Talk:Israel: Difference between revisions
→Survey (new): Reply |
Eladkarmel (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 560: | Line 560: | ||
*: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 [[User:Alexanderkowal|Alexanderkowal]] ([[User talk:Alexanderkowal|talk]]) 14:24, 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 [[User:Alexanderkowal|Alexanderkowal]] ([[User talk:Alexanderkowal|talk]]) 14:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
*:@[[User:O.maximov|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. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 15:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
*:@[[User:O.maximov|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. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Eladkarmel|Eladkarmel]] ([[User talk:Eladkarmel|talk]]) 07:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Discussion (new) === |
=== Discussion (new) === |
Revision as of 07:56, 5 June 2024
Why is Jerusalem listed as Israel's capital in the infobox?
Israel declares Jerusalem to be its capital, and has its seat of government there. However, the lack of international recognition is notable, hence the subtext was added "(limited recognition)" as the result of this RfC. For further information see Status of Jerusalem. |
![]() | Israel is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 | |
Subpages: Israel and the Occupied Territories discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; Talk:Jerusalem/capital
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | Readerships and mentions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wording about historical names in the lead
@Makeandtoss: your edit makes the sentence read as if the word "Israel" has less historical relevance than the other names, while it has been used to refer to the region not less frequently than "Canaan", and for a longer time than "Holy Land" or "Palestine". Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- It does have less historical relevance than other names, that's why the main article on the region is Palestine (region) and Canaan while Land of Israel is about biblical heritage. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- The name "Israel" is what the indigenous people called their land for centuries, and it has more historical relevance than "Holy Land." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Israel, as well as Judea, are not less historical than other names. They were the primary names at least since the early Iron Ages and until the mid 2nd century. They are the most relevant names to the article, while there is still room to mention other names with the right historical context. But the problem is wider, most of the paragraph seems too insignificant to be mentioned in the lead. Israel is a Jewish nation state and its foundations based upon Jewish identity, regional history, culture, language and religion, and yet it is almost completely absent from the paragraph in favor of a generic regional description that teach almost nothing about the state's most relevant historical background. Infantom (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please verify that the Land of Israel was a common name for the geographic reason throughout recorded history per WP:BURDEN. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Israel, as well as Judea, are not less historical than other names. They were the primary names at least since the early Iron Ages and until the mid 2nd century. They are the most relevant names to the article, while there is still room to mention other names with the right historical context. But the problem is wider, most of the paragraph seems too insignificant to be mentioned in the lead. Israel is a Jewish nation state and its foundations based upon Jewish identity, regional history, culture, language and religion, and yet it is almost completely absent from the paragraph in favor of a generic regional description that teach almost nothing about the state's most relevant historical background. Infantom (talk) 11:52, 20 April 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)
- 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)
- Agreed, a binding decision by one of those could be such a significant change. FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I appreciate you reformatting the RfC;
- 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)
- Modify slightly: Though, I think that the specific organizations should be listed with the phrasing
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 [1]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- True. Then again, it appears to be unanimous and was open for five weeks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:46, 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)
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)
A few missing historical names
Bellow all the formal stuff we put on every country it mentions the names israel had been called historically, but it's missing some like Judea. 2A06:C701:9DA2:3100:1085:ACF8:8D6B:247B (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not obvious what you mean by "missing". In the Classical antiquity section, for example, Judea is mentioned 4 times. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
English
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
[1][2][3] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
References
- ^ Spolsky, Bernard (1999). Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. pp. 169–70. ISBN 0-87840-132-6.
In 1948, the newly independent state of Israel took over the old British regulations that had set English, Arabic, and Hebrew as official languages for Mandatory Palestine but, as mentioned, dropped English from the list. In spite of this, official language use has maintained a de facto role for English, after Hebrew but before Arabic.
- ^ Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava (2004). "Part I: Language and Discourse". In Diskin Ravid, Dorit; Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava (eds.). Perspectives on Language and Development: Essays in Honor of Ruth A. Berman. Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 90. ISBN 1-4020-7911-7.
English is not considered official but it plays a dominant role in the educational and public life of Israeli society. [...] It is the language most widely used in commerce, business, formal papers, academia, and public interactions, public signs, road directions, names of buildings, etc. English behaves 'as if' it were the second and official language in Israel.
- ^ Shohamy, Elana (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Routledge. pp. 72?73. ISBN 0-415-32864-0.
In terms of English, there is no connection between the declared policies and statements and de facto practices. While English is not declared anywhere as an official language, the reality is that it has a very high and unique status in Israel. It is the main language of the academy, commerce, business, and the public space.
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- It was a rhetorical question. They are obviously reliable sources. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Idk, you tell me. Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are these not Wikipedia:Reliable sources?
- 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)
- 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)
- Me either, stop writing rubbish and I won't respond to it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.[1][2] 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.[3] 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.[4][5][6]
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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Agreed, I suppose 'many' is rendered superfluous by the long list immediately after Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would remove “many” and “its wide array of” for concision Wafflefrites (talk) 21:06, 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)
- 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)
- Still overdetailed, especially the cosmopolitan and the whole Nakba thing. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll shorten the final sentence to
References
- ^ Safier, Michael (2010). "The struggle for Jerusalem: Arena of nationalist conflict or crucible of cosmopolitan co-existence?". City. 5 (2): 135–168.
- ^ Giaccaria, Paolo (2019). "Cosmopolitanism: The Mediterranean Archives". The Mediterranean Other - The other Mediterranean. Brill. pp. 79–103.
- ^ Morris, Benny (1999). Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001 (reprint ed.). Knopf. ISBN 9780679744757.
The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well).
Also quoted, among many, by Mark M. Ayyash (2019). Hermeneutics of Violence: A Four-Dimensional Conception. University of Toronto Press, p. 195, ISBN 1487505868. Accessed 22 March 2024. - ^ Honaida Ghanim, Poetics of Disaster: Nationalism, Gender, and Social Change Among Palestinian Poets in Israel After Nakba, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society March 2009 Vol. 22, No. 1 pp.23-39 p.37
- ^ Stern, Yoav (13 May 2008). "Palestinian refugees, Israeli left-wingers mark Nakba". Haaretz. Nakba 60 Archived 12 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine, BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights; Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004, p. 270. ISBN 978-0-8133-4047-0
- ^ Ghanim, Honaida (March 2009). "Poetics of Disaster: Nationalism, Gender, and Social Change Among Palestinian Poets in Israel After Nakba". International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. 22 (1): 23–39 [25–26]. doi:10.1007/s10767-009-9049-9. JSTOR 40608203. S2CID 144148068.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I thought you just made your point, is this another one? How many do you have? Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 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)
- That is just false. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I'll page link Palestinians from Arab Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:10, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Nothing was refuted, merely asserted.
- 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)
- Gave a better wikilink for British policy. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I fixed the Nakba one, not just known to Palestinians, to many. Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- Ottoman Empire owned it for centuries, that's a real owner. Levivich (talk) 13:11, 17 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)
- [2] 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
- [3] 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
- [4] 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
- [5] states "the westward migration of the Jewish merchants from Iraq [during the 10th century]...contributed greatly to the economic prosperity in Palestine and Egypt"
- [6] 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)
- "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)
- 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 thevery 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- ? 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- Why? Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 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 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)
- ?? I did revert it. I then started discussion. Please WP:Assume good faith Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:05, 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)
- Okay, can we discuss it? I can look through sources Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:05, 14 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)
- @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)
- Same applies to paganism, Judaism and Christianity. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:34, 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)
- 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)
- My impression does seem to be accurate, and I was very confident on it despite the weasel wording
- [7] is a journal article with the title: Immigration is Israel's History, So Far
- [8] is a book titled: Country on the Move: Migration to and within Israel, 1948–1995
- [9] 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)
- 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)
- "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)
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.[1][2] 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,[3][4][5] while a minority remained and became Arab citizens of Israel.[6]
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
References
- ^ Morris, Benny (1999). Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001 (reprint ed.). Knopf. ISBN 9780679744757.
The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well).
Also quoted, among many, by Mark M. Ayyash (2019). Hermeneutics of Violence: A Four-Dimensional Conception. University of Toronto Press, p. 195, ISBN 1487505868. Accessed 22 March 2024. - ^ Fildis, Ayse; Nisanci, Ensar (2019). "British Colonial Policy "Divide and Rule": Fanning Arab Rivalry in Palestine" (PDF). International Journal of Islamic and Civilizational Studies. 6 (1). UTM Press.
- ^ Honaida Ghanim, Poetics of Disaster: Nationalism, Gender, and Social Change Among Palestinian Poets in Israel After Nakba, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society March 2009 Vol. 22, No. 1 pp.23-39 p.37
- ^ Stern, Yoav (13 May 2008). "Palestinian refugees, Israeli left-wingers mark Nakba". Haaretz. Nakba 60 Archived 12 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine, BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights; Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004, p. 270. ISBN 978-0-8133-4047-0
- ^ Ghanim, Honaida (March 2009). "Poetics of Disaster: Nationalism, Gender, and Social Change Among Palestinian Poets in Israel After Nakba". International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. 22 (1): 23–39 [25–26]. doi:10.1007/s10767-009-9049-9. JSTOR 40608203. S2CID 144148068.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
:2
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
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)
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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2024
![]() | 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)
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)
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:
- go to coordinates
- choose type of map
- 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.
![]() | 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:
− | During the war, British occupation led to the | + | During the war, British occupation led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine in 1920. |
Infectedfreckle (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
RfC: mention apartheid in the lead?
![]() |
|
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)
- This accusation is in fact a mainstream academic viewpoint. The Washington Post surveyed
- 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)
- I’ll add a page link to the holocaust in the lede Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:32, 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)
- 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)
- @Pincrete: the latter, see the lead of crime of apartheid and crimes against humanity. starship.paint (RUN) 08:23, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Untrue on the last point. For instance, Nazi Germany. JDiala (talk) 09:24, 2 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)
- 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)
- The US article is not WP:NPOV Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You mean tabloids or expert analyses? — kashmīrī TALK 16:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which RS coverage would you describe as generally friendlier, Israel or Iran? FortunateSons (talk) 16:47, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Okay, in light of that I’d support
- 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)
- 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)
- Apartheid is not the only crime against humanity that Israel is accused of. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 4 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)
- How about replacing crimes against humanity with accusations of apartheid? Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:50, 4 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Lede: paragraph on culture
Many people seem to feel the lede of this article focuses too much on the conflict rather than the country of Israel, and I have to say I agree. I think there does have to be another small paragraph, at the end of the lede, which summarises the culture section, although I'm not in a place to write it so if people agree I hope we can make one. It's also positive and offsets the negativity from the previous paragraphs so that the article is more in line with WP:NPOV Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking my concerns seriously! FortunateSons (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- This should not be considered part of NPOV, but the basics of writing a proper WP:LEAD. It's not just Culture, the final paragraph squashes up Government, Economy, and Demographics, 3 of the 7 main sections (although there is a slight bit of coverage in the first paragraph too). These could all along with Culture use more fleshing out, currently everything is lopsided towards one section (History) taking up two paragraphs (including one massive one). CMD (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's just such a contentious and contemporarily relevant subject. I can start a new topic and we can work on trimming it down without ignoring the relevant content? Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a productive use of anyone's time to start a new discussion on trimming when there is an active RfC looking to expand. Better to craft a new paragraph on Culture and other items. CMD (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Okay we'll do that first Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, we can only have four paragraphs max, so adding another whole paragraph is not a good idea. I also think maybe the Culture section of this article or all the Safed quarter subgroup communities could be trimmed if an editor once again decides to tag this article as being too long. Trimming the history was contentious, the other suggestions may be less controversial. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- We should add it into the 4th paragraph then, I was thinking something a little smaller than the second paragraph Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree the Safed bit in the history section can be trimmed, however I really like the list of different communities. I think the sports section can be trimmed, otherwise the content of the article seems appropriate imo idk Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- My thinking for structure is to have a couple sentences summarising Jewish culture and the diversity/variety of traditions, and a few summarising or referring to the literature, music and dance, cinema and theatre, arts, architecture, cuisine, and sports sections Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, Wafflefrites says only 4 paragraphs. So cut down from paragraph 3, it is the size of all the rest combined. O.maximov (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Or add culture to the small 4th one? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is a wish to trim 3 down, however that'd be after the RfC Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- We can obviously expand paragraph 4 to include culture. I would suggest each editor propose just one sentence to be added, we collate the proposals, vote on them and include the top one or two agreed upon sentences. starship.paint (RUN) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not the best placed to write this, but my proposal would be:
- Israel's culture is synonymous with Jewish culture, with elements coming from within Judaism and also from interactions with various previous host populations, and others still from the inner social and cultural dynamics of the community.
- I don't know what to put next Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- That does not read as a summary of the relevant section. To be fair, the relevant section is bleakly short (in full: "Israel's cultural diversity stems from its diverse population: Jews from various diaspora communities brought their cultural and religious traditions with them. Arab influences are present in many cultural spheres, such as architecture, music, and cuisine. Israel is the only country where life revolves around the Hebrew calendar. Holidays are determined by the Jewish holidays. The official day of rest is Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.") before it gets into specifics too detailed for much summary. Nonetheless, working with that, you'd add something like "Israel has a diverse cultural mix, with cultural traditions present from from various Jewish diaspora communities intermingled with Arab influences." Ideally there would also be a word or two for each subsection, but that assumes they have been crafted with due weight and as with the lack of development in the broad coverage the subsections don't appear to have been carefully curated. That said, if there is something which talks directly about general Jewish culture (instead of alluding to it regarding holidays) that should be added to the Culture section and could be considered for a better lead. CMD (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Map issue
can the globe map near the top be fixed to not include illegally occupied Palestinian land? 90.204.86.169 (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The current map is appropriate. The occupied territories are coloured in a lighter green, clarifying both the ‘67 line and the areas usually considered occupied. FortunateSons (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The green/light green map is terribly small. It is hardly visible! starship.paint (RUN) 14:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The circle in the bottom right could be made much bigger to partly cover the Indian Ocean Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is really quite small. Most articles about European countries use offer locator maps for the continent they're on, e.g. United Kingdom has a globe map and a Europe map. Perhaps a request could be made for similar maps for the region around the Eastern Mediterranean and Arabian peninsula to be created. Other countries in the region, such as Jordan, Lebanon and Qatar have a similar problem to Israel, where they appear quite small in the locator maps and it's difficult to make out the detail. Adam Black talk • contribs 21:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was looking through the pcitures of the smallest countries and the best pciture I got to after seeing about 10+ countries was File:Singapore on the globe (Southeast Asia centered) zoom.svg. I also saw that M.Bitton and Zero0000 have some experience with maps? Could either of you make the green/light green diagram in File:Israel (orthographic projection) with occupied territories.svg larger? We could cover the Indian Ocean. starship.paint (RUN) 03:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- The green/light green map is terribly small. It is hardly visible! starship.paint (RUN) 14:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- the map also includes the Golan Heights, and is inline with other pages such as Venezuela (which doesn't even occupy Essequibo), India, China, Pakistan, Russia, Sudan, North Korea Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Geography
- B-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Geography
- B-Class vital articles in Geography
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Top-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Top-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class Asia articles
- Top-importance Asia articles
- WikiProject Asia articles
- B-Class Western Asia articles
- Top-importance Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Wikipedia requests for comment