Talk:Israel

New map needed

This map doesn’t show Israel with Golan even in shaded colors as often appears... Zarcademan123456 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we use this map? Includes controversial Golan heights (governed y’all Israel for over 50 years) Zarcademan123456 (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

http://ontheworldmap.com/israel/ Zarcademan123456 (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the maps used for Israel in this article should include the Golan, especially in light of the United States recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not object, as it seems reasonable to me to use a map showing land that was regained by Israel. Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Regained"? That's funny. Zero^talk 02:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Name of article is "Israel", not "Israel and the Golan Heights" so the infobox should only show Israel, not occupied territories. Further down the article there is a map showing occupied lands: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It's disputed territory. But on the Russia article, the infobox map shows Crimea as a disputed territory. The map of Israel in this article should do the same thing with the Golan Heights. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

All of Israel is disputed territory, so the map should show all of Israel as being disputed. Different conflicts have different solutions, what might work in the Russia article is not suitable here. The map here further down the article showing occupied territories in enough. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Look at the maps of India, Pakistan, and China showing the area it controls despite them being disputed. Golan should be shown. YaLindaHadad (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. We're not "solving a conflict" here. Wikipedia isn't about "solving conflict". It's about representing reality. And we should represent reality consistently, not use double standards.Thorbecke2012 (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The same applies to East Jerusalem. Thorbecke2012 (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are nearly universally recognized as not being in Israel. That remains the reality. I am not opposed to including the occupied territories as occupied territories, but certainly not as through they are in Israel. Morocco doesnt show Western Sahara as being the same as what is recognized as Moroccan territory. Russia isnt the only example here, and in this case there are UNSC resolutions explicitly calling the annexations illegal and null and void. nableezy - 05:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Found book name for Gnuse 1997, pp. 28, 31[title missing]

Under the section titled Antiquity, footnote 92 reads "Gnuse 1997, pp. 28, 31[title missing]", but I found the title of the book is No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel. The author's full name is Robert Karl Gnuse. The citation should be

Wikitext: Parsed wikitext: Gnuse, Robert Karl (1997). No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel. England: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd. pp. 28, 31. ISBN 1-85075-657-0.

I do not have access rights to edit. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done - I have corrected this. Thanks, Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 23:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Late Antiquity

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

• For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
• If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
• If the page is protected, use one of the following:
  • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
  • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
  • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
  • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
  • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}.

Current opening:

In 634–641 CE, the region, including Jerusalem, was conquered by the Arabs who had recently adopted Islam.

Can we use this instead, since it's pretty relevant esp. re: Saladin's later mention:

In 634–641 CE, the region, including Jerusalem, was conquered by the Arabs who had recently adopted Islam. According to Jewish tradition, Muslim caliph Umar set aside the Christian ban on Jews and allowed them into Jerusalem to worship.

---

Also, why does the box say I have a conflict of interest?

Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the "reqeust edit" is for COI editing. You can remove the "|answered=yes" if you do have one. You may be wanting {{edit extended-protected}}  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 20:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

For the first bbc refernce. Could someone add the author, Phil Mercer. Thank you. Just 28 cats (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The article is not written by Phil Mercer, only the analysis. The article does not use this analysis. The article does not state an author. IWI (chat) 03:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this article protected, as there is content i’d like to add but am not able to. Of Crazykids43 (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2020

In the subsection "After World War II" there is a minor error in the last sentence of the first paragraph. It says "Jewish refugees attempted enter Palestine" instead of "attempted to enter" Chomsky96 (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit war attempts being made by Anti-Semetic Websites like 4chan

Hello, I just wanted to drop in and alert those at wikipedia to the fact that there is an ongoing cyber harassment campaign being directed towards this page at the hands of the politically incorrect board on 4chan. The last attempt at organizing an edit war was held on 08/05/2020 with the time stamp for the thread advising members of the anonymous image board being listed as 17:59:56 with a post number of 271282455. While I am not familiar with wikipedia, I am however familiar enough with attempts being made to rewrite history for anti-semetic purposes. If there is a way for a moderator to place a lock on the page to prevent any more anti-semetic edits being done it would greatly reduce the attempts to paint the nation of Israel in a negative manner.

The edit mentioned is as follows: “The state has attracted criticism for a variety of reasons including: its apparent nuclear weapons arsenal, Israeli civilian settlements built on lands occupied by Israel, the Judaization of Jerusalem as observed by the United Nations under Israeli sovereignty of the city, its targeted killings program, widespread racism despite broad anti-discrimination laws within the country, observed human rights abuses and violations, and an alleged manifestation of an apartheid regime.”

Please forgive me once again for the poorly structured comments section on the talk page. I am new to wikipedia and do not speak English as my primary language. I did not want to touch the article itself as I do not want to do anything that may be against the terms of service for wikipedia. Thank you, -Seth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9B40:7090:C9B6:28E5:D70D:2CB5 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This is concerning. Good thing you've noticed. HelpHelper (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect. I have screenshot evidence showing that I was harassed, insulted, and threatened me numerous times by a Canadian individual who claimed that they would revert my edit. In addition, my edit was all factual information backed up by wikipedia articles on the subject and 11 reliable citations, with no anti-semitic content or intent in any capacity.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you've admitted to engaging in this war is very concerning. This seems like a deliberate attempt to spread your anti Semetic ideology. HelpHelper (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I will be including the screenshots here if this escalates any further than it already has. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I have just confirmed that the individual who was harassing me is actually HelpHelper. I have screenshot evidence, something he posted himself that included his Wiki bio, and screenshots from the same user that clearly show him harassing, disparaging me, calling me a rabid anti-semite among other things. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the POV crap from lede, although I'm not claiming it's antisemitic or created by 4chan (wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, though). There is already a paragraph dedicated to the various accusations against Israel at the end of this section.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to go on record with the following screenshots [cut] Compare that with his user page before today: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:HelpHelper&oldid=953229798TheEpicGhosty (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is evidence of the attempted raid of the article by 4chan https://boards.*chan.org/pol/thread/271270896 (insert 4 where the * is) Wordbearer88 (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

In any case I would like to appeal the revert of my edit. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's odd that any legitimate criticisms of Israel are always "anti-semitic"?2604:6000:7AC2:1800:A42B:3A1:EE25:D089 (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Take the persecution complex somewhere else. Next time you plan to raid don't make a thread gloating about it. You're very bad at this! Wordbearer88 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no raid. There was never any such thing. Also, this has been taken to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Israel From that link: "I never called for vandalism in any capacity. You cannot attribute the actions of other people to me. This was never a raid. Any objective observer would determine that. I merely told them that I had made such an edit. Actually, I had made the post in RESPONSE to people talking about Wikipedia being biased. I hoped that if they saw that my post stayed up, they would at least reserve such judgement. Alas, it has been taken down." Make of that what you will. It appears that the screenshots that show HelpHelper being extremely hostile, and engaging in wholly unacceptable behavior are being ignored here. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It is also important to mention that HelpHelper accused me of being an anti-semite ON Wikipedia too: "The fact that you've admitted to engaging in this war is very concerning. This seems like a deliberate attempt to spread your anti Semetic ideology" I believe this is actionable.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You posted on a white supremacist website about your intention to change wikipedia content to fit your political agenda. Quit the pity party already. You could have actually done something if you hadn't gone to gloating on 4chan about it but now it's out in the open. Raids are not to be tolerated. Wordbearer88 (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not a white supremacist website, that would be Stormfront. I'm a Muslim non-white. I never said anything about changing anything to fit a political agenda. This is blatant falsehoods. In fact, I mentioned numerous times that I wanted to merely match the Saudi Arabian lede and incorporate stuff from other Wikipedia articles into the lede of the Israel article. Stop slandering my character. No raid occurred. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Match the POV lede in Saudi Arabia that YOU added? It's strange you didn't do it for Iran's lede. Clearly you are not in this encyclopedia to improve it, but to advance your own POV agenda.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own article on 4chan disagrees about it not being white supremacist. And yeah you're a muslim non-white? I'm a Hindu Mexican. What now? The fact you advertised your raid on 4chan just shows how poorly thought out this whole thing was. No go back to your /pol/ thread and cry about how unfair it all is. Or maybe you want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet again? Every minute, a new excuse. Wordbearer88 (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said, there was no raid. Also, I find it very telling that within seconds of these messages being sent, screencaps are in turn floating back to 4chan, praising you. I stand by my suspicion that you are a sockpuppet for HelpHelper. If any mods or admins would like to double-check this, would be appreciated.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It would take two seconds to falsify your hypothesis if one can see the browser activity and IP addresses of both of us. I've never even heard of Wordbearer88 up until today. HelpHelper (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aroma Stylish I was going to get around to doing that one next. Again, stop putting words in my mouth, stop assuming my agenda, and stop slandering my character, thank you. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In any case, lede is supposed to summarize main points of article. There's no obligation to add an entire paragraph of criticism in lede for every country, specially if, as in this case, there's only one paragraph (more balanced) for criticism of Israel. It's not proper WP:DUE to add a one-sided list of accusations in lede, as you did.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This is my reasoning behind the edits (I shouldn't have to explain this, as @Clone commando sev made it crystal-clear in the DRN that you can't use an unfounded accusation of a political agenda as an excuse to revert an edit, as you have. This means that neither you, nor @HelpHelper, nor @Wordbearer88 should throw around false, unfounded accusations of bias, anti-semitism, or a hidden political agenda.) Nevertheless- is it not true that both Saudi Arabia and Israel are embroiled in controversy in the contemporary era? Is this notable, objective observation that both countries are the subject of controversy and criticism not grounds to at least mention it deep down in the lede?TheEpicGhosty (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The rules of DRN only apply to DRN which is an entirely voluntary. Clone commando sev has less than 500 edits, has shown no real expertise, and can't find the shift key, so even if we were to go to DRN it would not be one run by them. After seeing the reddit thread it question, I can attest that you did not say anything directly anti-semetic, but you did reply approvingly to someone who did, and made no note of the vile anti-semetism in the thread while continuing to post in the thread. You also made repeated refernce to Kek which is a meme of the alt-right. Taken together this means you should probably stay away from Jewish Topics.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sidestepping the 4chan stuff, there's an obvious problem, and the DRN thread should just be closed. In general, the lead summarizes the article; it doesn't summarize the subject. It's a weird distinction sometimes, but nothing should appear in the lead that isn't already in the body of the article. So regardless of what specifically you added, because much of it isn't presented as such in the body, it had to go. Adding "criticisms" to the lead that aren't even in the body is the reddest of red flags for "POV pushing" and is going to get reverted. The first step would be to make the case for adding these issues to the article body, then making the case for a proportional summary in the lead. But it's not like we don't cover criticism of Israel['s government]. In fact, we have a whoooole long article about it (AFAIK we don't have one of those for Saudi Arabia, which I see was compared above), not to mention a bunch of other stand-alone articles on individual elements (linked from the top of various sections of the criticism page). You could argue that WP:SUMMARYSTYLE isn't being followed here with respect to those subjects covered elsewhere, but you'll probably want to do that in the form of a proposal on the talk page. Editing a page that's not only a top-level subject that has lots of spin-off pages but also highly controversial is a pretty sure way to spend a lot of time on the talk page arguing for small changes. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In any case, there is an ANI filing now that is also encompassing the Saudi lede now, which was reverted back to my edit by another user.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not it's appropriate to put the text in the lede, let's not pretend that agendas and ideologies play no part in Wikipedia generally. You can't not allow an edit because you think the editor has a motive behind it. All editors do, especially on political topics. As long as it's sourced and fairly well accepted and the balance of the article appears neutral, you have to accept it. It could be Adolf Hitler himself editing Jewish-related articles, it's still the information and sources you have to consider.2600:8807:5405:CE00:7DAE:CCCB:6022:351A (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

let's not pretend that agendas and ideologies play no part in Wikipedia generally - For these purpose, actually let's do that. WP:AGF is pretty fundamental to get things done around here. Getting into speculations about motives and agendas is only going to lead you astray. Having an opinion doesn't mean you're unable to edit neutrally if you want to. It's only a problem when it runs afoul of our policies. As such, there's not much point in pointing to motives when you can point to policy problems. I won't speak for anyone involved, but if I had seen the edit before it popped up at WP:ANI, I would've suggested reverting, too, for the reasons I mentioned above. That has nothing to do with the person who added it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have made an altered, significantly shorter, and a more neutral lede edit (I reviewed the original edit over and over, and I decided that it was too hostile, even if that wasn't my intention). Here it is:

"The state has attracted criticism for its policy regarding territories occupied by it, its apparent nuclear weapons arsenal, and its targeted killings program among other reasons."

I hope this will be satisfactory to resolve at least the matter of the lede edit's content itself. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Was advised by RegentsPark to include the revised edited lede addition to the article in order to ensure that consensus is present. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Vague comments about an email you sent does not consensus make. If RegentsPark really supports your edit they can say so themselves. AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note: TheEpicGhosty, this is a highly sensitive page. Please ensure you have consensus before engaging in WP:ARBPIA edits to the lead which are significant in scope. El_C 17:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I shall await further consensus before making any lede edits. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I was not clear in my post on TheEpicGhosty's talk. TheEpicGhosty, you need to propose your changes and see if that proposal sticks. My larger point is that an admin cannot determine what should or should not go in the lede (or elsewhere in the article) but that you should seek consensus for your edits. Best wishes. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries! Thank you for the clarification :) TheEpicGhosty (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD:

“ The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. ”

Israel having been repeatedly condemned internationally and by human rights organizations for its actions in the occupied territories without question belongs in the lead of this article. It's kind of obscene that it is not currently detailed appropriately. I will be adding some material to bring this lead up to our standards. nableezy - 20:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw your edit. Shall I add the stuff regarding targeted killings and the nuclear weapons program later? TheEpicGhosty (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the lead should only really have the biggest things, so I would leave both of those out of the lead. nableezy - 22:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead section already mentions Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories — but if there is consensus to mention it twice in whatever capacity, that's fine. It would be prudent, in any case, to make sure consensus favouring that addition is relatively firm, however. El_C 22:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Affirmative. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No need for duplication or highlighting criticism of small portion of the country. 11Fox11 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Imho, the settlement project definitely should be mentioned in the lead. It is a defining feature of the state. I also think other, uninteresting details, could be cut out of the lead because it is getting too long.ImTheIP (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead following the revert by 11Fox11 contains that Israel extended its laws to EJ and the Golan but not that that those actions were internationally condemned and rejected as null and void. It includes none of the sustained criticisms that Israel has generated for its actions in the occupied territory. The claim in the edit summary that there is duplication for any of this material is a straightforward falsehood. There is nothing that was mentioned twice, and I will open an RFC over this straightforward violation of NPOV. nableezy - 16:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

References

RFC

Should the lead of this article include criticisms of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories and its annexations of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem where those annexations are mentioned? Should the lead include Israel's settlement project and the sustained condemnations of that project from the international community? Nableezy 16:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:LEAD requires that prominent controversies about a topic be included in the lead. Currently the lead of this article includes Israel's claim to East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights without including that those claims have been repeatedly rejected by the international community as illegal and null and void (yes, the US became the sole exception to that wide consensus in the last year, it remains a wide consensus). Even our article Jerusalem, where this was settled in one of the widest RFCs in the topic area ever, makes clear Israel's position and the rest of the world's. It includes no criticism of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, though that occupation is one of the most thoroughly remarked upon by such bodies as the UN Security Council and General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and is the topic countless of scholarly sources. This criticism is a defining trait of the modern state of Israel since 1967 and none of it is included. WP:DUE demands that this material be given it's due weight. WP:LEAD demands that notable and prominent controversies be included in the lead. Currently this lead simply glosses over what any other overview of Israel details. The lead of this article, like any other article, needs to comply with WP:NPOV, and currently it completely ignores some of the most notable aspects about the topic. Even a cursory look at the sources at Israeli occupation of the West Bank would demonstrate the complete noncompliance with WP:WEIGHT in this lead. nableezy - 16:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Already covered sufficiently. The LEAD has 4 paragraphs. The first is basic geography, the second is 3000 years of history, the entirety of the third long paragraph is devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict including the occupation and aspects of it, the fourth short paragraph is devoted to all other aspects of modern Israel. The present LEAD covers the conflict too much, it does not need to be expanded and other aspects currently reduced to a few words need expanding. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The LEAD also contains a reference (Footnote 24) that is rom the National Catholic Reporter and it is not from a reliable source WP:RSPSOURCES but I'm too new to remove it. Ihaveadreamagain 18:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, About 7-8% of Israel's population live outside its recognized borders in settlements built on occupied territory. That is an interesting and defining feature of the state. I would suggest cutting parts of the history paragraph to "make room" for more pertinent content. The history is already well-covered in History of Israel and History of Palestine.ImTheIP (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Already covered sufficiently for the same reasons as 11Fox11 evoked. Île flottante (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Already covered sufficiently All 4 paragraphs are sufficient enough, per 11Fox11 Idealigic (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. This is a no brainer, insufficient coverage of a defining feature of Israel, namely the international consensus in reqard to acts committed by it, likely war crimes, breaches of human rights, child prisoners, illegal settlements, its a long list. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Already covered sufficiently. Including the POV statement about "world's longest military occupation in modern times".--Aroma Stylish (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• No per above. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be included in the lead as it is very notable.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Already covered sufficiently. Of course the lead should mention all the major topics covered in the article, and it already does. Adding more would be WP:UNDUE. “WarKosign” 06:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Already covered sufficiently, per 11Fox11 and WarKosign. François Robere (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, in moderation. The lead is too detailed in most respects. For most countries the lead has a far shorter history section, for example. Too much effort has gone into cramming facts in that should be left for later sections. "It has the world's 31st-largest economy by nominal GDP" is lead material? Pull the other one. Meanwhile, the settlement enterprise, which is one of the most notable features of Israel in the eyes of the world, is missing entirely. Zero^talk 13:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Already covered sufficiently, per above. More than a quarter of the lead is already devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict, while other topics are neglected. If at all, the Arab-Israeli conflict material should be shortened. Vici Vidi (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Already covered sufficiently, The occupation seems covered commiserate with it importance in the world and the article. Compared to the various wars, if anything seems over represented. Too be honest without example text to give feedback on I am not sure how useful this RFC is. For all I know I might agree with your revised text.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, and rewrite the lead completely. A lot of stuff can be cut from the lead, things like "(still considered occupied after the 2005 disengagement, although some legal experts dispute this claim)", while the complete change in demographics since late 19th century also deserves a mention. (According to Demographic history of Palestine (region), there were 10 times as many Muslims as Jews in the area in 1890; no other country AFAIK has had such a dramatic change in demographics, and still that is not notable?) Huldra (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Partial support + comment. I generally agree with 11Fox11 and WarKosign's points, that Israel's disputed territories are already well covered in the lead and adding additional 'criticisms of Israel's occupation', as Nableezy is proposing, would result in undue weight considering (1) the article already mentions that parts of Israel's sovereignty are disputed, that it has occupied territories since the Six-Day War and that this occupation is the longest in modern times and (2) the article is about the country as a whole, not just the Arab-Israeli conflict. That said, I do think Nableezy is right to point out that the lead does not mention Israeli settlements built on land occupied since 1967, which I feel is important enough to Israel's politics, security and international position to warrant mention. I suggest that the settlements are included either as a subclause of the sentence about occupation of territories following the Six-Day War, or as a following sentence.

Although not directly related to the RFC, after reading through the lead I feel it could do with a general rewrite to improve readability and give a better overview of the article. The second paragraph could do with simplification, I think it currently contains too much unnecessary detail about the region's history, marking some sections unclear. The paragraph on the Arab-Israeli conflict is much better, but could still do with a bit of copy-editing. The fourth paragraph reads like a list of factoids, I would suggest that some are removed and others expanded to create a better sentence flow. I'm happy to try and put together a draft with these changes if others agree they would be helpful. Jr8825 • Talk 22:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• No. The last three sentences of the third paragraph provide the necessary mention of the main issue. The additional proposed sentences lack the required context that later paragraphs in the body of the article address. --Chefallen (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Already covered sufficiently. I feel that Vici Vidi is correct here. The lead is already getting on the long side, with a fair amount of material on the Palestine issue already. What we have already is fine and the rest can be stated in the body of the article. LoosingIt (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• I support mentioning the settlements very briefly, but oppose including criticisms of the aforementioned or of the occupation or annexations in a lead that is already abnormally long as it stands. Iroh (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Not extended-confirmed. Zero^talk 05:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Already covered sufficiently, as many others have said. Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Not extended-confirmed. Zero^talk 05:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Should be trimmed If we compare to other articles its already WP:UNDUE any additional cover would constitute further violations of WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, follow South Africa whether or not one subscribes in full to the apartheid analogy, it is generally accepted that Israel has more similarities to the history of South Africa than to any other country today. Our lede at South Africa covers that situation well, without being unbalanced. Just as anti-apartheid activism is mentioned there, the equivalent should be mentioned here. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Where exactly are the people saying it is already sufficiently covered is any of this material covered? The lead says that Israel applied it laws to EJ and the Golan but neglects that both those actions were ruled illegal and null and void by the UN Security Council and rejected by the international community. It neglects any mention of the settlements, a topic that literally is covered in millions of places. Where exactly is any of this already "covered sufficiently"? nableezy - 12:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

And books upon books have been written on the Israeli heroic victory in 1967 and Operation Focus and that's missing as well. The 1948 war gets on sentence. The Arab-Israeli conflict gets more than enough space in the lead. Much has been written on Israeli hi-tech, that's missing from the lead all together. Vici Vidi (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The 1967 war and R&D are both mentioned. Zero^talk 14:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says prominent controversies should be included. Are you seriously disputing that Israel's settling of its citizens in occupied territory, the subject of countless UN resolutions (SC and GA) and thousands of sources, is not a prominent controversy? It is not one of the most prominent controversies? And yes, both 1967 and Israel's R&D industry are in fact mentioned. Though R&D is much less discussed in reliable sources, we give it more weight? That jive with NPOV? How? nableezy - 20:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

SNOWBALL close

Suggest closing on grounds of WP:SNOW. François Robere (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

While I understand the reasoning for this suggestion, I don't agree or think it's appropriate right now. I don't currently see an overwhelming consensus in the responses and I think it's fair to say the RfC is an issue of genuine contention, rather than just a hopeless waste of time.

As to how we can resolve the RfC, perhaps it would be helpful to focus more narrowly on the second issue that Nableezy raises, namely "Should the lead include Israel's settlement project?", which seems to have a garnered a decent amount of support (including my own). I'd like to reach a consensus on this, even if it's eventually against inclusion. The first issue, ("should [we] include criticisms of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories and its annexations of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem...?") has less support and is in my view limiting discussion of the second. Jr8825 • Talk 17:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy:, @Aroma Stylish: - can you please wait for this RfC to finish before making changes to the lead? It's hard to keep track of what we're discussing. Jr8825 • Talk 18:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that the other editor has been blocked as a sock of a banned user I dont think he'll have a problem waiting. nableezy - 19:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RFCs are open for 30 days so that they may attract a wide range of participation. They arent closed when one of the partisans feels the numbers are to his advantage. nableezy - 19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, see the tag's documentation. There very much is a dispute about the neutrality of this lead and silently removing that tag is right on the border of vandalism. nableezy - 19:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a "party" here, Nableezy, but I'm flattered that my occasional contributions to ARBPIA are memorable enough to be considered one. François Robere (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Robere is living in hope methinks, given that the majority of opposition sounds like a bunch of parrots without a policy rationale.Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You voted in the RFC lol. nableezy - 22:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It is notable that none of those who voted against the proposal so far gave a reason for not mentioning the settlements in the lead. In fact, I don't find that any of them even mentioned the settlements. The obvious explanation is that making such an argument is impossible. Everyone, supporters and detractors alike, knows that the settlement enterprise is one of the most notable and most written about aspects of modern Israel. Zero^talk 06:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

The second mentioning of Acre in Religion section should be linked to the city not the unit of land area. 125.247.168.218 (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, done. That section is way overlinked, though. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)