Talk:Israel

Capital of Israel Correction

Dear Editors, Why is wikipedia showing the incorrect capital of Israel, if according to UN resolution A/ES-10/L22, declares that the Jerusalem is NOT to be considered the capital of Israel by 128 Nations worldwide as a decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biomax20 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Biomax20: there's been much discussion of this, search "Jerusalem" in the archive box above. To summarize the existing consensus, Jerusalem is Israel's capital, as Israel declares it to be so, just like any other nation state sets their capital. Israel's seat of government is in Jerusalem. However, the lack of international recognition is notable, hence the subtext. The subtext recently was changed from "internationally unrecognized" in recognition of the changing status on the international stage - and the USA is the world's biggest economy and power. No alternative exists - Tel Aviv? An empty box where "capital" should be? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The article says that Israel considers its capital to be Jerusalem and that some countries don't like that. What exactly is incorrect here ? 21:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo The issue is that Google also states that the Capital of Israel is Jerusalem, which is incorrect as it is not recognized by a more than median decision. For the sake of clarity, neutrality, and fairness in facts, the UN, being a authority representing the worldwide consensus and its respective nations do not recognize Israel as the capital, This means that this article should correctly state the capital as contested, or rightfully back to what it previously stated, Tel Aviv. General logic governs that if one body declares something to be true, despite overwhelming criticism contesting and opposing its declaration by a large number of bodies, then that declaration is void.~~

Why do you believe that UN represents the worldwide consensus ? If anything it represents the result of interaction of political powers and their interests. See definition of Capital City: "A capital city (or simply capital) is the municipality exercising primary status in a country, state, province, or other administrative region, usually as its seat of government". Jerusalem fits this description to the letter. Where does it say anything about international recognition being a prerequisite ? Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because Israel says so. The fact that many countries do not accept it is notable, and it is indeed noted. “WarKosign” 10:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Biomax20: I view the UN as a partisan, political body. The UN obsesses over criticising Israel - it can because in the cold war, it ended up with largely the Arab/Soviet block criticising Israel, and ~57 Arab states vs 1 Jewish... then the USSR, Poland,Cuba,... all of which represented the opinion of about 100 people. Compare that the democratically elected US government. Foreign policy from the era has largely continued. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Biomax, you're 100% right in that is incorrect to state Jerusalem is Israel's capital, since that's in fact a fringe view among the international community. Other fringe views, for example, hold absolutely horrible opinions of certain ethnic groups, but we would never seek to present them as fact in Wikipedia's neutral voice. However, the content of the project is effectively a compromise among editors who have chosen to participate in compiling it, and for now what we have is what we have. Consensus may change going forward. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, Dailycare, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. That's about as debatable as whether the earth is flat or the laws of gravity can be repealed. The issue is that the overwhelming majority of the world does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Capital city#Disputed capitals has a pretty good summary of the situation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the fact that Israel declared Jerusalem as its capital and operates its seat of government from Jerusalem should not be in dispute. Many countries object to Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem (with some differences between East and West Jerusalem) - which we duly note in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's really nothing like the laws of gravity. The issue is whether half the people who read this article will decide that it is unreliable because of the identifiable and prominent POV. Even if we mean well and add a note, the damage is done - thus I dont think it's in the interests of the project to make these decisions based on POV. But I expect this appeal to reason is likely to go unheeded.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain what "damage is done" by stating the obvious? While you're at it, could you explain how identifying Israel's capital is "identifiable and prominent POV", but failing to identify it isn't? Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, Malik, Jerusalem is not Israel's capital. However, the point is not that we discuss the situation and agree among ourselves, but rather we merely need to state what the balance of the best sources say in the matter. This is what the Security Council stated: "all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void". If you steal a car, it doesn't become your car even if you insist until you're blue in the face and your best friend agrees with you. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect to you or the UN security council, Israel alone determines its capital. Incomplete international recognition has nothing to do with a city being a capital. Look up definitions of capital city. “WarKosign” 08:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Israel controls the territory, all branches of its government have their permanent offices there and nowhere else, and they all regularly meet there and nowhere else—there's a word for a city like that, isn't there? Oh yes, it's a capital city. You may not like it, your government may not recognize it, the United Nations can denounce it, but that doesn't change reality. Whether Israel is in lawful possession of the territory, whether the United States is in lawful possession of Washington, D.C., or whether they were stolen from their previous inhabitants, doesn't change the fact that they're the capitals. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Here, I can't help but agree with User:Malik Shabazz. Since when does "International Law" determine the capital cities of the nations of our world? Members of the international body of nations often disagree with the "International legislative body," since often their decisions are based on personal bias, as in the case of their condemnation of China's sovereignty over non man-made islands claimed by China in the South China Sea, and specifically, here, in Israel's case where she seeks to uphold Israel's territorial integrity, a country that had not been divided prior to 1948.Davidbena (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

-Dear sirs, this newly established 'fact' based off of 1 nations decision over countless that do not recognize this decision (Israel's capital) as being unrecognized by a overwhelming majority, is a disservice to Truth and everything wikipedia and history tellers have stood for (Actual facts). Simply because the US decides to move its embassy within Jerusalem and 'declare' it as Israel's capital, does not make it so, if the entire world disagrees with the view. The recent geopolitics portrayed by Israel and USA convey blatant hooligan politics by deciding whats what whenever they so seem to desire. This is wrong. Especially since for decades the area has been contested.Biomax20 (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because Israel says so. It is partially recognized because part of the countries recognize it. Simple as that. “WarKosign” 07:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, in fact it is not as simple as that. It would be more neutral to state that since France (a more significant and neutral country) doesn't consider Jerusalem the capital, it isn't the capital. Anyway, capital-ness cannot be measured with an instrument, wherefore it is necessarily a question of claims and their recognition. --Dailycare (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

France has no say in this. France (or any other country) decides whether or not it recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and of course this partial recognition is notable, but it does not change the fact that the capital of a country is determined by the country itself alone. “WarKosign” 17:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

When Israel claimed Jerusalem as its capital, the UN Security Council declared that an illegal and ineffective declaration. It therefore is the case that at least the UN Security Council disagrees with your idea that "the capital of a country is determined by the country itself alone". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

UN GA resolution declared that US recognition of Jerusalem is capital is "null and void", and yet nobody in their right mind would say that US didn't recognize Jerusalem. UN resolutions are notable by themselves but do not change the facts. “WarKosign” 08:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You're trying to move the goalposts. You wrote earlier that "the capital of a country is determined by the country itself alone". I noted that the UN Security Council disagrees with this notion, so your view doesn't seem to be current in international law. Of course, endorsing your view would mean that Jerusalem is factually the capital of Palestine, too. --Dailycare (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2018

Capital is Tel Aviv not Jerusalem. Only the US claims the capital as Jerusalem. 85.115.52.201 (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done. Please find a reliable source that says that Tel Aviv is the capital. “WarKosign” 10:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Disputed" for Jerusalem as capital

The phrasing for Jerusalem as capital as "not recognized" was changed to "disputed". This is wrong, or at least a typical example of "false balance". Just because the US moved the embassy to Jerusalem does not suddenly change the way the rest of the world views the matter. Certainly there is no consensus for such a contentious change of phrasing. Get consensus first, instead of edit-warring.Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There's been quite significant discussion on this page regarding this very issue (or something closely resembling it). I've restored the stable version, which says partial recognition. You also don't seem to fully grasp the nature of the recent dispute, which is sovereignty over Jerusalem, rather than Jerusalem's status as capital. The argument made by Dailycare in instigating the change in the first place was based on that fact. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid the current version is even more wrong. The sovereignty over Jerusalem is recognized by precisely zero countries. Even the US, when moving the embassy, was careful to maintain that We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders.. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The US did not take a position either way on the borders within Jerusalem (e.g. East/West Jerusalem), yet recognized Israeli sovereignty over at least part of Jerusalem.Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that "partially recognized" means "some part of Jerusalem is recognized by a small part of the countries of the world"? If that's not misleading, I don't know what is. "Not recognized" is the correct description. Nuances can be left to the body of the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

My parsing of the US position is that they recognize West Jerusalem (as does Russia incidentally[1]), while leaving the US position on East Jerusalem (in whole or in part) unspecified. So no - this is not a small part.Icewhiz (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Read more carefully: "small part" modifies the proportion of countries of the world, not the amount of territory in Jerusalem. Your have also read the Russian statement wrongly, and your parsing would anyway be WP:OR. Russia (like everyone else in the world), supports a settlement where there would be Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. It is "in this context", where they say that West Jerusalem would be part of Israel. Since there is no Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, the whole context is inapplicable.

There have been entire treatises written on the status of Jerusalem for many decades. It's not ok to quote misleading and ephemeral press reports to overturn decades of international law or state practice. For instance, here's a BBC report from after that period: Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem has never been recognised internationally, and all countries currently maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. So which is it? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Read the Russian stmt again (or take a peek - here - "a year after declaring that west Jerusalem is Israel's capital") - Unlike EU countries (which conditionally recognize East/West Jerusalem as part of PA/IL in a future settlement, maintaining the territory is currently still Corpus Separatum), Russia (which, IIRC, has been out of the Corpus Separatum camp for a while) - recognized west Jerusalem as Israel capital currently (2017 and onward). Concurrently, they called for a future Palestinian East Jerusalem - but their recognition of west Jerusalem was not conditional on such a final settlement.Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell me what "in this context" means then? That's just for decoration? Why did Russia vote for the UNSC resolution after the embassy move along with everyone else?

This is all a diversion. Even if one counts Russia as according "kinda-sorta partial recognition of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem", it is still false balance at best to say that Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is "partially recognized". Israel claims full sovereignty over Jerusalem. Precisely zero countries agree with this position. And even those who accord some "kinda-sorta partial recognition" are a small part of the world. That's the basic point. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Which fits directly into partial or limited recognition - as opposed to unrecognized. Maybe very partial and very limited - but still such. Russia and the US are major international players (and then there are minor players such as Guatemala, Panama, and Paraguay).Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo, FWIW, I believe "not recognized" is the stable version since several years ago. Concerning the "Russian statement", the link does not link to it but to Jerusalem Post's interpretation of it. JPost is not reliable concerning this kind of interpretation. Furthermore, the JPost article does not even once mention sovereignty over Jerusalem, wherefore it is irrelevant to this discussion. Also the actual Russian statement, IIRC, does not refer to sovereignty, but states that in the context of an eventual peace settlement, Russia can recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. --Dailycare (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dailycare: while that is the case, the limited recognition wording lasted about 10 days - frankly, an age on this article. "Not recognized internationally" seems to violate NPOV given the changing scene on the world stage. Yes, the movement has been limited, but so far, the United States, Guatemala, Taiwan, Vanuatu, and Russia all recognize at least West Jerusalem (with the Russia Day parade taking place in Jerusalem for the first time this year). Furthermore, other countries like the Czech Republic and Romania seem to be having internal debate about this issue. I'd say that warrants limited/partial recognition, but probably the best word is disputed, as it doesn't carry connotations like limited does. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Here "the Russian leadership decided to recognize West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel", without any "this context". It's not a matter of opinion or interpretation, it's a simple fact. “WarKosign” 06:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to remind people that this issue was already addressed in a RfC [2] where the conclusion was to use "limited recognition". OtterAM (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo, do you have sources to the effect that even one country recognizes West Jerusalem as Israeli territory? Please note, once more, that this is not the same thing as recognizing the city as Israel's capital, as the United States explicitly points out. --Dailycare (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Official languages and Democratic status

Arabic has been stripped of 'official language' status and should be removed from the article and the infobox? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-politics-law/israel-adopts-divisive-jewish-nation-state-law-idUSKBN1K901V Luftfall (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we also need to remove references to Israel being a democracy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Denoting an official language or stating a country is a nation state does not change the democratic status of a country. As for Arabic - its status was ambiguous previously. The new law clealrly states Hebrew is the official language, however it accords Arabic a special status (and rather ambigously states that the law does not affect the previous status of Arabic in law).Icewhiz (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit. Declaring that (according to Reuters) "only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country" means that Israel is no longer a democracy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Per Reuters - "national self determination" - which does not modify an individual right.Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Malik Shabazz here. Could it be that he has finally redeemed himself? “Four legs good, two legs better!" Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

From Reuters source above: "Israel passed a law on Thursday to declare that only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country", how is this a democracy? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

If you actually read past the first sentence - it is It stipulates that “Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and they have an exclusive right to national self-determination in it”. (which is a bit of a mash of the final bill - however we'll pardon Reuters due to all the last minute changes). The right is conferred as a national right to the Jewish people - not to individual Jews (clause 1C in the bill).Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Arabic still need to be mention in the Infobox cause it have a 'special status' and its differ from other spoken languages such Russian, Amharic, Yiddish etc. "The Arabic language has a special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions or by them will be set in law; This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect. " It should be mention in Other languages with a footnote explaining the status of the language. Sokuya (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The Arabic name of the state should be still feature in the article even though it not longer official language. See examples Algeria, Brunei, Cambodia, Somaliland, Tunisia, Mauritania, Nigeria. Sokuya (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I argee with Malik Shabazz and Veritycheck✔️ and that a country where only the Jewish people "have an exclusive right to national self-determination" and all non-Jewish citizens have NO right to national self-determination is NOT a democracy. All the false references to Israel being a democracy need to be removed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal opinions are all very nice, but aside from the regular chorus of anti-Zionist BDS supporters (whose opinion of Israel is entirely unchanged by the law) - consensus in RSes differs.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The RSes are clear that Israel's democratic status is in question following this new law this July. See http://time.com/5345963/israel-nation-state-law-democracy/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/israel-jewish-state-nationality-law.html . Also, I am not an anti-Zionist or a supporter of BDS, just a supporter of a factual definition of democracy in Wikipedia. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

op-eds that do not say that (they do say shift from or prioritizing natiinao over democratic democratic values - but not not).Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of reliable sources and their view on the claim to being a democracy: [3], [4]. There certainly seems to at the very least be a dispute as to whether or not Israel is still a "democracy". If I recall what NPOV says, there was something about not making statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice when there are significant POVs disputing that view. nableezy - 17:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

True. We should, at the very least, state that Isreal's democratic status is in dispute. Those words have now twice been removed from the article. Those removals are not NPOV editing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well mine was. I was removing an extreme claim based on poor sourcing. Check out Wikipedia:EXTRAORDINARY. If a shedload of R/S sources, preferably taking the longer view, become available in the future, we can revisit this. And the wording would have to be exquisitely crafted. And please WP:AGF by the way. I am an established user known by many, regardless of their POV to be an open minded (as far as is humanly possible here) colleague, who weighs issues on a case-by case basis. Thank you. Irondome (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

An op-ed by a fellow with an a-priori dim view of Israel, and CNN who is referring to critics but does not say so in its own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The "fellow" is M. A. Muqtedar Khan (a RS for the record) and why would CNN need to say it in their own voice? The CNN cite shows that the claim is disputed, as does the piece by Khan. Once more, here is what WP:NPOV says

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

The fact that serious sources such as Khan say that Israel is no longer a democracy and that CNN is noting that claim to being a democracy is now in dispute renders the view that Israel is a democracy a contested view.

And finally, can somebody explain to me why the defenders of Israel on Wikipedia feel so compelled to not only ensure articles contain a decidedly Zionist slant but in addition they must remove any tag that calls into question an ongoing dispute? Tags about a dispute directing readers to the talk page should not be removed until the discussion is resolved. Yall are really testing the limits of WP:TE. nableezy - 21:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

When Democracy Index will change Israel status from Flawed democracies into Hybrid regimes then you could change this in the article. (as happened to Turkey) Until then you are arguing for nothing. Calm down everyone. Sokuya (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, Democracy Index is not the sole source of what constitutes a democracy; it is but one. Secondly, telling people to ‘calm down’ when they have a differing opinion than yours is impractical, if not rude. WP:Politeness Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry, but appeal to authority doesnt a valid argument make. WP:NPOV is clear on this point, when reliable sources contradict each other then Wikipedia describes the conflict. There are reliable sources that, as a result of this law, contest that Israel is a democracy now. nableezy - 17:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

No contradiction. Or anything new - this law has been expected to pass for the past couple of years. We do not have RSes stating anything. We do have longstanding anti-Israel critics who penned a few op-eds coinciding with the passage of the bill, and some RSes mentioning said critics.Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

As stated on Template:POV statement#Usage: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant." Also, the article Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People#Reaction alredy address those claims and dispute in the reaction section and this is where it belongs for the moment. Avoid weasel terms. Sokuya (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is self-contradicting. The template should be applied to articles that are “reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources “. Than you are referring to the article Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People where views of high-quality sources such as the Anti-Defamation League are expressed argueing that the law violates a key element of democracy – equality. יורם שורק (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No self-contradicting, that's people reaction to the Basic law. Notice what they said: "Anti-Defamation League (ADL), said, 'While there are provisions that we agree with — notably with regard to state symbols like the anthem, flag and capital Jerusalem; as well as in reaffirming that the State of Israel is open to Jewish immigration — we are troubled by the fact that the law, which celebrates the fundamental Jewish nature of the state, raises significant questions about the government’s long-term commitment to its pluralistic identity and democratic nature'." Did they said Israeli democracy dead? No. There is none RS that said that Israel democracy ended. Just people opninon as reaction to the law, that's why it belongs to that section. When groups of scholars will publish studies about how this law changed Israel democracy and explain how the implications of the come to effect, then we will have those RS. For now we only have opinions or reaction on the law. This is way too soon to change the definition of Israel democracy on main article. Sokuya (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

What a load of self-serving baloney. There is never anything but "people opinion" about whether a country is or isn't a democracy -- there's no objective measure of what a democracy is, and no voice from the heavens will proclaim which countries are and which are not democracies. Was the United States a democracy when only white men who owned property were allowed to vote? What about apartheid South Africa? Both had "democratic elections", but it would be a stretch to describe as democracies countries in which the majority of the population could not vote. Israel has democratic institutions, but it has declared that one-fifth of its citizens will always be second-class citizens -- and a topic ban prohibits me from mentioning the elephant in the room. So long as expert "people opinion" questions whether Israel is a democracy, Wikipedia should not state that it is one. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"but it has declared that one-fifth of its citizens will always be second-class citizens" - That's not true. This is your interpretation of the law. Sokuya (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, it is true, and all the wishing and arguing and hand-waving and other attempts to change the subject won't change that. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Newcomer to this dispute. Read the Reuters article. My assessment is that this law does not actually change any of the rights that non-Jews currently have in Israel. "National self determination" essentially refers to the right of a people (a national ethnic group) to have their own state; it does not have anything to do with personal rights or liberties. This really just restates, perhaps in stronger language, the status quo—that Israel is a Jewish nation state, not an Arab state or a multi-ethnic state. As the article explains, "Largely symbolic, the law was enacted just after the 70th anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel. It stipulates 'Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people and they have an exclusive right to national self-determination in it'." Ltwin (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This can't be stated in Wikivoice anymore in the lede. It should have probably been removed some time ago but this is formal recognition and there are much stronger sources now supporting the removal including Reuters and the NY Times [5] Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those articles state that Arab citizens have lost any rights as a result of this law. At most, they've stated the fear and concern by some that this largely symbolic law could lead to future discrimination against Arab Israelis. Ltwin (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The law didn't take away any rights, and nobody has said that it did. What it did was enshrine in law the de facto second-class citizenship that non-Jewish Israeli citizens currently "enjoy". Previously, that disparate treatment was considered contrary to the Israeli proclamation of independence; this law has said that the disparity is just fine and made it permanent. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be a straw man argument, nobody has said that any rights were taken. What the sources say is that the law changes "Jewish and democratic" to "Jewish" in describing the state. Your putting up requirements on what needs to happen for Israel to change its character is WP:OR. nableezy - 17:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that the lead includes a sentence offering Israel's definition of itself followed by a sentence offering a description of Israel's government in Wiki's voice. No one has yet disputed the sentence describing Israel's self-definition. The sentence that is being disputed is this one: "Israel is a representative democracy." So, with all due respect, the issue is not about how Israel describes the character of the state but about whether Israel's government is objectively representative and democratic. Since you acknowledge that no Arab citizen has lost their right to vote or be represented, why is Israel's classification as a representative democracy being denied because of a "largely symbolic" law that has not changed the nature of Israel's governmet? Ltwin (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sokuya: uh this edit is purposely misleading it seems, as reliable sources disputing the phrase has been presented (eg this). It is you you that are arguing with personal opinions, not sources. Why exactly are you removing even mention that the claim to being a democracy is disputed and actively being discussed here? nableezy - 17:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Because this is a clearly misuse of the template : "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant." Sokuya (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I have presented a high quality reliable source that directly disputes the statement. What about that is unclear? nableezy - 17:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Those [6] [7] are not high quality reliable sources that support your claim. As others already explained to you, one is an op-ed and the other (CNN) isn't support your claim as the author summaries the article with the sentence: "Israel is one of the only Western-style democracies in the world that does not have a constitution anchoring the rights of its citizens." Sokuya (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you even know what an op-ed is? M. A. Muqtedar Khan is himself a reliable source. Please read WP:RS, especially the section on established experts. nableezy - 17:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I meant this is an opinion article, and it does [8] this is an option article he wrote to Daily Sabah newspaper. Even in the CGP website you have this line under the article: The views expressed herein are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of CGP. From WP:RS: "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. (Notes: Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and this is policy.) If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. There really no room for this attribution in the lead. This is an exceptional claim and it belongs to this Reaction section. This is not a RS to use to dispute the views of other multiple high-quality reliable sources in the subject. Sokuya (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

What makes it “Exceptional claim”? the democratic nature of the Israeli regime is a matter of controversy even inside the Israeli parliament where the third biggest party claims it is NOT democratic. יורם שורק (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Making an opinion article by some dude equal to all standard reliable sources classifying Israel as a democracy is WP:Undue weight. Every Israeli citizen above 18 has the right to vote and be elected i.e. representative democracy.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Short dictionary: "some dude" - everyone who User:יניב הורון does not agree with; "standard reliable source" everyone he likes. Simple fact: the nature of the Israeli regime is a matter of dispute in academy and public opinion and the article should reflect that fact. Every citizen has the right to vote but not all citizen can live wherever they want. יורם שורק (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The right to vote does not equate to a representative democracy. That is an over-simplification, not the definition. There are countless examples; Egypt for one and Israel for another. Once again, “Four legs good, two legs better!" Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Freedom House and the World Factbook (to name a few) are far more important and reliable than an opinion article by a Turkish newspaper. See also WP:Recentism.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on past discussions, World Factbook is generally not a preferred source, and neither is the CIA. In my opinion, it would have to be attributed like any government agency, as a non-neutral source. I don't have any input on Freedom House. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

From your first source, "Israel is a multiparty democracy with strong and independent institutions that guarantee political rights and civil liberties for most of the population. Although the judiciary is active in protecting minority rights, the political leadership and many in society have discriminated against Arab and other minorities, resulting in systemic disparities in areas including political representation, criminal justice, and economic opportunity". Your second source, now really, the C.I.A.? A reliable source? They aren't known for honesty - that is merely a propaganda page. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice try, but the fact that there's discrimination (like everywhere else, including Europe) doesn't contradict the fact that Israel is a democracy.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Discrimination as official policy and as part of the state's constitutional values is unique to Israel. יורם שורק (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually the independence declaration (repeated in Israel's basic laws) specifically says the state "...will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex." But I'm not interested in your opinion and flawed interpretations, whether there's discrimination or not is irrelevant. Major reliable sources say that Israel is a representative democracy.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The declaration of independence has no legal or constitutional value. Discrimination in basic laws and as official government policy (racism as official ideology) is relevant because equality is a major component of the democratic system. When “Major reliable sources say..” and other major reliable sources say the opposite the article should inform the reader about the controversy. When the exact nature of an article subject is unclear or disputed the article should reflect it as for example in Gluteus minimus. יורם שורק (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no "controversy" about Israel being a democracy (probably the only one in the region), there's an article opinion in a Turkish newspaper criticizing the new basic law, which basically repeats what the independence declaration already says. That's all. All major sources describe Israel's political system as a representative democracy. See WP:due weight and WP:recentism.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond being an op-ed, Turkish newspapers would generally not be seen as a RS for anything except for the Erdogan regime's position - per Freedom House and RSF.Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This whole discussion is unbelievably silly. National self-determination has nothing to do with individual freedom. The Supreme Court has the legal right to literally obliterate the Government should they ever attempt to infringe upon Human Dignity and Liberty or Freedom of Occupation as as these two laws enjoy super-legal status.
The theory that Democracy Index (the Economist) will demote Israel is also incorrect, as they too recognise the power of Israel's Supreme Court and the fact that the nation-state law is merely declaratory: "In lieu of a constitution, the Knesset has, over the years, passed a series of “basic laws”. One, from 1992, enshrines the same civil rights for all citizens. The new measure, also a basic law, does not change that. [...] Because the nation-state law is only declaratory, few think it will sway Israel’s Supreme Court, which often rules in favour of democratic values over Jewish nationalist ones."
Please remove the "disputed" template from the lead - as it only makes Wikipedia look pathetic. Code Temple (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Calling it 'silly' is disingenuous and couldn't be further from the truth. This is precisely why this discussion is taking place. It is disputed. A sham democracy, such as Israel’s, is nothing more than that; hollow. From the news (all WP:RS):

• “Israel is not a democracy. A democracy doesn't deny millions their civil rights, plunder their land and resources and deprive them of independence and of a say in their future.” - Haaretz
• “A new law shifts Israel sway from democracy” - Time
• “If you look at all the land Israel controls between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, that area contains some 8.3 million Israelis and Palestinians of voting age. Roughly 30 percent — about 2.5 million — are Palestinians living outside Israel under varying degrees of Israeli control — in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They have some ability to elect Palestinian bodies with limited functions. But they are powerless to choose Israeli officials, who make the weightiest decisions affecting them.”

“International humanitarian law does not grant a people living under temporary military occupation the right to vote for the institutions of the occupying power. But “temporary” is the operative word. Military occupations are meant to have an end. And common sense says half a century is not “temporary.”” - NY Times

• “Israel has passed into law a highly controversial bill that serves to define the nature of the state of Israel, with critics slamming it as the "nail in the coffin" of Israeli democracy.” - Localnews8
• “The “only democracy in the Middle East”? Hardly. This claim has always been disingenuous, ahistorical, and tinged with racism. Israel can claim to be a democracy only in the sense that apartheid South Africa could also claim to be so: an “ethnocracy” with full democratic rights for the privileged race or religion; lesser or no democratic rights for those with undesirable skin color, ethnicity, nationality, or race.

Israel became a preponderantly Jewish state, thereby gaining this veneer of democracy, only by ethnically cleansing indigenous Palestinians from their homes in 1948 and preventing to this day these refugees and their descendants from exercising their right of return to their homes as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “” - Huffingtonpost

• “If Israel continues on its current course, the world will draw an additional conclusion: the so-called only democracy in the Middle East is a sham.” - The National
• “But some critics question whether the country can truly call itself a democracy. They point to Israel's occupation of the West Bank as a key issue.

"What do you call an arrangement where your country controls every aspect virtually of the lives of 2.7 million people who have no say or vote in the government that rules them?" says Daniel Sokatch, chief executive of the New Israel Fund, a non-government organisation dedicated to social justice in Israel.” - ABC

• “Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. In fact, it's not a democracy at all.” - Jacobin

Including the "disputed" template from the lead - shows that Wikipedia is accurate. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Veritycheck: That's irrelevant. The laws and soverignity of the State of Israel apply only to the territories that have been annexed by it. That's like saying the U.S. is undemocratic for having its troops in Syria but not allowing the Syrian citizens to vote in the American elections. Again, this article is about the State of Israel, not the territories under its military control.
Nobody has named ONE SINGLE independent democracy-monitoring entity claiming that Israel is not a democracy. Therefore, it's not disputed, except maybe by BDS activists. Period. Code Temple (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments need to be directed at the sources and what they state if you want to refute them. Those that have been provided above are but a few that demonstrate democracy in Israel is disputed. You must find sources of your own that state that it isn't - if that is your position. What is irrelevant are personal opinions, yours included. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can find op-eds claiming that X is Y. Again, Israel's democracy is not disputed by any independent democracy-monitoring entity. And even though you may wish it was, Wikipedia isn't an advocacy platform for your little movement. Sorry. Code Temple (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The criteria of what is included in Wikipedia is not limited to a ‘monitoring entity’, but includes, among other sources, those which appear in the news. Your tone is getting personal WP:CIVIL. I belong to no movement. I check that Wikipedia reflects reality as supported by RS, nothing more. I see now that you created this account today and have only participated in this discussion. Familiarize yourself with WP:5P. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not if op-eds are the only available sources, but monitoring entities are certainly more reliable. Both Democracy Index and Freedom House recognise that Israel is a representative democracy, just as both NASA and ESA recognise that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. That fact is not "disputed" just because I can find an op-ed claiming that it's actually flat. 213.184.122.18 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion columns are not reliable sources for statements of fact, but only to reflect the biased opinion of their author, whenever that's pertinent (which is not here); see WP:NEWSORG.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You really should read what you link to. Particularly WP:RS#Exceptions where it makes clear established experts who have been published by third parties in the field can be used as reliable sources themselves. nableezy - 20:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

History in the lead

Is there any reason why the Mandate period is not explained in the lead? It jumps from the Ottoman period, mentions the words "British Palestine", and then goes immediately into independence. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What the hell is a "second language"?

Rafe87 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

FAQ

I have added FAQ for this page, maybe some editors want to fix some wording. Hddty. (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Tel Aviv was never recognized by majority of the United Nations members as the capital of Israel because it was never recognized as capital by the Israelis. Sokuya (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No mention of sand?

Israel is renowned for having the distinction of having the softest sand in the World. Something to do with salt maybe? I can't find a link, but heard it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:131F:EC8A:F099:120E:117A:3929 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Statements need to be supported by reliable sources on Wikipedia. See WP:RS Luftfall (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Ubeidiya and Canaan deserve a mention in the lead. Open to suggestions. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "Ubeidiya", but I definitely agree that Canaanites deserve a mention in lede, although no more than a sentence. Do you have any text in mind?--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"The Ubeidiya site in northern Israel has evidence of the earliest migration of Homo erectus out of Africa (ca. 1.5 million years ago). The land of modern-day Israel was known as Canaan during the late 2nd millennium BC, home to Philistia and the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah." ? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's not expand but shorten the lead. It's already long. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You can't however omit mentioning these two very important points. I would suggest trimming the Jewish states histories as they are quite over-detailed. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Are these two subject most important things to say about modern State of Israel ? I think not. Those two subject belong under Prehistory and Antiquity, where both are already mentioned. "Jewish states histories" are actually far more relevant to the modern state. If you want to expand History of Israel or Prehistory of the Levant and History of ancient Israel and Judah - it makes much more sense. “WarKosign” 12:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The Jewish state histories are quite important. I do however agree that early hominid remains in the region (and this is wider than just Ubeidiya - Skhul and Qafzeh hominins as well as Neanderthal [9] and other finds are significant). I wouldn't mention Canaan - attestations to Canaan's use are mainly biblical with the exception of the Amarna letters. I'm not sure I would single out Philistia - Canaan was home to a diverse set of groups (in shifting boundaries) - if we're adding Philistia (who lasted 1175-722bc), Phoenicia and possibly Edom (subsumed into Judah by the Hasmonean, followed by the "reverse takeover" of Herod the Great who was an Edomite) would be more significant in terms of lasting impact - however all 3 are missing from the body of the article at present.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

"Are these two subject most important things to say about modern State of Israel?" I don't know, is it unimportant to have the world's earliest evidence of homonids out of Africa? And Philistines which directly bordered Israel and Judah, collectively in Canaan? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a proposal. What about saying... Canaanite tribes are archeologically attested since the Middle Bronze Age. (then it continues with the current text which talks about Israelite kingdoms). It's nothing more than an introductory sentence, but at least Canaanites are mentioned. If not, tell us what text you have in mind.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Aren't Israel and Judah part of these Canaanite tribes? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they are. However, the Sea People or Philistia are less significant than other neighboring groups who were also (in part) in modern Israel - Edom, Phoenicia, and possibly others.Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you save us some time and show the text you want?--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I already did write what I wanted. I favored specifying that the land was called Canaan, but the sentence that Yaniv proposed is almost equally appropriate. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

What about Ubeidiya? I think its very important. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

References

“ Israel has evidence of the earliest migration of hominids out of Africa. Canaanite tribes are archeologically attested since the Middle Bronze Age, while the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged during the Iron Age. Israel existed till 720 BC, and Judah remained to exist as autonomous Jewish provinces despite being conquered by various empires. The Hasmonean kingdom was established in 110 BC, and it remained independent until it became a client state of the Roman Republic in 63 BC. The Romans subsequently installed the Herodian dynasty in 37 BC, and in 6 AD created the Roman province of Judea which lasted until failed Jewish revolts resulted in widespread destruction, expulsion of Jewish population and the renaming of the region from Iudaea to Syria Palaestina. Jewish presence in the region persisted to a certain extent over the centuries. In the 7th century AD the Levant was taken from the Byzantine Empire by the Arabs and remained in Muslim control until the First Crusade in 1099. However, it fell to the Ayyubids in 1187, and the region was later controlled by the Mamluk Sultanate and the Ottoman Empire. During the 19th century, national awakening among Jews led to the establishment of the Zionist movement in the diaspora followed by waves of immigration to Ottoman and later British Palestine–leading to episodes of violence with the Arab population there. ”

This is a humble attempt to rewrite the second paragraph of the lead. Suggestions are welcomed. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Israel has evidence of the earliest migration of hominids out of Africa." I like that, I'll add it with a proper source. However, the rest of your proposal to change the paragraph is not welcomed, since it removes the brief mention of Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires (which doesn't occupy more than a line anyway). As far as conflict with the Arabs, it's mentioned in the next paragraph.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: Perhaps also (1) add "where Judaism originated" after "the kingdoms of Israel and Judah", (2) change "Hasmoenan kingdom" to "Jewish kingdom" as the Hasmoneans were the dynasty, not the kingdom (but still link to the dynasty), and (3) spell out "Ottoman Syria" instead of just "Ottoman". ששש.מ.ל (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Babylonian rule for example lasted from 586 BC to 538 BC; barely 48 years. Is it that important to include? I am not knowledgeable enough to decide which of the various empires and civilizations should be considered important enough to be placed in the lead, but I know that you can't just place every single empire in what is supposed to be a quick summary. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2018

Add these sources [10] [11] to the statement in the lead about Israel being a representative democracy, and remove the "disputed" template until someone submits a reliable source claiming otherwise. 213.184.122.18 (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, this is misuse of the template : "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant." Sokuya (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Per WP:EDITREQ#General considerations, an edit request can only be completed for uncontroversial improvements (which this is clearly not) or requests that are already supported by a consensus of editors (which I do not see). Please continue discussion on the talk page, and seek other forms of dispute resolution if needed. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic democracy vs ethnocracy

Rather than debating journalistic views, op-eds and recent reaction to the Basic Law change regarding whether Israel is a democracy, we are better off referencing the issue in the context of the three-decade long scholarly dispute. That dispute pits the terms ethnic democracy and ethnocracy against each other. The details of the debate encapsulate everything being discussed in the threads above, in a scholarly manner.

A detailed and high-quality footnote explaining and sourcing this has unfortunately been removed from the article in this edit by @יניב הורון: with no explanation other than pending consensus. Yaniv, please share your viewpoint here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you got things wrong. WP:ONUS is on YOU to convince us this is appropriate for lede.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The quality of these sources and quotations, and the neutral, scholarly and pithy manner in which the dispute is described, will finally mean we can stop wasting time debating the Israel/democracy issue which, if you look in the archives, has been going on here ever since Wikipedia first came into existance. With respect to both the lede and the main article, to ignore or take just one side of this well publicized dispute is POV. If you can find a better form of words, without totally ignoring the dispute, please propose them. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The Law of Return is the only Israeli law which separates Jews from non-Jews, and it only applies to individuals who have not yet become citizens. Also, Jews are not solely an ethnicity, but also a religion and a nationality. So I'm not sure how either "ethnic democracy" or "ethnocracy" would be accurate. 213.184.122.18 (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Ethnocracy" is a term invented by a few left-wing academics with no basis in Israeli or international law. I don't see how those "intellectuals" are anything different than opinion pieces in newspapers. "Ethnic democracy" (which by the way implies a democracy) is a subjective term invented by Israeli professor Sammy Smooha. No other country in Wikipedia is defined as such. Please stick to standard definitions. International organizations like Freedom House provide accurate definitions for each country, and it's used as a valid non-biased source throughout this encyclopedia.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You dont get to reject reliable sources because you dislike what they said. You dont get to demand that only sources that support your position are included. WP:NPOV is clear on this. nableezy - 01:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be WP:UNDUE to apply this minority view on government systems in general (Ethic democracy not generally accepted as a system by scholars in the field) - and if we were to apply this label - then Latvia and Estonia should be the test case prior to Israel - as the situation of Russians in Latvia and Russians in Estonia - many of whom are denied citizenship (let alone other rights) - is more pronounced. Those, minority position academics, that use the term - give Estonia and Latvia as prime examples. Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Those are all demands not based in Wikipedia policy. WP:OSE is not a valid argument. Including well sourced material does not violate UNDUE, quite the opposite, suppressing the material entirely is not giving it due weight. nableezy - 15:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to just stop labelling forms of government in the LEDE and infoboxes of all country articles. Generally speaking, I don't think the LEDE is a good place for value-laden jargon anyway - democracy has multiple possible definitions and indexes that use their own measures. This is a constant source of problems as most of these indexes have real shortcomings as well - can anyone here actually give the standard widely accepted consensus definition of democracy? The man on the street might say "majority rule" but that isn't right. Constitutionally limited government? - that would exclude a number of countries. The rationale for when to include it and when to exclude seems to be more POV-driven, so I think it would be more productive if we could just agree to a style guideline similar to flagcruft and then add neutral discussion to the article text that includes all significant views. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz and Yaniv, please could you take another look at the sources? Reaching an agreement here would resolve a long running dispute over a key issue in this article, so it’s worth investing time in.

Your comments both assumed the same presumption - that one or other of the definitions is somehow “fringe”.

Yet the sources state, explicitly, that this is the central area of scholarly focus on the question. Twenty or thirty years ago these terms might have been new, but the sources are clear that this is now the mainstream and the terms are used often.

If you have a different interpretation, please either provide a quote from the sources or provide other sources which underpin your claim.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If you consider "mainstream" a couple of left-wing 'intellectuals' or opinion articles criticizing the new basic law, then you are mistaken. Op-Eds are not reliable sources to state facts, but apparently you refuse to WP:get the point. Freedom House and Democracy Index, on the other hand, are what we call mainstream. Check those two articles and their respective sources if you aren't sure.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You are ignoring the point (and creating strawmen - I never advocated for the op-eds). This is not just “a few” scholars, this is the entire scholarly community. As an aside, your attempt to disparage them as “intellectuals” suggests you might not be suited to this project.

You reference FH and DI as if they somehow conflict with the scholarly position. They do not. Those benchmarking indicies track certain elements of democratic life - their job is not to tell us what terminology to use. That is the job of the scholarly community.

An excellent recent summary of the issue is the 2010 presentation of Professor Shlomo Hasson of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Modes of Democracy in Israel Please read this and the other sources before commenting again.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment - description of "representative democracy"

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

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Which one of the following statements shall be included in the lead?

1. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage."

2. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage."

ששש.מ.ל (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose both. Democracy is disputed. See the section on this Talk page Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The type of democracy is disputed. See the ref note in my second option, I linked to all the different types that have been suggested, including the ones put forward by Onceniawhile. "Representative democracy" is a neutral term that fits all of the descriptions above; not even the BDS disputes that fact that the Members of Knesset are elected by the citizens of Israel. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation and inaccurate. Democracy, in itself, is also disputed. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

By whom? And do not link to an op-ed! ששש.מ.ל (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The second option seems a good attempt to compromise.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• You cant state things that are contested by reliable sources as fact and then relegate that dispute to a footnote. This RFC seeks to either completely remove any mention of the dispute over the status of Israel as a democracy or bury it as a footnote. Both options violate WP:NPOV. nableezy - 19:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if we assume that Israel is an ethnocracy, which is obviously BS, it still doesn't change the fact that it's (also) a representative democracy. None of the sources that anyone has presented at the talk page "dispute" or "contest" that, reliable or otherwise. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Neither "elected by universal suffrage" is an odd turn of phrase - there's no need to link PR I think, it's very jargony. We could just say it has a parliamentary system - both of the proposed versions seem to fail on conciseness. (Parliamentary system, representative democracy, proportional representation) ... Parliamentary system may be the best compromise. (Adding "Parliament elected by universal suffrage" is optional.)Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Parliamentary system" is acceptable and not disputed.Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither is parliamentary republic, which seems more appropriate.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Added options 3 and 4. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit that sought to introduce new options at the top of the discussion once it was already underway. Add new suggestions BELOW. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I see. I've now started a new RfC instead in order to avoid confusion. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think starting multiple RfCs on the same topic at once is a good idea, since editors will be summoned to both and it will likely cause more confusion. I think it would have also been better to leave the discussion open here so editors could discuss the final wording. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edits are disruptive and causing more confusion. You have introduced 2 RFCs back to back created on the same day concerning the same issue. I suggest you auto-delete the second one adding your feedback to the first where it belongs. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why not just go by the here presented "Democracy Index" source and call it what they call it: A "flawed democracy"?--TMCk (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Because none of the dozens of other countries listed under that category by Democracy Index are called "flawed democracies" in their lead sections on Wikipedia. And please stop discussing here, I've added more options to the other RfC. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

CONTINUED DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT RFC. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Request for Comment - final version of Israel's type of governance

Which one of the following statements shall be included in the lead? 22:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Which one of the following statements shall be included in the lead?

1. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage."

2. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage."

3. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a parliamentary republic with proportional representation and universal suffrage."

4. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a parliamentary republic with proportional representation and universal suffrage."

ששש.מ.ל (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that this RfC was initiated by a sock-puppet account as per this investigation. It has been blocked. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose all 4, and any other option which excludes reference to the ongoing dispute: Dozens and dozens of sources have been brought, now and over the years (see archives), showing that the nature of Israeli democracy is a fiercely debated topic. The recent change to the Basic Laws has brought this issue into greater focus. The various positions must be shown to the reader, else we look non-neutral, or worse, like we’re trying to hide something, particularly since all other scholarly or press sources discuss the issue widely and openly. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you miss the ref note? I included all of your scholars and phrases in options 2 and 4. So what's the problem? ששש.מ.ל (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The footnote is ok but there needs to be a few words in the main text pointing to the issue. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion, no votes

The footnote also starts off by repeating that Israel is described as a "free country" or "democracy" by "Non-governmental organizations" and follows up with "However, Israeli scholars..." - as a footnote intended to qualify and balance the article text this could also be written "Though Israel is described as a free country and democracy ... , Israeli scholars". I also don't support any of these options, and I think it best to continue the discussion in a single RfC.Seraphim System (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC) In that case, create a new article or section in which you explain the issue in detail. But that's too long for this lead. I still can't understand why you won't even accept option 4? ששש.מ.ל (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Is it not fairly obvious that the conclusions of internationally praised NGOs weigh just a little more than the personal opinions of individual scholars? Thus the phrasing. Also, option 4 doesn't repeat the word "democracy" in the footnote as it's never mentioned in the text/half-sentence before it. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC) You don’t even believe that yourself, since you object to the term they use “flawed democracy”. There is an active and well publicized debate on this topic; neutral presentation means acknowledging that fact. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Good luck using that term in the lead of the United States article (both countries are almost full democracies, within the top 30 out of 167 globally). Then come back here. And why exactly is "parliamentary republic" not neutral? ששש.מ.ל (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC) The content in the lede should be as simple as possible. If it needs a footnote it doesn't have to be in the lede. Most laypersons won't understand that in the US universal suffrage means everyone who is born in the country and in Israel it means something else. Unless you are willing to explain briefly what universal suffrage means in Israel, it shouldn't be in there. Some of the sources like David Vital define it as "men and women".[12]. This meaning is substantially different from the common usage of the word and needs to be explained if it's going to be used. The use of these terms without explanation doesn't serve any purpose beyond front-loading the lede with jargon that will bias the average reader, making them unsuitable for the lede.Seraphim System (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "Universal suffrage" means the same voting rights for all citizens. Period. Different countries have different systems as to how to receive citizenship (jus sanguinis vs jus soli), but that's a separate issue. As you wrote, the lede needs to remain as simple as possible. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC) In the US denying citizenship to persons born in the country has not been allowed since the Dred Scott decision caused the civil war and the 14th amendment was passed. (It is not really jus sanguinis and jus soli as those are types of natural-born Americans, but neither includes naturalized citizens - you are correct insofar as the latin terminology is unrelated to this discussion.) In your above comment you compared the US to Israel as "almost full democracies" - this is inappropriate. Keeping the lede simple is not an excuse to introduce fundamentally misleading jargon and refusing to add the necessary balancing content. The lede is not the right place for disputed content, and I think we've sufficiently established that this is disputed. You asked why I opposed option 4, I answered your question.Seraphim System (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Excactly. That's why I used the neutral term "parliamentary republic" and mentioned the "dispute" in a footnote instead. So no, you haven't answered my question as to why you rejected it since all of your requirements are actually fullfilled in option 4. Also, you're grasping at straws. Most European countries frequently deny citizenship to persons who are born in their countries, are they too not democracies? ששש.מ.ל (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Which Western democracies deny citizenship to persons born in their countries, besides Israel? Seraphim System (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC) All of them, except for the U.S. and Canada, which practice full jus soli. So what's your point? ששש.מ.ל (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Not all of them, but Swiss nationality law, Austrian nationality law, and Icelandic nationality law are quite similar to Israel in use of jus sanguinis.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC) It's not jus sanguinis either. I can not think of many citizenship laws, present or historical, that are quite similar to Israel's. I think that is a violation of NPOV to introduce disputed content without qualification when there are other significant views, and certainly the lede is no exception to this. Simplicitly only dictates that some content be excluded altogether, which may be a good idea here. Seraphim System (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Let me amend that, those who defend it will say it's an unusual type of jus sanguinis -but even those sources admit that it has considerable implications for the characterization of Israel as a democracy. It's not just op-eds. The recent coverage is just a continuation of an ongoing debate about democratization in Israel, and by most accounts is a step in the wrong direction. "Israel is a democracy, by the usual standards, in which power-sharing techniques have functioned fairly effectively among Jewish groups, but from which the Palestinian Arab minority has been excluded" - I won't support any proposal that represents this as "A (whatever) form of government with universal suffrage".Seraphim System (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC) References Your source merely implies that most of the Knesset parties tend to freeze out the Joint List Party (which BTW doesn't represent all Israeli Arabs) from their coalitions, but what does that have to do with citizenship or universal suffrage? All of the Arabs who were born & raised within Israel's sovereign borders enjoy full citizenship and voting rights. 213.184.122.101 (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC) This is a false statement. Many have been unable to obtain citizenship and the process is more like a naturalization then jus soli citizenship. There is a Hebrew language requirement and other issues. Most of the applications are denied.[13] It is also not true for other non-Jewish ethnicities who were born in Israel and raised in Israel. Children born in Israel to migrant parents have faced deportation, but for now Israel has chosen to separate families instead keeping the children. The children are not citizens [14]. This family separation policy has literally been opposed by survivors of the Holocaust, for what weight that carries around here. [15] These types of comments should really be scrutinized.Seraphim System (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Option 1. Israel is not a republic (one could perhaps have argued it was a republic during the "direct election" of the PM - a short-lived experiment in the 90s), but a parliamentary system (similar to the United Kingdom or Canada which are not republics - and Israel's system is "purer" in that that there is a single house, and no monarch figurehead (though the elected (by parliament) president does perhaps serve in the same role)). The footnote is UNDUE - op-eds and advocacy positions by pro-Palestinians who generally oppose the state of Israel - should not be used as these positions are highly biased. We should prefer neutral independent sources, such as Democracy Index, which do not use such language.Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion, no votes

I prefer option 1 as well, but it seems the anti-israel advocates on this talk page won't accept it. (Parliamentary) republics don't require direct elections of the head of government. In fact, those are usually referred to as presidential republics. Finland uses the same system as Israel does, and it's still a parliamentary republic. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Icewhiz, you want to use Democracy Index without using their conclusion “flawed democracy”. Is that some kind of joke? Also you appear to have forgotten to make reference to the views of the entire scholarly community in your comment. Please clarify. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC) "Flawed democracy" is too broad. Israel is in the top 30 (almost a full democracy), but "flawed democracy" stretches all the way down to the top 80. Again, add that term to the U.S. lead, then we add it here. And what "community"? A few individual scholars do not constitute a "community"! ששש.מ.ל (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Re the research, with “a few individual scholars” you sound like an anti-vaxxer or a flat-earther. This is all the subject specialists saying the same thing. They are unanimous. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Your argument is circular reasoning, and trying to have your cake and eat it. If you want to go with DI, then “flawed democracy” is their conclusion. If you prefer scholarly sources, then “ethnic democracy” and “ethnocracy” are core parts of the debate. If you want to go with media views, it’s even more complicated. You choose. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC) I choose Democracy Index and Freedom House, both of them define it as a "free country" and a "democracy". I could also add their exact rankings, but that would be a little excessive, and people can find those themselves if they look at the sources. And if you insist on also including the personal opinions of individual scholars without mentioning the word "democracy" outside of the footnote, you can just pick OPTION 4!!! ששש.מ.ל (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC) There. I've added the rankings and scores of Democracy Index and Freedom House within their citations, respectively. I hope that Onceniawhile can at least accept option 4 now. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Why are there two RfCs on basically the same matter? As far as I can see, they differ only in the presence of options 3 and 4 in the second one, absent from the first one. This has created a WP:TALKFORK (see WP:RFC#Multiple RfCs on one page) so please at least remove the {{rfc}} template from one of them, and optionally enclose the associated discussion in {{closed rfc top}}/{{closed rfc bottom}} (see WP:RFCEND) so that it is clear that only one of the two RfCs is actually under discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC) ✔Done. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose all 4, and any other option which excludes reference to the ongoing dispute: Democracy, itself, is disputed. See the section on this Talk page. Moreover, go to the library, turn on the TV, and Google the issue. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Option 1 Israel is considers a democracy by the top research institutions in the field. Just adding another survey of Pew Research Center who listed Israel as a democratic nation, they used the ratings of Polity data series (See table inside the article) or page 48 in the Global Report 2017. US department of State defines Israel as "a multiparty parliamentary democracy". Encyclopædia Britannica defines Israel as "democratic republic with a parliamentary system". The World Factbook: "parliamentary democracy". The footnote is a clearly WP:UNDUE "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." Sokuya (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Freedom House and Democracy Index.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose all 4 The content is clearly disputed by highly-cited academic sources and thus needs qualified in the article text. Attempts to characterize these scholars as undue are seriously misguided - Ben-Rafael has hundreds of cites, Oren Yiftachel's book has nearly 800. These are much stronger sources then the CIA World Factbook, etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• This RfC is pointless because it does not even discuss the issue which it is meant to resolve. I suggest two things: first, discussion about the topic be first done in the article. Probably in the section "Government and politics". Then, that can be summarized in the lead. At the moment, the work has not been done. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I agree with this strongly. Usually controversial RfCs about the lede that are proposed before consensus is reached about article content accomplish little beyond disruption and they circumvent the regular consensus/editing process. Given the frequency of these types of proposals, it may be a good idea to add a note in the RfC policy that proposals about the lede that are likely to be controversial should reflect the outcome of consensus discussions about the article content. Proposing these very controversial RfCs about the lede content before there is consensus about the article content is a major waste of community time.Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Option 1, the importance of research by independent research institutions far outweighs comments made by specific people, not all of whom (if any) are experts on the subject. Every democracy has certain flaws, and each person can argue over the merits of one aspect over another—this does not even deserve a footnote. For example, Israel ranks #2 in citizen participation according to the Democracy Index, which is a major tenet of democracies that can't be imposed from the top down. There is no justification for any notes unless they are also added to articles about every other democratic country pointing out certain problematic aspects. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Democracy Index should probably be discussed at RS/n at some point. I don't know why editors believe these measures are authoritative over a highly-cited book or other scholarly secondary sources. These types of measures shouldn't ever be used as RS for anything other then the results of the study [16]. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yet another op-ed. 83.250.139.231 (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources were added in the extended discussions by Onceinawhile. I'm confident more can be found but it doesn't seem like it would be productive to add them at this time, as the sources that have already been posted should be sufficient. Most likely we are going to have to revisit this in a more organized way and take it point by point. This RfC has been a bit disorganized from the outset.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Option 1 Representative democracy is not a high bar to reach. No evidence presented to the contrary.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Prefer Option 1 -- it's better than the three alternatives, two of which have a pretty unstandard treatment of a country's democracy in the lede. See Indonesia, Armenia where the info is to be found only in the specific in-depth section, etc -- although we mention controversies in some like Turkey, even then we don't subject the state to an academic debate about the validity of its official form of governance -- going in depth like that is for the relevant sections. --Calthinus (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Either options 1 or 3 are fine -- These two options are stylistically best. Israel is generally considered a democratic country by other democratic countries. The democratic system of government in Israel is a fact, whereas the issues of the Israeli-Arab conflict are political question outside Wikipedia's purview to take a stand on. Israel's parliamentary system fits quite well within the normal parameters of a democratic country -- in almost all democratic countries there are some flaws: USA (a weird electoral college system and a recent electoral result influenced by outside actors), India (a history of political corruption and communal tensions), or Croatia (purged their ethnic minorities in the 1990s). Finally, hyperbolic op-ed columns (of which there are plenty questioning U.S. democracy too) do not count as reliable sources. OtterAM (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Option 1 As the best representation of current situation --Shrike (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion

First and foremost, when trying to evaluate any consensus here and in relevant discussions on this page, it should be noted that the following user accounts were blocked as sock puppets:

• Sword & Olive Branch (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 83.250.139.231 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Code Temple (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ששש.מ.ל (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

All of the arguments in favour of using option 1 are the conclusions of Democracy Index, Freedom House, Pew Research, Polity Data, and Encyclopedia Britannica (as well as US State Dept. and World Factbook, but those two are arguably biased), as they all listed Israel as a "parliamentary democracy". So we have at least five internationally praised NGOs specializing in the field, up against the personal opinions of a few op-ed writers and anti-Israel activists. I think it's time to close the RfC and go with option 1, alternatively also add the three other reliable NGOs as sources. 83.250.139.231 (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the entire academic research community. You also forgot to mention that all the NGO sources you refer to caveat Israeli democracy in some way.

You are creating a strawman by implying that the NGOs disagree with the academic community and the high-end jouralistic organizations. There is no disagreement - everyone recognizes the open debate. Some formats are just less suited to publishing details in full. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, what "community"? You only listed three radical leftists who used the term "ethnocracy". And yes, there is an open debate on everything - because guess what - Israel has free speech! That still doesn't mean you get to value personal opinions above objective facts on Wikipedia. They "caveat" every country in some way! Shall we remove the term "democracy from their pages as well, or only Israel? 83.250.139.231 (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This talk page has already seen numerous sources including Huffingtonpost, the New York Times, ABC, Haaretz , Time, amongst others that all describe Israel’s democracy as disputed. This is sufficient reason to keep it in the article. There is no doubt of the dispute. The article does not say that Israel is not democratic – only that the dispute exists. It should remain this way until the dispute ends. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest to 83.250.139.231 (talk) to see WP:JUSTDROPIT. To other editors, it might be better to not waste our time further by responding to him/her and his/her host of other blocked sock puppet accounts. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Is it intended that this RfC be kept open? The opening statement has been struck (using invalid markup, but that's another issue), and so everything that appears at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law is also struck. If the RfC is to be closed, please remove the {{rfc}} tag, and (optionally) wrap the whole thing in {{closed rfc top}}/{{closed rfc bottom}}, see WP:RFCEND. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  No reason to cancel the RfC, several people already responded to it. I un-stroke the statement; even if the user who began the RfC is a sockpupet it doesn't render it invalid. “WarKosign” 09:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Onceinawhile: Either it's open or it's not. If open, please undo this edit; if closed, please observe WP:RFCEND. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I just want to emphasize that op-eds in newspapers do not count as reliable sources for fact or the official opinion of the publication. In many cases, a newspaper may run opinion pieces by multiple people with diametrically opposed views, and in many cases these opinion pieces may include political hyperbola. Many of the arguments above are based on this-or-that op-ed in the New York Times, Haaretz, etc. However, these op-eds is not usable in Wikipedia, except for demonstrating the view of the author. Instead, we should go with sources that are more often used for this type of question, such as the CIA Factbook, Encyclopedia Britannica. If we do want to include opinions, they should be whose opinion is notable like Democracy Index, Freedom House, or Pew Research. OtterAM (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear at this point that this was a disruptive RfC. I don't think this can be taken as any kind of consensus. These four options were unilaterally proposed by an editor who didn't participate in the relevant discussion Talk:Israel#Ethnic_democracy_vs_ethnocracy - the proposal basically ignored the ongoing discussion. This was made even worse by the second RfC which added additional options over the objections of the participating editors. The RfC should reflect a point of dispute between editors on the talk page, not four options made up by one editor without any input from participating editors. There shouldn't even be a dispute over whether the sources are reliable because this should already have a consensus before we even begin to discuss the lede. This has caused more problems then it has resolved. Now, a new editor has added an option 5 in a separate RfC. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This is such a confusing RFC. However, here's a recent (July 2018) article from Times of Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-democratic-nation-state-law-raises-questions-over-israels-purpose/ Jewish? Democratic? Nation-state law raises questions over Israel’s purpose .. While critics accuse the government of denying the existence of the Arab minority, others say newly adopted legislation merely states the obvious

IMHO, this article does a good job of covering both sides of the issue, and if I were involved in editing this page, I would rely on it as my primary source.

   Akin to a constitutional amendment, the "basic law" declares — much like the country’s Declaration of Independence — that Israel is "the home of the Jewish people". Unlike the declaration, however, it asserts that Jerusalem is its capital, that national self-determination in the state of Israel is "unique to the Jewish people," and that Hebrew is the state’s language — while Arabic, previously an official language, is now designated as having "a special status in the state." ... the nation-state law will only anger, and further alienate, Israel’s Arab citizens. The message the law sends to them is unequivocal: "This state is not yours and this land does not belong to you."

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

New options

5. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a multi-party representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage."

6. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a multi-party parliamentary republic with proportional representation and universal suffrage."

7. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a multi-party parliamentary republic with proportional representation and universal suffrage. Both Democracy Index and Freedom House describe Israel as a "free country" and a "democracy", ranking it among the world's top countries in the areas of political rights and freedom of speech, but criticize the record of some of its other civil liberties.

8. "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a multi-party parliamentary republic with proportional representation and universal suffrage. Both Democracy Index and Freedom House describe Israel as a "free country" and a "democracy", ranking it among the world's top countries in the areas of political rights and freedom of speech, but criticize the record of some of its other civil liberties. Some scholars also use different descriptions for Israel's form of government."

Duoble 07 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I personally prefer Option 5 or 1. Duoble 07 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledging the high profile debate on Israel and democracy

The above discussions have shown that some editors believe that the high profile debate regarding Israel and democracy should not be made clear to readers. The only policy based argument proposed was “fringe”, yet no supporting evidence has been provided. Evey single source being discussed, even Freedom House and Democracy Index, and every reputable scholarly source and every reputable journalistic report, acknowledges the debate. Unless actual evidence can be brought to disprove that this debate is mainstream, then we should end the filibuster and fix the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a high profile debate - a twitter/media storm in a teacup following a bill. In one-two-three news cycles, and that's about it.Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Every major global news organization has discussed this topic for decades.

The heated debate in secondary literature has been going for thirty years.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you got this the wrong way. You're the one who has to provide evidence as to why a few scholars are more (or even equally) reliable than the world-leading NGOs on the subject. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

They are not "world-leading NGOs" - the democracy index would not even meet the standards for a low-cite primary statistics study published in an academic journal. It is an informal survey of public opinion without any rigorous methodology. These are primary sources, they are not sources for whether Israel is a democracy, only for the results of the survey. A "democracy index" is about as abtruse as you can get (per WP:SCHOLARSHIP). If that isn't enough to exclude them for common sense reasons, our policies unambiguously state that we prefer discussion in academic secondary sources.Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Heated? Not really. Israel has been referred to as the "Zionist entity" by Arabs and the supporters of their cause since its founding. However, this discourse is for the most part limited to partisan support of the Arab cause. We already amply cover the long standing lack of recognition by some Arab states of Israel - there is little reason to interject propaganda from supporters of this cause throughout the article - beyond covering said partisanship in an appropriate section.Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Another strawman and filibuster. Noone is talking about that.

You are ignoring the evidence of unanimous scholarly and journalistic consensus - please comment on that. That is the basis of wikipedia.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There is evidence of some opinions, but "unanimous scholarly and journalistic consensus" is quite WP:EXCEPTIONAL and needs some pretty good sources. Where are they? “WarKosign” 09:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

See [17] for a scholarly consensus regarding the existance of a dispute, and the two main models. For journalistic consensus, dozens of sorces have been provided above by other editors. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't show that there is a consensus, it shows that there are several people discussing/disputing Israel's democracy. “WarKosign” 11:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There is clear consensus that a debate exists, and has been going for multiple decades; these sources all reference and describe that debate in similar ways.

If this was a non-mainstream debate, there would be sources characterizing it as such, as there are for all high profile but non-mainstream disputes.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In the spirit of concluding this discussion, are any editors claiming that this scholarly and media debate doesn’t exist? I get that some people wish it didn’t, but it’s there for everyone to see. To ignore the obvious does nothing but create embarrassment for our project. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It's time for some people to get their heads out of the sand. This debate has gone on since 14 May 1948 - 70 years and counting. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And it seems the same people who have been opposing Israel for 70 years are the ones writing a few op-ed repeating the same message to a different prompting event.Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The state of democracy in Israel is clearly a mainstream debate, as the many references given above prove. It should either be documented in the article or the name of Wikipedia should be changed to what it really currently is, the Wikifalsehoodblog. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Per Kingsindian above, I propose to add a few sentences to the main body, after which we can discuss the lede. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Wikifalsehood"? lol! We are not interested in "WP:Truth", but only what reliable sources say.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Freedom House and Democracy Index

If we are to use these reports in the article, we must describe their positions accurately. See below:

Freedom House:

• The second (out of two) paragraph of the Overview says “Although the judiciary is active in protecting minority rights, the political leadership and many in society have discriminated against Arab and other minorities, resulting in systemic disparities in areas including political representation, criminal justice, and economic opportunity.”

• Relevant detail from the main body: “Arab or Palestinian citizens of Israel enjoy equal rights in principle, as enshrined in Israel’s Basic Law, but they face some discrimination in practice, both legally and informally. The Joint List’s representation in the Knesset falls short of Arabs’ roughly one-fifth share of Israel’s population, though some vote or run as candidates for other parties. No Arab party has ever been formally included in a governing coalition, and Arabs generally do not serve in senior positions in government. The roughly 600,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are Israeli citizens and can participate in Israeli elections. Arab residents of East Jerusalem have the option of obtaining Israeli citizenship, though most decline for political reasons. These noncitizens can vote in municipal as well as Palestinian Authority elections. However, Israeli law strips noncitizens of their Jerusalem residency if they are away for more than three months. Citizenship and residency status are denied to Palestinian residents of the West Bank or Gaza Strip who are married to Israeli citizens.” Even the Jerusalem Post acknowledges that “Israel does score lower than most other nations in the free world”[18]

Democracy Index:

• Includes no description of Israel at all, other than the two words “flawed democracy”.

• A detailed external analysis concludes: “No other country on the index has such a massive disparity between its levels of participation, the quality of its electoral process, its strong media and freedom of expression and its dismal civil liberties record. Essentially, Israel is the world’s only high-functioning illiberal democracy. Or as legislator Ahmad Tibi puts it, “democratic for Jews and Jewish for Arabs.””

• An excerpt of the detail: “On civil liberties Israel scores only 5.88. And that’s low, even for a flawed democracy. In fact, you have to scroll down all the way to Malaysia in 59th place and Indonesia at 68 to find countries with weaker civil liberties. The dire situation becomes even more evident when you consider the factors that make up civil liberties; they include freedom of speech and expression and the existence of a free and robust media. On these Israel has very high scores – the Democracy Index this year includes a separate freedom of speech and media ranking in which Israel scores 9 out of 10, and only 10 countries around the entire world get straight 10s. It’s all the rest of the civil liberties where Israel plunges beneath the world’s democracies – equality, human rights, religious tolerance, racial discrimination and personal freedoms. In other words, if it weren’t for the Chief Rabbinate’s hegemony and the way Israel treats its non-Jewish minorities, especially the Palestinians, it would be a model democracy. But based on civil liberties alone, Israel has no right to call itself a democracy, even a flawed one.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's excessive and even borderline-plagiarism. The descriptions I've included in all 4 options in the RfC (Democracy Index: "Israel ranks within the top 30 in the world out of 167 countries." ... Freedom House: "Israel ranks the aggregate score of 79 points out of 100.") work perfectly well. If people want to read more, they can click on the PDFs. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We already amply cover in the article the complex relationship of Israel and Arabs within and around Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct, so it needs to be referred to in the lede.

Every source we have which describes the issue of Israel and democracy, whether FH or DI, the entire scholarly consensus or the worldwide high quality media, are unanimous that Israel’s claim to be a pure democracy is disputed. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

No country in the world is a "pure democracy", now we're back to debating the obvious again. But this is the lede of a country article - not the Controversy section of a System of Governance article - a footnote will do just fine (if it's even necessary in the first place). ששש.מ.ל (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Do all sources covering democracy and the United States, France, the United Kingdom, etc describe a dispute as to whether they are true democracies?

No, they do not.

In Israel’s case, all the sources reference this dispute. And, per WP:RS: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered”

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes! Yes, they do. The U.S., U.K., and France have dependent territories where the residents lack proper voting rights, France and the U.K. have hate speech laws. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. It's simply NOT RELEVANT to the lede sections of their articles. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Your extrapolation is WP:OR nonsense. If you have scholarly sources which show an active debate of a similar nature to that of Israel and democracy, please bring them here. In the absence of that, your comment will be ignored. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Similar, but not the same. Despite that, the Israel dispute is still included in the footnote of my options 2 and 4 in the RfC. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Without a source, your claim will be ignored. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "without a source"? Source for what? That none of the countries you mentioned are "pure democracies"? None of your sources explicitly claim that Israel is not a parliamentary republic (or a democracy for that matter) within its sovereign borders. And this article (especially the lede) is not about the territories under Israel's military control. But I still omitted the word "democracy" from options 3 and 4. So what's your problem? ששש.מ.ל (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The bias views of some NGOs and prtisan medias that dislikes Israel cant be presented as facts.Tritomex (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Liking Israel is not a requirement for a source to be reliable. I think on these pages it would really improve discussions if it was made clear somewhere, maybe in a header, that concerns about a sources reliability because the source "dislikes Israel" should proceed straight to RS/N (per WP:RS). Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System linked above to a WP article regarding: Sarah Sunn Bush, The Politics of Rating Freedom: Ideological Affinity, Private Authority, and the Freedom in the World Ratings, Perspectives on Politics, Volume 15, Issue 3 September 2017 , pp. 711-731

This detailed research into Freedom House states:

• “Interviews further support the idea that FITW raters incorporate ideas that are consistent with American foreign policy when coding countries. A staff person at Freedom House’s regional Middle East office told me that the office sometimes found it difficult to work with local NGOs because of skepticism there about FITW coding Israel as “free.” Although debates about specific countries’ ratings are common, FH staff do not debate whether to code Israel as less than free according to the documents in the organization’s archive, perhaps because doing so is outside of their ideological framework. In contrast, for many of Freedom House’s potential local partners in the Middle East, coding Israel as “not free” is commonsensical, given its treatment of Palestinians. [footnote: Israel’s rating was not discussed at any length in the FH Records reviewed for this paper. Documents in the FH Records demonstrate that board and staff members frequently debate how to rate specific countries, such as Chile, Poland, South Africa, and Yugoslavia in the early 1980s.] Most potential users are probably not reading Freedom House’s checklists or trying to assess their conceptual foundations—but they may be scanning the reports to make sure they match their perceptions of specific countries.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems you still haven't understood the propose of this article. Nobody here argues that Israel is a free country if you include "the treatment of Palestinians" (i.e. the West Bank). But again, that area has never been annexed into sovereign Israel. Just as nobody argues that the U.S. is a free country if you include every single place where its troops are currently deployed. But that's not what the U.S. article is about. 83.250.139.231 (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read the thread above more carefully. The issues relate to Israeli Arabs (aka Palestinian Israelis) and their “participation” in Israeli democracy. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Separately, re the West Bank, Jews who live there get to vote in Israeli elections, yet Palestinians do not – even those who live in Area C under Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The Israeli Arab voter turnout was 63.5% in the last election,[19] significantly higher than the total turnout in many other democracies, including the U.S. What's your point?

For the fiftyeleventh time, this article is NOT about the West Bank. 83.250.139.231 (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note re Freedom House: This source cannot be considered NPOV regarding the question of Israel and democracy. It is 86% funded by the US Government, and therefore is not a true NGO and is certainly not independent. In addition, its most senior leader was previously a member of the Israel Policy Forum. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This point is so obvious that it's sad to see that it requires spelling out. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Should we strike academic institutions (in the US they often have large private endowments, but in Europe and the rest of the world they are often state funded) or UN bodies (funded by certain governments) due to their funding? As for Hirschberg's credentials, they seem impeccable.Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you agree that this argument makes sense: The US often takes an outlier position in international discussions of Israel; and that a source which relies overwhelmingly on US government funding might be somewhat of an outlier in its positions on Israel? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The US's position is a significant one. That aside, your argument would strike many academics associated with public (and possibly private) universities in the United States - e.g. 64.1% of research funds for UCLA came from the federal government (with another 10.7% from local/state).[20].Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The US's position should be presented as the US's position. Also, until it is established that employees of Freedom House have the same degree of academic freedom that employees of universities like UCLA have, the comparison doesn't make sense. Zero^talk 11:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Icewhiz: Your edit here is tendentious. It is so absurd that I am half-minded to report it. Can you explain why you consider hiding the fact that this is a US government funded organization from our readers is appropriate? See sources below:

• Andrea Czepek; Melanie Hellwig (1 March 2009). Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe: Concepts and Conditions. Intellect Books. ISBN 978-1-84150-297-7. Freedom House is sometimes accused of having a pro-American bias (for example UN 2001) – not least because more than three quarters of the NGO's resources derive from federal grants of the US government (Freedom House 2007a: 24).
• Hazel Smith (9 April 2015). North Korea. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89778-5. government-funded think tank Freedom House
• Sally Engle Merry; Kevin E. Davis; Benedict Kingsbury (26 May 2015). The Quiet Power of Indicators: Measuring Governance, Corruption, and Rule of Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-07520-7. Fund-Raising Difficulties, Government Funding, and the Appearance of Bias. By the mid-1990s, Freedom House had come to rely heavily on US government funding. The appearance of bias due to government funding was recognized as a problem, not just by outside critics but also within the walls of Freedom House. It was ultimately accepted as a necessary evil... The organization was no doubt influenced by its biggest donor, the US government, at least indirectly... By the 1990s, Freedom House appears to have accepted dependence on government funding as a necessary evil. Increasingly through the end of the period of archived materials in 2007, government funding supplied the lion's share of Freedom House's operating budget.
• James T. Bennett. Tax-Funded Politics. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4128-3557-2. This gang of socialists turned neo-conservatives has become, more or less, a government agency... By its own admission, Freedom House promotes an agenda that includes "U.S. engagement in international affairs," a euphemism for a hyper-interventionism.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That this passes WP:V doesn't mean it is relevant here - this is an article about Israel, not Freedom house - to which we readily link. We do not typically discuss funding of NGOs when we cite them - e.g. we do not discuss B'Tselem's funding sources in "according to B'Tselem" fragments.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about on of the United States government’s closest geopolitical relationships. That an organization commenting on Israel is financially controlled by the US is obviously relevant. And it says it in the first sentence of Freedom House article. Proper attribution is essential here. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: on the basis of the above, I intend to add back the contextualizing clause to the Freedom House reference. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

While I'm honestly unsure how it would be best to handle coverage of the status of democracy in Israel, I'd like to note that Democracy Index downgraded the US in 2016. I don't think it merely reflects the US government view -- it has a rigorous methodology instead. I wonder if this has ever been discussed on RSN.--Calthinus (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Imo it might be best to indeed use Freedom House and Democracy Index that Israel has a vibrant and functioning democracy overall, but with 2-3 sentences summarizing the also the issues they found in the areas of civil liberties, and the role of the Chief Rabbinate. This seems balanced to me. --Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would support Calthinus's compromise formulation above. It would seem to reflect real-life realities. I have been following this somewhat torturous discussion, but I am commenting only now. Irondome (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess Calthinus's proposal is fine as long as 1) the text is kept short and clear and 2) the sentences summarizing the social and political issues are put in the appropriate section, not under the topic "form of government". OtterAM (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

OtterAM I agree with that. I said 2-3 sentences but when I posted that I was under the impression that it would be in the main space (not the lede). If it's the lede we're talking about it would be 1 sentence about the civil liberties and Chief Rabbinate. --Calthinus (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

extended discussion with comparisons to other pages, some posts by sock

Perhaps something along the lines of "Both Democracy Index and Freedom House describe Israel as a "free country" and a "democracy", ranking it among the top countries in the areas of political rights and freedom of speech, but criticizes the influence of its Chief Rabbinate over other civil liberties." However, if that's to be added to the lede, I think it should be in the form of a footnote, as no other country on Wikipedia has it in its lede. Sword & Olive Branch (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Other countries absolutely do have balancing content in the lede, in cases where its exclusion would be non-neutral based on how the subject is discussed in reliable sources. The argument here is that based on reliable sources, presenting this without qualification in the lede would be non-neutral. Seraphim System (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Would you care to give an example of such a country? In the mean time, could you give your opinion on the summary above, regardless of wether or not it's to be put in a footnote? Sword & Olive Branch (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Support Sword & Olive Branch's summary. Looks concise and balanced.--Calthinus (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC) There has been absolutely no discussion until now about the Chief Rabbinate and we are mid-RfC about this same sentence. It would have to be proposed in a new RfC, and only after the open RfC has closed. Perhaps start a new section about the Chief Rabbinate. We are probably going to need a second round of RfC that takes into account the comments editors have made during this discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, there has, actually. See Onceinawhile's opening of this section. But fine, I'll add another option to the RfC. Sword & Olive Branch (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC) No there has not and the way you have written this is not an accurate paraphrase of the quote posted by Onceinawhile. The source says if it weren’t for the Chief Rabbinate’s hegemony and the way Israel treats its non-Jewish minorities - your proposal says criticizes the influence of its Chief Rabbinate over other civil liberties - aside from not being supported by the source, how is it helpful to add another option at this late stage of the RfC? Seraphim System (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Above, someone asked for an example of another country where this kind of addition is present in the lead. Please see Turkey, which contains this language: Turkey's current administration headed by president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of the AKP has enacted measures to increase the influence of Islam, reversed and undermined Kemalist policies, and has reversed earlier reforms such as freedom of the press. To clarify: I am not saying that Turkey = Israel. I am simply answering the question. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC) No parallel. Numerous RSes cover Turkey and state so in their own voice. in Democracy Index they went down from 5.70 in 2006 to 4.88 in 2017 and are no longer classified as a democracy. Israel is rated at 7.79 - an improvement from 7.28 in 2006.Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Completely irrelevant (not to mention wrong). That was not the question I was addressing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian and Icewhiz -- the lede of Turkey discusses some issues Turkey is having due to its current government, however it does not explicitly call into question the democratic nature of the Turkish state. However, there is no lack of reliable sources that do, including some that explicitly call Turkey an ethnocracy. Example, here is a 200+ page paper on the "ethnocratic" nature of the Turkish state [[21]]. Wikipedia editors have (for now?) refrained from inserting a debate about the fundamental legitimacy of Turkish democracy into Turkey's lede. Will that continue if a precedent is set on this page? Who knows.--Calthinus (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC) I wouldn't compare the two RfCs - in the Turkey RfC, I kind of regret the outcome, because we ended up adding even more bloat to the lede. Some days I think it would have been better to just remove it. One thing the two RfCs have in common is that Democracy Index was not an authoritative RS then, and it still isn't one. It's based on public opinion surveys. I don't know why there is an RfC open for the lede when this clearly needs to go RS/n first. The only other thing this has in common with the Turkey RfC is there are far too many things being discussed at once. Proposals about Turkey should be made at that article's talk page. (Will that continue if a precent is set on this page? Who knows is really odd reasoning - the RfC on this page doesn't set any kind of "precedent" for other articles). Seraphim System (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Seraphim, you misunderstand me. I am not talking about "precedent" in the legal sense, but rather in the pragmatic Wikipedia sense -- if something happens on the talk page of a high traffic page, many users, including many who are silent, will see it, and they will conclude it is a "winning proposal" that can work on other pages. As you know well, there are editors here who I am quite certain hold a very dismal view about democracy in Turkey (you and I have talked about this before -- and you know I am a bit more pragmatic, of the "everyone's got problems" view -- but I'm not one of those we're talking about). Some of them also frequently edit Middle Eastern topics, and the source I posted was one already on Wikipedia on other pages-- it would merely need to be moved. It's pretty naïve to think that inserting an academic debate about the legitimacy of democracy in one of the highest traffic country articles (perhaps the highest depending on current events?) will have no ripple effect onto other pages, and the most likely effect is indeed on Turkey's page, where the lede has already been contentious a number of times and the contending editors are still active. --Calthinus (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment of Israeli neighborhoods

I have opened an RFC for several of the Israeli cities that I think are un-encyclopedic. I appreciate input from editors at that RFC. Thank you. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Confusion regarding the boundaries of Israel

Post made by sockpuppet

Many of the arguments made in favour of excluding the term "parliamentary democracy" as a descriptor of Israel in the lede were based on the notion that the Judea and Samaria Area (particularly Area C) is part of the State of Israel, which is of course inaccurate. Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967#Israeli judicial decisions: "In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the Supreme Court of Israel determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel": The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been "annexed" to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention). Sword & Olive Branch (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary list of published scholars who describe the “ethnic democracy” vs “ethnocracy” debate

Below is a preliminary list of published scholars who describe the “ethnic democracy” vs “ethnocracy” debate. This list clearly includes some very notable individuals, with credentials which do not allow for them to be waved away because one would rather this debate didn’t exist.

• Alan Dowty, professor of Political Science Emeritus, University of Notre Dame
• Sammy Smooha, Professor of Sociology at the University of Haifa and Israel Prize recipient
• Nadim Rouhana, Professor of International Negotiation and Conflict Studies at Tufts University
• Oren Yiftachel, Professor of Political and Legal Geography at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
• Ruth Gavison, Israeli Law professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• Asad Ghanem, Professor of Government and Political Theory at the University of Haifa
• Yoav Peled, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Tel Aviv University
• Dr. Doron Navot of the of Government and Political Theory department at the University of Haifa
• Ran Greenstein, Associate Professor at University of the Witwatersrand
• Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Professor of language and education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Sakharov Prize recipient
• Dr Alexander Koensler, Social Anthopology department, Queens University Belfast
• Dov Waxman, Northeastern University, Professor of Political Science, International Affairs, and Israel Studies; Stotsky Professor of Jewish Historical and Cultural Studies
• Ilan Peleg, Professor of Government and Law at Lafayette College
• Benyamin Neuberger, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the Open University of Israel and recipient of Lifetime Achievement Award of the Israel Political Science Association
• Dr. Moshe Berent, Department of Sociology, Political Science and Communication at the Open University of Israel
• Ami Pedahzur, Founding Director, Institute for Israel Studies, University of Texas at Austin

Unless it can be shown that this debate is somehow not notable or not mainstream, it must be described in the article. Sources for the above are in an earlier thread.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

First; acknowledging the existence of a debate is not the same as agreeing with either side. And even if they all do agree with it, it's still not relevant enough to be mentioned in the lede outside of a footnote. There are individuals in every free country questioning the nature of its democracy, but none of them are mentioned in those countries' Wikipedia ledes, inside footnotes or otherwise. This seems to me like a clear attempt at discrimination against Israel specifically.

Second; "ethnic democracy" explicitly includes the term "democracy", and "ethnocracy" does not explicitly exclude it. Both of them are arguably still forms of democracy. Sword & Olive Branch (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don’t cast baseless aspertions of disrimination. You have not shown any other country having this level of heated scholarly debate over the nature of its democracy, so your claim is nonsense.

On your second point, you are guessing as to the essence of the debate. It’s not difficult to understand - you just need to read the sources. If you don’t have time to read them, then you have no right to comment in this discussion and will be ignored.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Work this into Estonia and Latvia first - which are given as the most obvious example of this by sources on Ethnocracy / Ethnic Democracy. This angle is UNDUE - and is unused by most scholars and monitoring NGOs that characterize governments - it is mostly simply ignored (not just for Israel) as a classification.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Moshe Berent of the Open University of Israel would disagree with you: "But contrary to what Smooha suggests, Israel's national identity is indeed unique. In each of Smooha's East European examples, besides the concept of a core ethnic nation, exists the notion of a civic territorial nation, which makes possible the integration or ‘assimilation’ into the dominant culture of those who are not members of the core ethnic nation. Yet, Israel's national identity does not recognise the existence of a civic territorial nation and makes no provisions for the integration or assimilation of non‐Jews, especially Arabs, into the dominant Hebrew culture."[22]

As does Priit Järve: "This paper applies a model of ethnic democracy elaborated by Professor Sammy Smooha of Haifa University, Israel, to Estonia, a case which is usually regarded as marginal in this regard... The case of Estonia (and also that of Latvia) is usually considered as marginal and controversial because considerable proportions of non-titular permanent residents are not citizens and cannot fully participate in the democratic process. Nevertheless, there seems to be a growing consensus among scholars that these states can be labelled as ethnic democracies despite the fact that part of the residents do not have citizenship"[23]

Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

To Once's list, one can add Ami Pedahzur (Founding Director, Institute for Israel Studies, University of Texas at Austin) and many others depending on the exact membership test for the list. I'm not sure what descriptor should come first, but suppressing a widespread scholarly debate is simply not an option. Zero^talk 09:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

de Gruyter published a book called "Major Debates": Eliezer Ben-Rafael; Julius H. Schoeps; Yitzhak Sternberg; Olaf Glöckner (24 October 2016). Handbook of Israel: Major Debates. De Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-038338-6.; it included Oren Yiftachel's 1998 paper on Israel as an ethnocracy. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It is widespread because it is a key tenet of Post-Zionism. Which should be made clear. The first thing I thought about with the nation state law is this is really designed to be a final death blow to Post-Zionism. As it forces the Post Zionist to become an anti-Zionist.Jonney2000 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Professor Emanuel Adler, Chair in Israel Studies at the University of Toronto and former editor of the high profile journal International Organization runs a course on Israel's identity.[24] Subject 9 (Who Is "We?": The Israeli Palestinians: "Us" or "Them?") and Subject 10 (What are we: Israeli Democracy as Identity) show only the above authors as the primary "required reading" (Sammy Smooha, Yoav Peled, Nadim Rouhana and As'ad Ghanem, Dov Waxman and Ilan Peleg, and Ruth Gavison). It is clear from this that the above list captures the primary contributors to the academic debate on this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that a concrete proposal, giving WP:DUE weight to all viewpoints, be hammered out here. Preliminary discussion can happen in the normal informal way, but adding the section (or not) will probably require an RfC. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sovereignty over Jerusalem

proclaimed capital is Jerusalem, although the state's sovereignty over Jerusalem has only partial recognition.

This is questionable phrasing and does not in fact echo the sources used. 'partial recognition ' is a question-begging description of less than a handful of 196 nations. One might tweak to 'the state's assertion of sovereignty', but sovereignty is counterfactual, given Ian S. Lustick 's never to my knowledge controverted 'HAS ISRAEL ANNEXED EAST JERUSALEM?' Middle East Policy Volume 5, Issue 1, January 1997 pp.34-45Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It is an interesting legal argument, not sure you would convince a jury. The author admits that most sources at the time of writing viewed it as annexation. It is however badly out of date now since the Jerusalem Law was amended to preclude transfer.Jonney2000 (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Also jurisdiction of Jerusalem was amended. It is almost like the Israelis read that text.Jonney2000 (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

+1

Also, the Basic Law: Referendum requires secession from any Israeli sovereign territory to be accepted by at least two-thirds of the Members of Knesset, or by the majority of the voters in a national referendum. [25] Duoble 07 (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are part of the Districts of Israel [26] (where the same civil laws apply) and are included in the official CBS statistics [27]. I'm not sure what else is required for "soverignity". Duoble 07 (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The sentence needs to address the fact that it is the East Jerusalem section that is disputed. So "...although the state's sovereignty over East Jerusalem lacks international approval." I used approval rather than recongition because Israel is clearly sovereign in East Jerusalem (in the sense that it excercises power) but this sovereignty has not been approved by the international community. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by 'sovereignty'. 'Partial recognition' is of course totally question-begging.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This has apparently come up again. Please note, that I asked above a month ago (timestamp 06:49, 14 July 2018) whether even one source could be presented that Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem had been recognized by someone. No such source was found. Therefore, "partial recognition" seems wrong as the sources are consistent only with "not recognized", which is still the stable version of this text. --Dailycare (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Time to reach a compromise on the RfC?

Option 1 of the last RfC was formulated as:
"In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage."
It was supported by nine (9) editors (Icewhiz, Sokuya, יניב הורון, Ynhockey, Jonney2000, Calthinus, OtterAM, Shrike, and I), and opposed by three (3) editors (Onceinawhile, Veritycheck, and Seraphim System).

The arguments back and forth have been going on for many days now. The personal opinions of individual scholars - it seems - will never be included in the lede. However, their critiques of some of the civil liberties in Israel are echoed by both Democracy Index (DI) and Freedom House (FH), which are recognized by the overwhelming majority of the editors in the RfC as the most reliable sources on the subject. That's why I'm now proposing a compromise to settle this dispute once and for all. It includes a footnote shotrly explaining the positions of DI & FH, as well as the Encyclopedia Britannica source - put forward in the RfC - adding the term "multi-party" (which is also supported by DI & FH) in front of "representative democracy":
"In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Israel is a multi-party representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage."

Duoble 07 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Support seems like a workable compromise proposal to me.--Calthinus (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Oppose: I'm sorry, but I don't think this is satisfactory. The sentence in question is about the political system, not about ongoing issues in society nor about the level of "freedom" in the country. Discussion of these belong elsewhere on Wikipedia. OtterAM (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Arabic is no longer an official language in Israel, as of Aug 2018

According to this recently approved Israeli law: Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. The Hebrew version of Wikipedia has alraedy removed the Arabic translation of "The State of Israel" from its Infobox. We should do the same. 79.182.115.76 (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's still a special status language, which shall be used by the State's institutions according to the law. Normally, translations of lagnuages with such status are included in the wiki infoboxes. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not support the proposal to remove all uses of Arabic from the info box. Arabic has a special legal status in Israel and a large number of its citizens use the language. Thus, translation of "The State of Israel" into Arabic is perfectly appropriate. OtterAM (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I also support keeping Arabic in the info box. It is a language that is vital and important within the State of Israel -- official or not.--Calthinus (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Arabic still need to be mention in the Infobox cause it have a 'special status' and its differ from other spoken languages such Russian, Amharic, Yiddish etc. "The Arabic language has a special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions or by them will be set in law; This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect. " It should be mention in Other languages with a footnote explaining the status of the language. The Arabic name of the state should be still feature in the article even though it not longer official language. See examples Algeria, Brunei, Cambodia, Somaliland, Tunisia, Mauritania, Nigeria. Sokuya (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how any non English text helps those that read English.--Moxy (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Well under that criterion we'd delete the Hebrew too. --Calthinus (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup.....we have links on every page to language specific wikis if need be. Not sure how having non readable text is helpful. Its already in the lead breaking up the first sentence making it hard to read.....why do it 2 times?--Moxy (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You are assuming that those reading English Wikipedia can't read other languages. Obviously it is incorrect for some of the readers. “WarKosign” 11:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Arabic should be listed as a language with Special Status. According to the Times of Israel (https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-democratic-nation-state-law-raises-questions-over-israels-purpose/ Jewish? Democratic? Nation-state law raises questions over Israel’s purpose):

... and that Hebrew is the state’s language — while Arabic, previously an official language, is now designated as having "a special status in the state."  Peter K Burian (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

British Palestine in the lede

Triggerhippie, the lede currently jumps abruptly to “British Palestine”, with no explanation. This differs from its description of the other major controlling entities in the region’s history, each of whom are given some explanation of how they turned up controlling the area.

Since you reverted my proposal, please make a counterproposal to fix this.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Not true. There's no explanation for the Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Judah was later conquered by the Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires"

That is more than we give for British Palestine, which jumps up out of nowhere. British Palestine was of course the direct precursor to the State of Israel.

Unless someone comes up with a rational reason why we should entirely ignore this period, I will add an explanation back in.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. You need to gain new consensus to change the lede, which was already discussed in detail and it's too extensive anyway. Saying "Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic" is not more than "British Palestine". If you reinsert your disputed material again, I myself or someone else will revert you. You won't get anything by edit-warring, trust me. See WP:BRD.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that no consensus was ever gained for removing the reference.

The only time this article ever had wide community approval was when it was a FA. This is how the lede looked on the day it promoted. Of course it explained the genesis of the modern state.

The demotion of this information is partly my own fault - this edit I made many years ago pushed the information down, shoehorned into a later paragraph in which it did not fit well and was later excised from.

All of this happened without discussion.

It’s obvious that this needs to be fixed. Surely we can agree a sensible position through reasoned discussion rather than having to resort to WP:DR on such simple issues.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Balfour declaration has no place in lede. It was discussed before. WP:Dead horse.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Not every period have an "explanation of how they turned up controlling the area", nor should they. One paragraph suppose to summarize thousands of years and be short. British control was the result of war not a document. I don't understand why you think I should give you "a counterproposal to fix this" or why you make such demands "Unless someone comes up with a rational reason why we should entirely ignore this period, I will add an explanation back in.", when your edits were already overwhelmingly rejected last time and you have two users against this time. The edits you're citing are 8 years old. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Israel’s existance is due entirely to the creation of a Jewish Homeland in British Palestine; to exclude explanation of that is absurd. You write “British control was the result of war not a document”, but British control per se is much less relevant to this article than the concept of the “Jewish homeland” which Britain was mandated to create.

This history component of the lede has multiple issues - this is simply one of the most egregious. Only silent consensus exists for its current form, which as you know is the weakest form of consensus. Let’s engage in constructive discussion to improve this for everyone.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Israel's existence is due to Zionism with Jews started immigrating decades before Balfour and won the war for independence. When the war broke out, policies set out in Balfour were already reversed for years. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Without the Balfour Declaration, there would not have been enough Jews and enough Jewish infrastructure in Palestine to fight a war in 1948. Zero^talk 12:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

As may be said of many things in the 1882-1947. The Balfour declaration was hardly the most central element and the sole one worth mentioning - particularly since for the most part it wasn't kept by the British (interests, competing promises, whatnot). Edmond James de Rothschild's efforts were more significant. Zionist relations with the British were complex, to say the least, and mentioning only Balfour would be very much unbalanced.Icewhiz (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

writing the 'Balfour declaration was hardly the most central element' etc. is historically illiterate. Not only was it the fundamental step towards a Jewish state, but it lead directly to Britain assuming the Mandate which more or less embodied Weizman's view that a British administration was a sine qua non for developing such a state. The rest of the obiter dictum is equally and ridiculously uninformed. Idiosyncratic evaluations of history have no placer here and shouldn't interfere with consensus making.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)