Talk: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)[reply]

Not what we are looking for...

WP:CSECTION " Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. " Moxy🍁 03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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 -

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please make the following change to the article:

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

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Society, sports, and culture Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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,
  WP:DUE. starship.paint (RUN) 07:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply]

• 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
  holocaust. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Plainly untrue as China features references to the Great Chinese Famine, the purging of Maoists and the Tiananmen Square massacre all while having significantly more history to get through in the opening. Galdrack (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Fairness is not the standard. The question that needs to be asked is, as a ratio of all of

  WP:RS. JDiala (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Both China and Russia have references to their Authoritarianism and famines triggered by state policies, it's actually the US that's the major outlier. Galdrack (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The US article is not

  WP:NPOV Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  "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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Okay, in light of that I’d support

  “… including apartheid,”

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

  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

  Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @

  Iskandar323 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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

  Iskandar323 (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @

  Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [10] 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)[reply

]

"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: [11]. "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)[reply

]

• 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)[reply
  ]

  @

  Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• Option A per nom and others. - Ïvana (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B: Do not include the bolded text. Comments from Talk:Israel#Article classification and issues. Issues with the
  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

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)[reply

]

"Armed conflict = bad" is biased?

Iskandar323 (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What a bloody waste of time.

Iskandar323 (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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.

Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

But the accusations of apartheid aren't fringe. It's not

false balance. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notifiying @

Also included

Wikipedia:Judaism FortunateSons (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:ARAB. starship.paint (RUN) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

This should not be considered part of NPOV, but the basics of writing a proper

WP:LEAD. It's not just Culture, the final paragraph squashes up Government, Economy, and Demographics, 3 of the 7 main sections (although there is a slight bit of coverage in the first paragraph too). These could all along with Culture use more fleshing out, currently everything is lopsided towards one section (History) taking up two paragraphs (including one massive one). CMD (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

It's just such a contentious and contemporarily relevant subject. I can start a new topic and we can work on trimming it down without ignoring the relevant content? Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a productive use of anyone's time to start a new discussion on trimming when there is an active RfC looking to expand. Better to craft a new paragraph on Culture and other items. CMD (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per

MOS:LEADLENGTH, we can only have four paragraphs max, so adding another whole paragraph is not a good idea. I also think maybe the Culture section of this article or all the Safed quarter subgroup communities could be trimmed if an editor once again decides to tag this article as being too long. Trimming the history was contentious, the other suggestions may be less controversial. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

We should add it into the 4th paragraph then, I was thinking something a little smaller than the second paragraph Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree the Safed bit in the history section can be trimmed, however I really like the list of different communities. I think the sports section can be trimmed, otherwise the content of the article seems appropriate imo idk Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking for structure is to have a couple sentences summarising Jewish culture and the diversity/variety of traditions, and a few summarising or referring to the literature, music and dance, cinema and theatre, arts, architecture, cuisine, and sports sections Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agreed, Wafflefrites says only 4 paragraphs. So cut down from paragraph 3, it is the size of all the rest combined. O.maximov (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• We can obviously expand paragraph 4 to include culture. I would suggest each editor propose just one sentence to be added, we collate the proposals, vote on them and include the top one or two agreed upon sentences. starship.paint (RUN) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not the best placed to write this, but my proposal would be:

Israel's culture is synonymous with Jewish culture, with elements coming from within Judaism and also from interactions with various previous host populations, and others still from the inner social and cultural dynamics of the community. Israel has a diverse cultural mix, with cultural traditions present from from various Jewish diaspora communities intermingled with Arab influences.

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

That does not read as a summary of the relevant section. To be fair, the relevant section is bleakly short (in full: "Israel's cultural diversity stems from its diverse population: Jews from various diaspora communities brought their cultural and religious traditions with them. Arab influences are present in many cultural spheres, such as architecture, music, and cuisine. Israel is the only country where life revolves around the Hebrew calendar. Holidays are determined by the Jewish holidays. The official day of rest is Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.") before it gets into specifics too detailed for much summary. Nonetheless, working with that, you'd add something like "Israel has a diverse cultural mix, with cultural traditions present from from various Jewish diaspora communities intermingled with Arab influences." Ideally there would also be a word or two for each subsection, but that assumes they have been crafted with due weight and as with the lack of development in the broad coverage the subsections don't appear to have been carefully curated. That said, if there is something which talks directly about general Jewish culture (instead of alluding to it regarding holidays) that should be added to the Culture section and could be considered for a better lead. CMD (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll add that to the proposal. I'm not sure how best to summarise each subsection Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish culture article needs to be summarised at the start of the culture section, and discuss traditions in Judaism, particular features from the diaspora, and national holidays imo Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any such mention as this does not summarize the lede, is too detailed in the body, and is never mentioned in any country WP articles. Again, the lede should be made of four well-composed paragraph per MOS:LEDE. The recent expansions are entirely out of place, and further expansion will only add to the current chaos. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about culture? If so, many people disagree with you. Of course the culture section should be detailed in the body, if anything the opening paragraph in the body isn't detailed enough. MOS:LEDE specifies that the lede should summarise the body; the lede currently gives undue weight to the history section. Anything that we agree to add here to the lede will then be expanded on in the body and some of the subsections trimmed. To be clear, we are not talking about the history section here, but the culture section and how best to summarise it/have it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The

WP:NPOV. starship.paint (RUN) 12:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

NPOV relates to different positions, not balancing positives with negatives. If Israel had wars and controversies for the entirety of its existence, then that's just how its WP article and by extension its lede will be. It's not up to us to do such "balance". Again, this is not done for any other country, and would overstretch the already overstretched lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possibly because other countries do not have a 75 year record of controversy. In any case

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

There are many countries that have 75+ years of controversy, but not reaching a point of climax today Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be a good idea, but maybe we shouldn't discuss the wars or history in detail in the lede and instead go into detail in the body and in the lede just use pagelinks (including the nakba pagelink) and go into detail about the migrations in the body Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's trying to do too much at the moment. We should simply focus on adding a sentence or two on culture. starship.paint (RUN) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I easily managed to find examples from every continent where their nations had content on culture in the lead. Sometimes it was one sentence, sometimes more.

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

Thus, discussing culture in the lede has wide precedent. There should not be any issue to have at least a sentence. starship.paint (RUN) 13:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Only Culture of Israel is currently in the body of those, although again the body does need significant improvement in that respect. I am going to add the Arab citizens of Israel#Culture link now, there is an obvious place for it already. CMD (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You did great, CMD. My current thinking is to have this in the lede: Israel is the only country to have Hebrew as an official language. Jewish culture is dominant in the culture of Israel, while Arab cultural influences are also present. starship.paint (RUN) 14:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Idk whether your edit is correct, the Arab influence would’ve come from the Arab host nations and Arab/Muslim controlled Palestine, not from the remaining Arab citizens Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the history section that is, and always has been, the main inappropriate hogger of space. The history section should begin with the rise of Zionism in the 19th century and mirror that in the lead.

Iskandar323 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed. We can start a section on how to better organise this article after the RfC, however we need to include people of diverse opinion Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with most of that. The historical significance of prior cultures and countries (particularly jewish ones) is of great importance to modern Israel and it's self-perception, and reflected in both the (claimed) founding motivations and the RS coverage of the history. This is, among other, exemplified by the debate around borders and the status of groups as indigenous. FortunateSons (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but surely the history before zionism can be summarised in a small paragraph, with pagelinks to the articles Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good, but I think “elements of Arab culture”, so the two aren’t separated as culture can’t be compartmentalised Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It will be good to hear from actual Israelis on this. They would know the culture best. Also note, the above is 34 words. That's close to that of Japan's 32 words: Japan is a

film, music, and popular culture, which encompasses prominent manga, anime, and video game industries. starship.paint (RUN) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Support as well, I really like this proposal, but I'm not Israeli, so...

I'm guessing that no-one wants to re-open the can of worms that is the question of "only jewish-majority country"?

Minor question: not being a native speaker, the first half of the second sentence in the suggestion sounds slightly clunky to me (double reference to culture). Is that just me? FortunateSons (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My English isn’t the best! Anyone can propose a better version. We could always send it to the copyedit squad on-wiki. Jewish-majority country… that isn’t culture though? Its demographics? starship.paint (RUN) 15:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s kinda both (with the overlap being the demographic impact on culture, through Jews who continuously lived there combined with the immigration, expulsion and flight of Jews from the diaspora to Israel), but yes, I’m guessing it’s closer to Demographics.

Your English is great, it’s quite plausible that it’s just me, don’t worry. FortunateSons (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is reasonable, the second sentence isn't special as Arab culture is dominant in the culture of Saudi Arabia, it doesn't add anything of value really. I would support the first and oppose the second. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe: Israeli culture is often synonymous with Jewish culture with elements of Arab culture from citizens and previous host nations, also involving cultures of other ethnic minorities. (clause on Judaism, Islam, Druze etc., clause listing the subsections) Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statements on culture are not at all ok to me. If anything, they already mildly fallacious, and at minimum, generalising.

Iskandar323 (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Now if you said something along the lines of "Israeli culture combines elements of European and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture" then you might actually be getting somewhere, while avoiding the subject of cultural appropriation.

Iskandar323 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

That’s probably nitpicking, but there is also non-European/ME Jewish culture with some pretty significant influence. FortunateSons (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better tbh, but needs to include the culture of the ethnic minorities, see my proposal above which has a bad start Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is the only country which follows the Hebrew calendar and has Hebrew as an official language. Israeli culture combines elements of European, African, and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture. I am not so sure if we need to mention the Druze in Israel, Circassians in Israel or Armenians in Israel and Palestine. The Circassians and Armenians number at around 5,000 each, very few. not lede-worthy in my opinion. The Druze are much more (140,000+), but according to a survey from 2016, 71% of Druze identify as ethnically Arab. By mentioning Arab culture, we've in a sense already included the Druze. starship.paint (RUN) 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I would also be opposed to mentioning this part about holy sites as it would be factually inaccurate and misleading, given that the Dome of the Rock and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are within the occupied and annexed territory of East Jerusalem, and not within Israel, according to international law and the international community. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you look at a featured country article, like

Iskandar323 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not western religions; and as mentioned before many of these sites are not located within Israel, so this would be misleading. Furthermore, it would be unbalanced to mention Israeli cuisine without mentioning the cultural appropriation controversies which has been extensively discussed by RS. So I would also oppose both of these sentences, and support the one about the Hebrew calendar. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are western religions? See

eastern religion, the difference in nature is really interesting. It isn't misleading, look at the page linked to. I wasn't aware of such controversy, however the statement is still correct. The body can discuss the controversy. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

As mentioned in the

MOS:LEDE. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

This article geographically is about Israel and not the occupied Palestinian territories which has its own standalone article. The mention of occupation in this article only comes from the aspect that the Israeli state is the perpetrator. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I think this is the point were we are at the “which parts of Israel does this article include” moment of the discussion again. It isn’t ideal that we consider it as covered for the claims regarding apartheid but not for the cultural parts, and would prefer if we did either both or neither. FortunateSons (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

As already argued, the mention of the occupied territories and apartheid comes from the fact that the Israeli state is perpetrator, not from the perspective that the occupied territories are geographically part of the Israeli state. And again, by Israeli state, here we mean the 1948 borders, according to RS and international law. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not entirely true; while a minority opinion, some argue that the apartheid is between Israel proper and the occupied territories too. However, as this is indeed a view not supported by the overwhelming amount of scholarship, the outcome does remain the same.

International law does not make a conclusive statement on any specific borders (instead likely deferring to negotiations over the return of occupied territories), but this would go beyond the depth wanted for this article anyway. However, a majority of RS do, so this point is moot anyway FortunateSons (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that apartheid is also being used to describe 1948 Israel, of which the Israeli state is perpetrator, this is actually an additional point on why this should be mentioned here. International law is clear in saying that acquiring new territories by force is prohibited. Anyway, the point is clear: Israel article is about the Israeli state which officially exists geographically on the 1948 border and exercises further powers beyond to the 1967 occupied territories, which it controls but it does not encompass. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s technically true, but not really the point here, as the masterpiece that is United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 is not clear on anything. In addition, the RS who consider Apartheid to apply to Israel proper are a small minority.

But as this is a question of article scope and not law, the actual point is the RS coverage, meaning: are some or all of the holy sites unambiguously considered part of Israel proper, to which I believe the answer to be no, instead being part of the West Bank and not Israel proper.

Regarding including the religious and cultural places, the question would be if long-lasting effective control is enough to include, along the lines of The territory controlled by Israel contains a plethora of places with great religious significance to all three Abrahamic religions. or something similar. FortunateSons (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I think the apartheid section needs to specify which laws amount to apartheid, or discuss the nature of it a bit, and then just summarise the accusation part Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I think it should probably focus on the substance of the allegations, rather than mostly on the legitimacy of the claims, I think that paragraph might be better as a list of bodies that affirm it, with preceding information on the specifics of Israeli law and enforcement.

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

might be good, from the main article's lede. This article Israeli law needs a section on the relevant apartheid allegations, and the other articles on politics and security Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will leave you to fix other articles, I am only interested in this one and I am not that clear what it is you want to add, specifically. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am not sure about including cuisine, I think that’s too much. As I showed above, even “cultural superpower” Japan only has 32 words for culture in the lead. We really want to stress only the most significant points. Israel is the only country which follows the

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

Not sure about the first sentence. A large number of countries can be described as "the only country having X as an official language". Using the Hebrew calendar is indeed unusual but it's not that consequential, after all it's mostly used for religious purposes and holidays. Alaexis_¿question? 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the controversy with saying it's the only Jewish-majority country? This implies other minorities Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the import of an Official language. "On 19 July 2018, the Knesset passed a basic law under the title Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, which defines Hebrew as "the State's language" and Arabic as a language with "a special status in the State" (article 4). The law further says that it should not be interpreted as compromising the status of the Arabic language in practice before the enactment of the basic law, namely, it preserves the status quo and changes the status of Hebrew and Arabic only nominally. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article's geographic scope is about Israel and not the territory controlled by Israel. So again, I would oppose mention of religious sites in lede here. As for the sentence regarding culture, it does not add anything of much value. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article has a geographic scope, it is on the state of Israel, and the Palestinian territories are occupied and governed by the state of Israel Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to divide Jewish culture, then it is best to use the more appropriate adjectives: Ashkenazi and Mizrahi/Sephardi. African Jews (from sub-Saharan Africa) are an extreme minority in Israel, and Jews from the Middle East and North Africa are basically the same. But since the different Jewish cultures in Israel are merging into one, the division only makes the sentence longer than necessary. Mawer10 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed in 'Demographics', but it should be discussed in the context of culture as well imo Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashkenazi/Mizrahi divide isn't a proper classification of Jewish culture, but an ethnic classification created by the Israeli state. Usage of the term Mizrahi Jews only arose prominently from around the 1980s. It's quite unlike the term Sephardim which actually has a long and well-defined cultural history. Mizrahi Jews is just a proxy term for all of the different and quite varied Jewish groups that came from across the Middle East, including Sephardim. It is therefore of little use in actual cultural classification, and aside from being a POV label, is in fact a poorer and less natural descriptor that basic geography.

Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Ethnic classification terms can also refer to culture. Mizrahi is not an invalid term because of its origins, it is commonly used in various sources discussing things about Jews, especially those from Israel. The concept makes more sense than the American terms "Latino" and "Hispanic", for example. We even have Wikipedia articles about Jews using this division extensively, like

Ashkenazi cuisine. Mawer10 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

It remains less natural descriptively than geography, and anachronistic. If no one was talking about something before Israel was created, Israeli culture can hardly be blended from it. Whatever terms Israel has invented since is its business, but that doesn't redefine the past. That's revisionism.

Iskandar323 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

How about:

Israel is the only

Israeli culture combines elements of European, North African, and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture

, as well as those from other minorities.

Britannica [12] states "The State of Israel is the only Jewish nation in the modern period" Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can the globe map near the top be fixed to not include illegally occupied Palestinian land? 90.204.86.169 (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current map is appropriate. The occupied territories are coloured in a lighter green, clarifying both the ‘67 line and the areas usually considered occupied. FortunateSons (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The circle in the bottom right could be made much bigger to partly cover the Indian Ocean Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is really quite small. Most articles about European countries use offer locator maps for the continent they're on, e.g. United Kingdom has a globe map and a Europe map. Perhaps a request could be made for similar maps for the region around the Eastern Mediterranean and Arabian peninsula to be created. Other countries in the region, such as Jordan, Lebanon and Qatar have a similar problem to Israel, where they appear quite small in the locator maps and it's difficult to make out the detail. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry for using

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

]

@

WP:ARBPIA, and conform to these guidelines. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

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

The lede has been recently expanded in a way that goes into excessive details, against four well-composed paragraphs recommended by

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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: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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

So what I've got so far:

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

There are many more here [15]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't say "sources discussing Israel and the Holocaust." I said, above, "top sources about Israel." In other words, the

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Not sure if

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)[reply

]

RFC: How should the Nakba described?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture History and geography Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How should the Nakba described?

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