. Washington Post percentage of scholars who describe the current situation as “a one state reality akin to apartheid” grew even faster, from 59 percent in February to 65 percent in this latest poll. starship.paint (RUN) 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Comment this sentence

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

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

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

What's happening on this page and with other articles on Wikipedia is an online pogrom.
This is a really unhelpful approach. There are people who disagree with you, and you need to collaborate with them to improve the project. Using language like this only alienates. Zanahary (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

ICJ ruling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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