Talk:Israel/Archive 98

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

→

Archive 105

Human rights in the lead

Returning to the pending human rights statement in the lead. The just closed RFC re apartheid found a consensus for something about hr issue in the lead but that the language still needed to be agreed. The other RFC (unclosed and archived here) proposed the following sentence:

" Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, and human rights organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Alternative formulations? Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Looks good. Since space is at a premium, I'd also be fine with shortening "for violating the human rights of the Palestinians" to "for human rights violations". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Accusations are not lead material. And why use the term crime against humanity when it's not used for far worse places like Myanmar, China, or Russia? Those are some insane double standards here on Wikipedia. I've written this prior. This is not gonna help Wikipedia to become perceived as a good balanced source for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Synotia (moan) 18:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternative formulation? Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly also, I checked the articles United States and Australia, new nations built on an incomparably higher amount of skeletons. Just for example, colonizers in Australia committed a perfect genocide against Aboriginal Tasmanians, with the last one dying in the 1870s and the last ones being put on display in a museum like an animal. Until the 1960s they were not legally true human beings, being counted under the fauna & flora section in censuses. Yet none of this is mentioned in the leads, not even a bit. Meanwhile the amount of Palestinians apparently increased 8-fold since 1948?

I am absolutely no supporter of Israel's policies regarding the Palestinians. However I can't help but notice the insane discrepancy in wording between the Israel article and other ones if this passes... what a blow it would be for Wikipedia's credibility. Synotia (moan) 19:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:WAX, and beyond that China says The Chinese authorities have been criticized by human rights activists and non-governmental organizations for human rights abuses, including political repression, mass censorship, mass surveillance of their citizens, and violent suppression of protest and dissent. and on top of that has extensive material on what is titled Uyghur genocide within the article. Iran has The Iranian government is authoritarian, and has attracted widespread criticism for its significant constraints and abuses against human rights and civil liberties, including several violent suppressions of mass protests, unfair elections, and limited rights for women and for children. Myanmar has although the country's treatment of its ethnic minorities, particularly in connection with the Rohingya conflict, continued to be condemned by international organizations and many nations. As far as your other whataboutisms, Australia, the US, any number of other settler-colonial states are not currently being accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel is. But again, WP:WAX. Another article being poorly written does not mean this one should be. As it stands, we have a formal closure saying there is an affirmative consensus for material on Israel's human rights record in the lead. That will be implemented. nableezy - 19:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And  Done nableezy - 19:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Israel's human rights record yes. But a term that shows the Armenian genocide when you hover over it? Synotia (moan) 19:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You appear to dislike the term crimes against humanity. It is just a classification for a set of crimes in international law, it includes such things as the deportation and transfer of civilians into and out of occupied territory, copiously documented with Israel, it includes apartheid, again well sourced as something human rights orgs have accused Israel of committing. If your problem is that the term is used by sources about Israel's actions in the occupied territories then you should take it up with them. If your concern is that other articles do not include the term where they should, then go edit those articles. nableezy - 19:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Are the HRVs limited to the occupied territories, or also within Israel? Levivich (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know only Amnesty has accused Israel of crimes against humanity or war crimes within Israel. The other orgs have limited that charge to the occupied territories. nableezy - 19:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Tombah, you need reasons for your edits, and the idea there is no consensus for something requires evidence and reasons, especially given the result of the above RFC. Are you seriously disputing the fact that Israel has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity? Are you of the belief that is not a notable controversy about Israel? If you are not disputing these facts, why are you deleting it? nableezy - 07:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I think they might have meant that there is no consensus for the crimes against humanity bit, as they did leave the human rights violations part. Synotia (moan) 08:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, again, that the accusations exist is beyond reproof. In fact, this is the accusations-lite version. Plenty of sources, e.g. Israel’s Crimes against Palestinians: War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, Genocide or Ilan Pappe's infamous The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine take it several steps further, not to mention the at-this-point very self-evident apartheid accusations. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Not that I dispute the sources. Yet, I believe that including this accusation is inappropriate, not leadworthy, and perhaps tendentious. Unfortunately, numerous nations, including several western democracies, have been charged with war crimes since the early 20th century. AFAIK, the US and the UK militaries have both been charged with war crimes quite recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this is not mentioned in their ledes. We won't use double standards when it comes to Israel, just no. Furthermore, there was never agreement on the allegations of apartheid, and we won't incorporate them now through a backdoor. Again, no. Tombah (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Being charged with ongoing war crimes by the UNSC (United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334), and by the worlds leading human rights organizations is unique to Israel. If you feel the leads of United States and United Kingdom are poor then go fix those. But those cases are simply not in the same league, the amount of coverage that Israel's actions in the occupied territories, nearly permanent since shortly after its inception, pales in comparison compared to the coverage of even the entire war in Iraq does in coverage of the United States. Because that war has not been a defining topic for the US, whereas Israel's conflict with, and treatment of, the Palestinians has been treated as a defining characteristic in sources. Pretending like disparate circumstances must be covered in identical ways is what is tendentious. nableezy - 08:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, for the people not reading WP:CON, consensus requires policy based reasons. Not just claiming a lack of consensus and revertin at will. nableezy - 22:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Getting pretty sick of people reverting for "no consensus" and never making an appearance on the talk page. nableezy - 22:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

We have an established consensus on including the wider human rights situation in the lead. Yes, we dont have a consensus on any particular wording, but the editors that are edit-warring this out of the lead are not even pretending to engage in a good faith discussion about it here. Israel being accused of ongoing war crimes by the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, leading human rights organizations in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel is a noteworthy controversy that per WP:LEAD belongs in the lead. There has been no argument against it besides a lack of consensus, a lack that is demonstrably false given the result of the RFC. I am again returning it to the lead. And if you remove it without comment again Dovidroth I will be reporting it to arbitration enforcement. nableezy - 16:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"and human rights organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity" - This part is not lead-worthy; many countries have been accused of that. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

We have an RFC that resulted in a "clear consensus to include broader wording about the human rights situation in the lead." And now the same users arguing against that RFC are edit-warring out mention of the broader human rights situation in the lead. How would you suggest implementing that clear consensus? nableezy - 05:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

"Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn accusations of human rights violations." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The general human rights violations are not the accusations; those are matters of considerable international consensus, hence the OP's proposed wording: "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, and human rights organizations have accused Israel of ..." The only real question here is what to put in place of the "..." - since "apartheid" per se is out (although the RFC did precede Israeli law professors concurring on this), that brings us to the question of alternatives. If not "committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.", what else? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thats absurd, that does not address the topic at all. And the users who were all "strongly opposed" and were overruled against consensus continuing to obstruct and edit-war strikes me as textbook WP:TE. nableezy - 14:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani I dont think "at times" belongs, the war crimes are ongoing (eg settlements). Same for the crimes against humanity. nableezy - 17:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree, see 23 March letter from 30 Rapporteurs to ICC re Palestine investigation "Indeed since the Court opened the investigation, many new violations, allegedly amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity, have been committed." Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. Three users who were all strongly opposed to the RFC that resulted in a clear consensus to include material on the human rights situation are simply obstructing the implementation of that consensus, doing everything they can to water down what is already watered down to the point of meaninglessness. ScottishFinnishRadish, I know there was no consensus for any particular wording, but is this sequence really acceptable following that RFC close? nableezy - 18:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I wish that I had the time available to look into this but, unfortunately, I don't right now. I will say that the consensus for inclusion was pretty strong, so those opposed would be better served by working on compromise language taking that consensus into account, rather than waiting for another RFC and ending up with essentially no say in the resulting prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

So we're going to pretend Talk:Israel/Archive 91#RFC re human rights violations in the lead didn't happen? Somebody ping me after the TBANs are issued and maybe we can pick it up from there. Levivich (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I dont see a close there, but I do see one up above at this RFC that established that there is a strong consensus for wider language. Its fine, Ill open a new RFC now. nableezy - 15:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2023

In the official languages section of the infobox please change 2 things:

• Official languages → Official language (as there's only one official language)
• Make Hebrew link to Hebrew language not Modern Hebrew, as the overall article on the language should be linked. For a similar example, in the United States infobox, English links to English language, not American English

Thank you, and please notify me in your reply with {{ping|CityUrbanism}}  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

According to the BBC, the (frequently described as racist) Nation State law "ascribes Arabic "special status" and says its standing before the law came into effect will not be harmed." Idk what that means however. Anyone? Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

What that means is a debate to be had, but I think the request can be partly implemented, since Arabic has a separate field in the infobox and would not be affected. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: @CityUrbanism: I updated the link, but the wording cannot be changed here, because it's part of the {{Infobox country}} template. If you want, you can ask the folks maintaining that template to include an option for a singular official language at the relevant talk page. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm I believe singular official language works in Template:Infobox country. See Spain.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 22:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right, there's a workaround. Fixed! Actualcpscm (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm Thanks for your work.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

The United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel on March 25, 2019. --> The United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel on December 6, 2017.

The date the United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is in December 6, 2017, not March 25, 2019. March 25, 2019 is the day the United States officially recognized the Golan Heights.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel-capital.html WAccount1234567890 (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I was going to request an edit to this article in 'United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel', but I did it here by mistake. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Done there instead. Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

"allegations" of apartheid

This is a throwback to I think 2006-2007, but there has long been a strong consensus against "allegations" of Israeli apartheid. See the various move discussions at Talk:Israel and apartheid in years past for that consensus. And currently, there is a consensus that the main article be titled Israel and apartheid. Trying to sidestep that with a claim of necessary attribution by calling it again "allegations" is violating that established consensus. The section header should be consistent with the main article title, and that would mean simply "apartheid" as the section title. nableezy - 15:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It is totally groundless to accuse Israel of Apartheid, since Arabs in Israel enjoy all rights and are represented on all levels, including diplomacy.--Vernel222 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

None of that is true, and it lowercase a apartheid. As in the crime of apartheid. nableezy - 17:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Law professors Coalition deal

The below paragraph has been reverted twice in succession by editors Tombah and Dovidroth:

"In a March 2023, a position paper by the Israeli Law Professors' Forum for Democracy, a group of 120 Israeli law professors, stated that recent changes introduced by the Netanyahu government "validate the claim that Israel practices apartheid". Specifically, the group criticized the 23 February power-sharing agreement signed between the Likud parliamentary faction and the Religious Zionism faction granting special authority over the occupied West Bank to the far-right leader of Religious Zionism, Bezalel Smotrich. The law professors argue that this transfer of responsibility to civilian hands is a violation of international law and specifically the 1907 Hague Regulations."

This aspect of the power sharing agreement has also been criticized by the Biden administration, "U.S. officials, however, have warned about the transfer of Israel's West Bank authority responsible for civilian affairs from the military to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. It has called this a step toward annexation." and a Haaretz editorial "In light of the fact that there is no intention of granting civil rights to the millions of Palestinians living in the West Bank, the result of the agreement is a formal, full-fledged apartheid regime."

The constant denial by some editors apparently unable to see past their personal POV needs to stop. The first revert was based on it not having been agreed which is just wrong and the second revert gave no reason for it at all, just silent lockstep with the first revert.

References

Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

So this wayward slide in international law terms is very relevant, and this weighing in of domestic expert legal opinion on the subject, coming from a serious line-up of 120 Israeli lawyers with significant academic stock, seems mentionable. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Not seeing any objections, this could go back in.Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:IJDLI

@Tombah, @Shrike: Come on then people. Just shitting out the words 'undiscussed' [1] and 'without consensus' [2] doesn't actually mean anything unless you actually specify what you think requires discussion and/or consensus. I mean, both of those edit summaries are essentially the working definitions of WP:BRNOD, so unless status quo WP:STONEWALLING in a contentious topic area is your intent, I expect to see some fully elaborated explanations of exactly why a dozen edits are being mass reverted pretty soon. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah: So it's been three days now and I'm still awaiting that explanation, unless of course this silence is your silent consensus that you actually do not have a valid explanation for the entirety of the mass revert that you didn't look at very hard. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shrike: That's three-ish days for you too. Still no explanation? I will be running with this silence. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about removing ancient history? This discussed just above and I don't see any consensus for your view Shrike (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shrike: I did some trimming and copyediting; I didn't delete the ancient history section. I don't even really know what the purpose of the discussion above is, but it is not specific to my edits, or your reversion of them, which is what remains unexplained, and what I would like an explanation for. I'm pretty sure Tombah barely reviewed my edits, since they've already all but demonstrated that they didn't pay close attention to what they were reverting, but I haven't heard your explanation yet. And I still want it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This thread is discussing your edits please read it and make your argument there. Shrike (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Where are my edits discussed? I just see a general discussion about ancient history. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

But I see you did participated in these thread so why you participated in it you "don't even really know what the purpose of the discussion"? Shrike (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the purpose in the sense of I don't know what Nableezy hoped to achieve other than the predictable uproar, but I have participated where I feel it pertinent to counter particularly dubious lines of bullshit. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/993978512 nableezy - 18:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Another 3rd paragraph

On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution and Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence. The next day, a war broke out between Israel and its neighboring Arab states. The war concluded with the armistice agreements in 1949 leaving Israel in control of more territory than the partition plan required and the rest of the former Mandate territory were occupied by Egypt and Jordan, respectively the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. During the war, over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the territory Israel came to control to neighboring countries, with fewer than 150,000 remaining. In the decades after its independence, Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, primarily from the Muslim world. Since the 1967 Six-Day War Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, [including East Jerusalem], and Gaza, along with the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has established settlements in the occupied territories, except Gaza, and effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, all these actions are rejected as illegal by the international community. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded.

1. Exclude the controversial statement "the Arabs attacked", there will never be a consensus for that.
2. No number "five", no "one-third".
3. Exclude "no Palestinian Arab state was created", this is clear from the text.
4. Delete the information about the occupation of Sinai, change the text to reflect only the territories that Israel has occupied since the Six-Day War to the present day.
5. Should we mention "including East Jerusalem" twice?

Some sentences could be rewritten to be shorter, but would have limited impact. Mawer10 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Too long. The Arabs indeed attacked, it's not a question, it's a historical reality that cannot be revised or ignored- it must appear. Additionally, we have to drop the numbers - too detailed for lede. Tombah (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let's put "The next day, neighboring Arab states attacked" and after that we will put "Israel attacked starting the Six-Day War" too. Someone will want to say that Israel attacked as a preventive act of self-defense, and then someone will want to say that the Arabs attacked because... Anyway, this discussion goes far and the result will be "no consensus". As for the numbers, there was also no consensus to remove them, perhaps they could be replaced by percentage data but there does not seem to be a satisfactory one. I think if we were to add one more thing, it would be the fact that settlements are making it difficult for Palestinians to achieve their own state, nothing more. Mawer10 (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

US State history puts it "The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948" (my bold).

Source 4 in lead of 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight gives "more than 80% of the population at the time". Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Mawer10, not an improvement in the least. But more importantly, you are not even allowed to participate in this discussion, since you aren't an extended-confirmed user with 500 edits. I don't understand why nobody realized before. I suggest you to stop before sanctions become necessary. Leave this issue to those editors who are allowed to get involved in the first place. Dovidroth (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Non ecp editors are permitted to participate constructively in talk page discussion but not to edit or to participate in RFC, RM etc. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

So why did you remove this comment? Seems like a double standard. Dovidroth (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That was an RFC, non ecps are not allowed to participate (as I just explained). Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh yeah maybe learn the rules before saying something like that. nableezy - 18:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Dovidroth I am an editor and self-reviewer with more than 7,900 edits and more than 180 articles created on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and I have been editing on Wikipedia for 3 years, although my activity on the English Wikipedia is recent. You can look pt:Usuário(a):Mawer10/Artigos criados and pt:Usuário(a):Mawer10.Mawer10 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"During the war, more than 80% of the Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the territory Israel came to control to neighboring countries". Everyone agree? Mawer10 (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution and Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence. The next day, a war broke out between Israel and the neighboring Arab states. The war concluded with the armistice agreements in 1949 leaving Israel in control of more territory than the partition plan required and the rest of the former Mandate territory were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. Most Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the territory Israel came to control after the war. Since the 1967 Six-Day War Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, along with the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has established settlements in the occupied territories, and effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, all these actions are rejected as illegal by the international community. While Israel has signed peace treaties or normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded.

The level of detail about the Palestinians is ridiculous. Mass Jewish immigration began earlier and is already covered in the 2nd paragraph. Other trimming. Also, could we not create new sections about the same topic so often? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's fine, I would just change the sentence about the expelling of the Palestinians to "During the war, the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the territory Israel came to control". Mawer10 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Absurd downplaying of what occured, for the sole purpose of covering up the ethnic cleansing of a native population. nableezy - 14:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

How is this downplaying? This is just enough information for the lead. The article is about Israel, not the Palestinians or a past war. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The expulsions of the Palestinians is a foundational event in Israeli history. It is much more relevant than the Crusades or any other thing that has no relationship at all to Israel. But how is it downplaying? It doesnt give any idea of how many people that is. It would be like saying "most of the Native Americans were removed from their territory as the United States expanded west". nableezy - 18:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The expulsions of the Palestinians is a foundational event in Israeli history.

No, it isn't.

It doesnt give any idea of how many people that is.

It says "most Palestinians." It's ridiculous to count the number of Palestinians in the lead section of ISRAEL, especially when Jews were never counted in it.

It would be like saying "most of the Native Americans were removed from their territory as the United States expanded west".

There are five words about Native Americans in the lead of the United States: "In the late 18th century, the U.S. began expanding across North America, gradually obtaining new territories, sometimes through war, sometimes through purchase, and frequently by displacing Native Americans." --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The United States has 200+ years of history as a country, and it is not currently engaged in a conflict with the Native Americans. But yes, the article United States likewise downplays the ethnic cleansing of the native population. Id rather not repeat that error here. Im glad your No, it isn't gives this the same consideration and reflects the sources that your arguments have consistently done. Meaning, to be clear, it does not. The expulsion of some 90% of the native population from the territory that would become Israel is a topic that is given a huge amount of weight in reliable sources. This is not a hagiography for Israel, and we reflect notable controversies in our article's lead. Most is not nearly 90% driven from their homes. That is downplaying an ethnic cleansing, and it should not be accepted. nableezy - 21:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No, we won't make this article an essay about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor about the history of Palestinians. This article is about the state of Israel, and its lede requires only a short mention of the most significant events in the nation's history, and many are already missing. The portrayal of the 1948 events as "ethnic cleansing" is of course highly disputed; an opinion held by scholars deeply identified with one side of the conflict. Stating that many Palestinians were displaced during the war would be neutral and sufficient. Tombah (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry, did you become the arbiter of this article when I was not looking? This article is indeed about the state of Israel, which would mean removing the nonsense about ancient kingdoms not related to it, but also including the founding of it and its ethnic cleansing of the native population. No, that is not neutral or sufficient, and thankfully we already have a consensus on that, so if you again try to remove it through edit-warring we can see if you are indeed the arbiter of content here or subject to sanctions at AE like any other editor. nableezy - 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"thankfully we already have a consensus on that"

No, in recent weeks, many editors have cut that sentence short and removed the Palestinians numbers. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thats called edit-warring. Not a new consensus to remove. nableezy - 05:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

There were no less people who reduced the sentence than those who expanded it, so stop calling your version the consensus. "Most Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from the territory Israel came to control after the war." is absolutely enough for the lead. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about that version, and it had been stable with consensus for it since then. So yes, it was the consensus. And you were edit-warring your contested change in. And no, that is absolutely not enough for the lead. It is an absurd downplaying of an ethnic cleansing of a native population. nableezy - 02:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Specify Hebrew type

In the infobox (box to the right at beginning of article), it says the official language is Hebrew. That is correct, however, it links to Hebrew language which is about the Hebrew language in general, including past forms. It should say and link to Modern Hebrew, as that is the type of Hebrew currently spoken.

−

[[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]

+

[[Modern Hebrew]]

76.11.168.215 (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. I just recently made this change in the other direction, you can see the relevant request from @CityUrbanism: above. As far as I'm aware, linking to the article on the language in general is more common than linking to the variant currently spoken, but I might be mistaken. Is there any official guideline, policy, or at least well-established community consensus on this? Actualcpscm (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: That recent discussion was based on a bit of a false parallel. American English is not a language, but a regional dialect, so one would naturally not insert that as the language in an infobox. Modern Hebrew is not just a dialect, but a modern, revived form of Hebrew specific to Israel and very much the precise language in question, and the most appropriate entry. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

ancient history

None of the material in the ancient history section is relevant to a state founded in 1948, this is not an article on the history of the Jews and Judaism. We have that article, History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. But none of it relevant to the modern state of Israel. And since you all like pointing to other articles so much. United States, founded in 1776 with hundreds of years of relevant history (basically from the Mayflower) and covering an area ~450x the size of Israel, goes from ancient to modern in three paragraphs. The earliest relevant empire for this article is the Ottomans, and then the advent of Zionism. This would be like a biography of Nableezy beginning with Nableezy's great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather's first sexual encounter as the beginning of the history of Nableezy. It makes zero sense except as an effort to establish that this really really really REALLY REALLY is the now and forever the homeland of the Jews. That is not the purpose of this article. And Dovidroth, kindly dont remove maintenance tags without consensus, it is disruptive. Especially given how persistent the back and forth on the history section has been. nableezy - 16:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You cannot compare with United States as no European state existed in America. Israel case is unique in this regard and many sources connect the ancient Jewish states with modern state of Israel so it clearly WP:DUE to include and removal is violation of WP:NPOV Shrike (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thats just assertion. What is the relevance of the Canaanites to the modern state of Israel? What sources connect those topics? nableezy - 19:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Tend to agree also the lead is too long. I think this suggestion that was made before is better:

"Israel is located in a region known as Palestine or Eretz Israel, which throughout history has been controlled by various entities and regional powers due to its strategic position between Asia and Africa. The area has great significance to the Abrahamic religions and was home to several Israelite and Jewish states in antiquity, although Jews became a minority in the area in the 4th century.״ Qplb191 (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

We are not talking about the lead here. nableezy - 20:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

My bad , but anyway, the things you said are also true for lead. There is really no connection between that and modern Israel, only if you want to prove that Israel "only belongs to the Jews" Qplb191 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Really? Okay, try removing the Phoenicians, Arameans, Assyrians and Babylonians from the pre-19th century history of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq; classical period Athens and Sparta from the article on Greece; and any mentions of the Roman Empire from the articles on Italy and other countries along the Mediterranean, and the UK. Make it quick, and don't forget to remove any mention of Amon, Moab and Edom from the article on Jordan. Oh, and why are the pyramids and pharaohs included in an article about Egypt yet that area was dominated by foreign empires for 2000 years prior to Egypt's modern incarnation? Do me a favor, modern Israel has many more cultural ties to ancient Israel and Judah than Jordan will ever have to Moab, or modern Iraq to ancient Babylonia. Apologies, good faith and everything, but there is no other explanation for the blatant, repeated efforts made by some users here to delegitimize Israel by pushing POV edits. This needs to cease right away. We are destroying Wikipedia's reputation, and wasting everybody's time in the process. Tombah (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

April Fools' Day was 9 days ago, so this is a bit too late for this joke. No, we won't remove Israel's ancient history from this article. The same goes for Greece, which discusses Classical Athens and Alexander the Great, and Italy, which discusses the Roman Empire and the different empires which came to rule the peninsula. These are historical events and polities that, despite existing thousands of years before the modern states, have significant connections to them, and are important part of their history. Same about the history of ancient Israel and Judah, and no, it is irrelevant that parts of their territories were located in what is known is the past 75 years as the West Bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombah (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Once again, you are not the arbiter of this article. What sources connect these topics? And yes, of course it is relevant that much of what happened in the section is outside of Israel, as this is, once again, an article on the state of Israel, not a history of the Jews and Judaism in all of historical Palestine. nableezy - 20:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I won't waste my time explaining the obvious. If you really wish to read more on the subject, you can start with the Israeli Declaration of Independence. And what exactly is 'historical Palestine'? You seem to be employing politicized, non-academic words. Tombah (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ha!!!! See Palestine (region). That is a hall of fame worthy comment lol. But absent sources directly connecting random ancient kingdoms to a state established in 1948 and first imagined in the late 1800s it will be removed. nableezy - 22:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The whole history section is a mess and the why of that has been explained ad nauseum. The expression "historic Palestine" gets over 600K hits in Google. I won't waste any more time explaining the obvious because WP:IDHT and all. Selfstudier (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Which means what? By the way, you probably meant 122,000, mostly from non-academic (ideologically charged) sites. C'mon, this is getting ridiculous. Tombah (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"About 615,000 results (0.64 seconds)". Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You forgot the quotation marks. Remember: we're searching for the phrase as a whole, rather than individual word hits. Tombah (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

With quotes, duh. Teaching granny to suck eggs. Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

How about the 1.3 million scholar results for "Palestine" vs the paltry 79k for "land of israel"? Get off it, you want to pretend like Palestine is not the commonly used academic term for the territory you spend your time on you can pretend that, but I dont have to play along in that fantasy. I ask again, what sources connect any of these ancient kingdoms to the topic of this article? nableezy - 23:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

We were discussing the term "Historic Palestine", not "Palestine". You're welcome. Tombah (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and throughout history "Palestine" has been the common English term. See this ngram to demonstrate the point. And Ill thank you for not purposely misquoting me, I said "historical Palestine", not "Historic Palestine". Please be more honest in your comments than erecting strawmans rather than arguing against what I actually wrote. nableezy - 14:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The Hebrew/Israelite civilization was the main civilization in the Palestine region in the post-Canaanite era until the 1st century AD. The connection between modern Israel and the ancient Jewish kingdoms is the fact that Israel is an artificial recreation of these Jewish kingdoms. Ancient Hebrew civilization is linked to the existence of modern Jewish ethnicity and nationalism, and the latter are linked to the creation of modern Israel. Mawer10 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

That isnt true, or at least the latter bit. But again, what sources connect these topics? What sources that discuss Israel give that much weight to ancient kingdoms? Sources please, not personal opinions. nableezy - 00:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you having a laugh? Why is the state named Israel? Why is Jerusalem the capital? Why is the menorah on the nation's emblem? Why were the terms Judea and Samaria and other ancient Hebrew toponyms revived? Even the coins show motives used in coinage of the Great Jewish Revolt and the Bar Kokhba revolt, along with inscriptions using the Paleo-Hebrew script, including the word "Yehud", slogans used by Jewish rebels, and other symbols prevalent in Jewish art in antiquity. Either you're asking editors to prove 1+1=2 just for amusement, or you're so ignorant about the history of Israel that a topic ban might be necessary... Tombah (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

We dont operate on personal feeling, to avoid synthesis the sources on a topic must relate to the articles subject. Lots of countries invoke a nationalist mythology so that their population is distracted from their racist and colonial origins. That does not make that mythology itself relevant to the state. Again, what sources connect Canaan to the modern state of Israel, first even imagined in the late 1800s? If you cannot answer that, with sources and not personal feeling based on superstition, then the material should be removed. nableezy - 14:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if you'd read the Etymology, you'd know that it was almost called a host of other things, including Ever, Zion, and Judea – 'Ever' would have been more appropriate really, since it's where the government works to ensure that everyone lives happily Ever after heedless of the consternation of the international community. But everything is more broadly named after ancient things because of a persistent nostalgic mimicry of course. Everything has been intentionally branded to conjure up the past. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, Yahwist but not Jewish? Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. But more importantly, the history section of a country's article always deals with important events that happened in that land, even a long time ago. This article has information about non-Jewish history as well (the Persian-Byzantine wars, Arab conquest, Crusades, the Ottoman period, etc). This whole discussion seems pedantic and totally dishonest, not based on any wiki policy. Dovidroth (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe you don't if you can't tell the difference, but the comment was deleted to avoid getting into it. For project-based reasons as to why this material needs sensibly rationalizing, please see the reality check below. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Foundational to Israel's being. Israel was founded as the Jewish homeland, in Israel, the historic homeland of the Jews. It is 1,000% relevant. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sources decide that, not random people on the internet. Im going to be removing the stuff that fails WP:SYNTH. People who restore it will need to provide sources that do not fail our policy on original research. nableezy - 20:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This thread is just a deranged rant by an anti-Israel activist. The ethnic, geographic, linguistic and religious roots of the State of Israel are in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources connecting Canaan to the state of Israel. nableezy - 03:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do ancient people need to play any part in creating a country thousands of years later? The lead includes notable information on the history of the location, not just the modern government. With that logic we should remove every indigenous or minority group or previous civilization from the lead of every country article if they didn't play a part in creating the country, even though they played a history in the location of the country itself. Israel didn't pop into existence in an area where nothing previously happened, the region was inhabited for thousands of years by various groups of people who formed numerous civilizations. Bill Williams 13:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

They dont, but absent sources connecting the topics then connecting them in our article is WP:SYNTH, a subset of WP:OR. And prohibited. nableezy - 19:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have no clue why this argument has any relevance to this article, considering how the lead of Greece has an entire paragrpah nearly all on millenia old history, while the lead of China has an even longer paragraph on a much more detailed history of centuries old dynasties that didn't play a part in the founding of modern China. The same applies to numerous articles, and it's pretty obvious that Nableezy is targetting Israel specifically... Bill Williams 00:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Ive asked you several times to follow WP:NPA, please dont make me ask you at AE. I dont edit Greece or China. And this isnt about the lead. And Israel is not the continuation of an uninterrupted civilization spanning millennia, so spare me the irrelevant WP:WAX. nableezy - 03:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to state that you believe we shouldn't include history in the lead of this article that is included in dozens of other countries' articles, I think that cutting out history from this article doesn't make much sense to me when it exists all across the Wiki. What does "uninterrupted civilization" mean in this context, it's not like people just disappeared and stopped inhabiting it at some point, and do you think Greece and China and numerous other examples were run by the same government for thousands of years? Bill Williams 12:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

To say I am "targeting" anything is absurd. I have never edited the China article. I have zero interest in dealing with another topic in which nationalistic editors filibuster material on logically inconsistent grounds. I already do that with too much of my time tbh. This is a topic I am interested in and well enough informed in to edit competently. And yes, it is a personal attack. Stop talking about me, the end. If you cannot then yes I will ask that you be made to. As far as uninterrupted, theres a reason why the the history section skips past thousand of years of Arab and then Muslim rule. Its because it is focused on creating this narrative of now and forever the Land of the Jewish People. Whatever is inconvenient to that narrative, including that much of the history discussed in that section is focused on a territory outside of Israel, is ignored. nableezy - 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

"In the 7th century, the Muslim conquest of the Levant established caliphal rule. The First Crusade of the 11th century brought the founding of Crusader states, the last ending in the 13th century at the hands of the Mamluks, who lost the area to the Ottoman Empire at the onset of the 16th century." This mention of history in the lead of the article does not skip over Muslim rule, and we were discussing the lead of the article. I see no reason why we can't include a single paragraph on history in the lead, considering no country that currently exists popped up on unsettled land with no history behind it. Bill Williams 18:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Bill, this isnt about the lead. nableezy - 22:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Why would we take our cues from some of the worst country pages out there? These are both C-class articles - for sure, they're drowning in irrelevant bloat. There are exactly 10 featured articles-class country pages, which you can peruse here. Germany devotes exactly two sentences to pre-modern history in its lead, reflecting just 2,700 words of history in its body. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Germany didn't have much notable history from thousands of years ago, so that isn't a reasonable example. Those articles might not be great, but every I'm stating that numerous countries that have had notable civilizations for millennia and that belongs in their lead. Egypt has an entire paragraph in the lead of what happened centuries or millennia before the modern country existed, as does Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and numerous other countries with significant history. Why should this article in particular not mention the notable history of the region? Bill Williams 12:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, I provided Germany as an example of a "featured article-class country page", as opposed to Egypt, which is a C-class mess. Japan, another featured article, has extensive history, but only 1,500 words in its history. I believe Nableezy's principle point here is that the ancient history is overweighted and undue, and that's true. Somehow this article does fine summing up 1,000 years of medieval history in less than 300 words, but the preceding 1,500 years (pretty remotely distant history at this point) sits above 900 words. Do the math. Even allowing for a certain degree of nationalistic latitude, does that seem properly weighted to you? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The best featured article in that regard is Japan, which manages to sum up 32,000 years of pre-history and history in 188 words. Anyone with an average knowledge could, editing, easily bloat that out to ten times that size, by citing really core things not mentioned, like the Yayoi and Kofun periods. Fortunately editors preferred the crisp laconicism favoured by FA reviewers. There seems to be no interest in driving this to good article status let alone FA. Nableezy's point is cogent. Israel was established in 1948, and its prehistory goes back to 1882,1895, when Zionist movements took shape which, when implemented, gave rise to the state of Israel after half a century. That itself is an extraordinary achievement, whatever one's POV.

The problem arises when editors try to ground the rationale of that state in the particular story of events that, leaping 2000 years, gave rise to the Israeli kingdoms in the early Ist millenium, and under the Hasmoneans - the prior 3 centuries of autonomous statehoods established in that territory. They do so, understandably, because an asserted continuity with the ancient period exists with the modern reality in the charter myth of Zionism. But Israel is not a 'successor state' (Toynbee) of the Israelitic Northern Kingdom and Judea. It is the brainchild of the characteristic nationalism of modern European states applied to the Middle East, and as such, as with every other European state, the core problem it faces is to decide whether the heuristic model for its future is to hew to its immediate European parent model, or cleave to a piece of engineering that will reforge it in terms of the analogies of Israelitic and Jewish history prior to 2,000 years ago. Editors who oppose expansion basically subscribe to the former view, and the POV used reflects a postwar eurocentric reading of history. The editors who opt for the latter idea of the state as a redemption of the ancient status ante quo before the ills of the diaspora set in (as the story goes) exhibit a POV that affirms Israel's essential continuity with the examples of nationalism exhibited in the reigns of Kings David and Solomon, Judas and Jonathan Maccabee, Hyrcanus et al. The past, we all know, is another country, and Jewishness is an immeasurably vast, greater historical story spanning millenia, not to be straightjacketed into the political realities of some centuries in the past, or the past 75 years. They should not be confused, nor ineptly conflated by trying, as only poets do, to pour a sea into a thimble.* Do so, in historiography, and you only get doggerel, like our lead.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

One never knows, someone mighty object to my nanoscoping Italo Calvino's glass metaphor and accuse me of a shaky memory. La poesia è l'arte di far entrare il mare in un bicchiere/Poetry is the craft of getting a sea to fit inside a drinking glass).Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Reality check

For those that think a country page's history section should be an endless homage to the pre-modern past, think again. The actual WikiProject Countries guideline is for the History section to contain 4-6 paragraphs of text, that's total, for all eras. Now, while that might be unduly conservative, not a single featured article-class country page contains more than 3,000 words of history total. The history section here is 6,000 words. The precise reason why "History of X" pages exist is to avoid the over-elongation of concise entries on modern countries. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I can go with this. In terms of modern Israel, it really doesn't matter which cities were destroyed in the Late Bronze Age collapse, or how exactly Rome came to dominate the area. But whoever chooses which details to delete is likely to do so in a highly biased manner, and this needs to be subject to debate and consensus. Ar2332 (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 Thank you for this entirely reasonable contribution to this discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think for such extensive change we need an RFC if such change is warranted if the community will think it is we need a second RFC to understand what to delete if it all --Shrike (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

aka WP:FILIBUSTER. nableezy - 14:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not a guideline, which is clearly stated at the top, by the way, but just an outdated essay by someone. No country has nearly as little as "4-6 paragraphs" of history, of course. But what needs to be trimmed first here is the over-detailed "British Mandate" section. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, so the one part that needs trimming is the most formative period for the modern country? Hmm. Not sure that totally checks out - that's the most instructive and viable part of the pre-1948 history. Balfour, Irgun, etc. - all pretty key. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The "most formative" period in Israel's history is when its language, scriptures, nationhood and name came about, that is antiquity. I did not call for the removal of Balfour and the Irgun. I was talking about a short four-year period (1945-49), which is unjustifiably huge at 1200 words, just scroll though it. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You have no sources for that view. That is simply personal opinion based on national mythology. The formative period would be when it was actually formed. Last I checked my watch, that was late 1800s-1948ish nableezy - 02:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see the below section on distinguishing national mythos from formative history. The basis of the former ≠ the latter. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Declaration of independence

• Israel's declaration of Independence: ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books. After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom. Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. ... Israel's very founding in grounded in the Jewish history of the land. Couldn't be more relevant. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You're badly confusing national myth, a.k.a. the political form of origin stories, with history. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The two aren't mutually exclusive. While inevitably idealized (or "over-dramatized," as the Wikipedia article says), national myth can certainly be history. In fact, the most effective national myths tend to be those grounded in historical fact. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. Apart from considerations that wiki is an encyclopedia devoted to established articles on a factual grounding, myth and history are antonyms. I'm reminded that Nishida Kitarō tried to challenge the principles of Aristotelian logic by asserting the absolute identity of opposites.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Jewish history in Israel has significant historical grounding and relevance. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

What does that have to do with history outside of Israel? And what does that have to do with the modern state? Sources, not personal opinions please. nableezy - 22:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

dead sea scrolls

The scroll, the Temple Scroll, that Triggerhippie4 keeps trying to push in to the article was not found in Israel, it was found in Qumran. That is nowhere near Israel and it does not belong in a history of the state of Israel. This is not a history of the Jewish people in all of Palestine. This is an article on the state of Israel, and Qumran has never been Israeli territory. nableezy - 22:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Same for "Second Temple period". This is not an article on Jewish history, it is an article on a modern state. And using religious language is a transparent attempt to hammer home the "eternal home of the Jewish people" over and over again in a non-neutral way. nableezy - 22:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The Second Temple period is not a religious name but the preferred nomenclature for the period in Israel's historiography, deriving from the Second Temple in the capital and its central role in the life of the area, which was inhabited by Jews at the time. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not a history of the Jewish people. nableezy - 03:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a history of Israel, the Jewish state. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if one were to assume that is true, it is still not a history of the Jewish people. nableezy - 16:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There are 20+% living in it not Jews. If I went around saying the UK was an English state I'd soon be in hot water. For that matter, if I went around saying England was a Christian state, ditto, regardless of the legal position. Of course, there are people of an extremist persuasion who do that but they are best left to their own devices. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are you comparing Israel and the UK for this? Sounds like a false equivalence to me. Synotia (moan) 06:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Use the standard (more or less) periodization, less confusion for the typical reader. The link to a main article is anyway still there. Selfstudier (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

is English a recognized language in Israel?

across Israel all the signs are written in Hebrew, Arabic and English. English is taught in (almost) all schools in Israel and on the new shekel paper bills. although, there is no doubt its less present and less spoken then Hebrew and Arabic. should English be added as a recognized language? Turtle bot water (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

No, English has been removed by the Law and Administration Ordinance of 1948. The Ordinance said: "Any provision in the law requiring the use of the English language is repealed." Farrafiq (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Following that logic, most countries of the world have English as a recognized language. It's simply the language of international communication. Synotia (moan) 06:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Israel's status as a liberal democracy

Is it WP: Due for the article to describe Israel as a liberal democracy? The term has been repeatedly added in and removed without a RFC - but discussion over it dates back to the 2000s.

Thanks, KlayCax (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment It's not in the article atm, it says parliamentary democracy. repeatedly added in and removed without a RFC Save looking, are there diffs for the most recent time it was added and removed? Was there any discussion then? Because a discussion back many years is not really an adequate RFCBefore. Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, @Selfstudier:. There's been repeated edits attempting to add/remove the wording in the article and lead dating back years. The phrase "liberal democracy" is used in other articles about Israel and was in the lead until mid-to-late 2022. There's been sporadic attempts to add it back in since then. (The term "liberal democracy" is still used in several articles about Israel: on English and other language versions.) I'm going straight to RFC because it's clear there's going to be no clear consensus among editors otherwise.

I'm personally against inclusion since there isn't a consensus in the academic literature and major democracy indices. KlayCax (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• No - My sense of history is probably reflected in this Haaretz op-ed or this JP op-ed. If Israel could have ever been called a liberal democracy, the past decade or two have seen it move away from that position. Sadly, so many countries seem to be teetering on the edge of that abyss at the moment. From a broader perspective, the term "liberal democracy" is obviously going to be pretty subjective. We should probably only apply it in cases where it's obviously true. NickCT (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No: As noted above, 'liberal democracies' are generally in increasingly short supply these days, but if we look at the opening sentence of our page here on liberal democracy, Israel falls down at the first hurdles: "the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society ... and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people". Israel maintains a multi-tiered system of rights, strike one, and allows a large number of settlements on Palestinian land that are even illegal by its own very enabling system of laws in the occupied territories, strike two. More generally, like many countries, it is, of late, increasingly illiberal and oligarchic. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussing Israel's treatment of areas that are not part of Israel would then mean that almost zero countries in the world are liberal democracies, because the vast majority of them have commit human rights abuses in other parts of the world. Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the State of Palestine is not relevant to whether or not Israel itself is a democracy. The U.S. and other nations commit various human rights abuses across the Middle East over the past two decades even while they maintained free and fair elections, being a liberal democracy and having proper treatment of people outside of your country may be similar in a moral analysis of whether or not a country is a good country, but the term liberal democracy refers specifically to whether or not the people within that country are entitled to free and fair voting in the election of its leaders, which Israel's people, including any Palestinian citizen, have the right to. Bill Williams 01:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide any reputable definitions of "liberal democracy" that include having proper treatment of people in territory outside of the country itself? The entire article on "liberal democracy" says nothing about whether or not a country must treat people properly if they live outside of that country. As I stated previously, numerous liberal democracies across the world have commit human rights abuses against people in foreign countries, even while their own civilians were entitled to certain rights, many liberal democracies propped up regimes across the world that suppressed people's basic liberties. Bill Williams 01:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No, not anymore after recent political changes. Ortizesp (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's sad, but it doesn't seem like a liberal democracy anymore. --Pfarla (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No. Is that term functional anymore? I'm old enough to remember several species of polities of this kind, but most of them are dying on their feet, as the word 'liberal' was gradually redefined to mean 'free market' (economy), exclusive of any foundational concern for the traditional 'liberal' values. In the USA it appears to mean 'socialist'. The world has changed and Israel is no different.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Per the V-Dem Democracy indices and Freedom in the World. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The V-Dem index doesn't specifically categorize countries as liberal democracies or not, it just uses 'liberal democracy' as a loose header for one of its five indices, and Freedom in the World measures 'Electoral democracy'. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. For the reasoning Triggerhippie4 uses above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that must be written from WP:NPOV. In addition, the judicial reform bill has not yet been passed by the Israeli government, so it should not factor into our decision (WP:CRYSTAL). V-Dem is an independent (though of course, imperfect) source and per its article, "the most important provider of quantitative democracy data for scholarly research." It lists Israel as a liberal democracy at this time. When that changes, we can revisit. Longhornsg (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Prefer parliamentary democracy. Not even sure what "liberal democracy" means. Parliamentary democracy is indisputably true. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree...It is simply a generic term for a western style democracy. We could serve our readers better by saying what type of western style democracy it is. Moxy- 12:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• No. The term’s useful life is coming to an end due to the wide divergence of what people think “liberal” means. As per Adoring nanny, parliamentary democracy is better and is supported by the CIA World Factbook: [3]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

* Yes and No. Given that some sources claim that Israel is a liberal democracy and others claim that it is not the neutral thing to do in, my opinion, is to call it's status as a liberal democracy "disputed", "subject of discussion", or something in that general direction. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes and any other reason requires substantial justification. Discussing Israel's human rights abuses against Palestinians living under what they claim is an independent state has absolutely nothing to do with the state of Israel being a liberal democracy, it could be a liberal democracy and nuke entire cities in the Middle East for no reason but to kill civilians, because having free and fair elections is separate from harming innocent civilians. Numerous democracies have commit human rights abuses in other countries even while maintaining free and fair elections within their own countries. Gaza and the West Bank are not part of Israel, but Palestinians living within Israel are given the same rights as other Israelis, and there is zero evidence whatsoever that they are restricted from free and fair voting in elections. [4] As shown by Freedom in the World, a reasonable analysis of each aspect of Israel's democracy, and "the numerical scores and status listed above do not reflect conditions in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, which are examined in separate reports" which is the same thing that applies to countries like India, Pakistan, China, Russia etc. in areas where they claim territory that is not recognized as part of their countries under international law, therefore separate rankings are given. Bill Williams 01:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• No—We go to vote but get nothing in result. Israel's government/cabinet and the prime minister are subordinate to the Attorney General, and the High Court for Justice (which is composed of jud ges that weren't elected by the electorate by a committee in which they have veto power) have unlimited control over the government's decision and parliament's legislature (including Basic Laws) with ability to decide arbitrarily on grounds of "exceeding of reasonableness", and with the left-wing having totalitarian control over all civil institutions despite being the minority. Scr-ew sanc-shenz, this input on this topic is valid. If a rule prevents from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. 46.19.86.212 (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)>500 edits required to participate in RFC for contentious topic.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• No Per Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2022 Democracy Index Israel has slipped 6 places even before the current hoopla with a particularly poor showing in civil liberties like equality, human rights, religious tolerance, racial discrimination and personal freedoms. Still comes in ahead of the US (also a "flawed democracy") so yes a democracy, but the somewhat unclear adjective "liberal" seems inappropriate.Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary RFC - the issue can be handled through the normal process of editing. BogLogs (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Wrong question; the more pertinent question is what type of democracy is it? To quote: "That the protesters are chanting “democracy” reflects both their blindness and the shred of opening that they represent: blindness, because they misrecognize Israel as democracy when it is, in fact, a liberal ethnocracy that has maintained a military dictatorship in the West Bank for more than half a century. But also opening, because beginning to speak about democracy and ask about its meaning is the only way Israeli society will come to reckon with how the absence of real democracy continues to undermine the country’s political stability." Israel hasn’t been a democracy for a long time. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per Triggerhippie4 who gives V-Dem Democracy indices and Freedom in the World. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and trying to guess which way legislation and protests will go now is way too premature. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Also prefer 'parliamentary democracy' per Adoring nanny. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The page already uses "parliamentary democracy" at the top of the government section. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes per Bill Williams, too soon for any change. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Apartheid Israel

Israel articles do not reflect the plight of the Palestinians and does not highlight it's Apartheid regime. It's increasingly becoming difficult to change and add truth do these articles, which is dangerous for the Palestinians who need to be heard. Far right groups and constant riots are taking place in Israel as the coalition government is seeking to remove the courts and dictate, the page has no details of this. 2.27.113.28 (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the country of Israel. The issues with the Palestinians are discussed in other articles, as are the protests and Israeli government. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That comment is about Israel. The idea that the "issues" a country has should be segregated off to ancillary articles is one I have a hard time squaring with our NPOV policy. This is not a hagiography for the world's most perfect country and the shining beacon on the hill for all humanity to aspire to. nableezy - 17:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You're speaking like it is a universal truth accepted by every individual, country and organization in the world, but it is actually very far from that. Israel in fact does not discriminate against people based on their race, and even while the situation for Palestinians living specifically in the West Bank is quite complicated, it is really not apartheid. Yet, it is true that Israel has been the target of several related accusations in recent years; there's a brief explanation of the claims in the section on "Apartheid concerns", below the "Israeli-occupied territories" part of the article. And like 331dot mentioned above, these claims are covered in depth in several other articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Tombah (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh? You what? Israel absolutely does discriminate based on race. Even if all of the laws actualizing the second-class status of Arab citizens of Israel, as also examined exhaustively in the HRW and Amnesty reports and elsewhere, were not enough, the Basic law has enshrined racial discrimination into the very constitution of the country: institutional racism par excellence. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly the article is written by a person of Palestinian origin, so it's already going to pretty biased, then it mentions to links to the basic law of Israel, and said it had Apartheid characteristics, it doesn't you can go read it here, the 2nd link is a group of communities in the northern region of Israel near the Golan heights, but still under UN recognized Israeli territory. It claimed that the communities were illegal, but it was confusing since it's in the UN recognized 1948 borders of Israel Crainsaw (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you and I repeat that israel is indeed an apartheid state. Unfortunately pro-israel lobbyists here don’t want to include such truth. Its apartheid status is recognized by UNHR. Yokubjon Juraev (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The apartheid thing is disputed. In my opinion it has not reached that point (yet?).

However, the discrimination thing is obvious. In 2018, the Israeli government stopped giving a shit about what color it shows to the world: the white smoke was that law defining Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish people and removing Arabic's co-official status.

And it wasn't all jolly before that: one overlooked thing for instance is that Arab citizens lived under military rule from 1948-1966, needing permits even to just go from one town to another; Jews did not. Synotia (moan) 08:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this a joke? We just had a long RFC on that! This is why I never respond to anonymous IP comments who don't even bother to read the existing talk page. Dovidroth (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Israel absolutely does discriminate based on race. Palestinians have to go through checkpoints and gates and are denied basic human rights such as access to healthcare, and peaceful people praying in Al-Aqsa mosque are brutally attacked for just being Palestinian. And racism isn't only to Arabs, but also black Africans aren't considered "normal" to some. AhmedAkram903 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Everybody, even Jews have to go to checkpoints when entering certain areas under dispute, so basically all of Jerusalem, to make sure they don't have bombs, or weapons. And they aren't denied basic human rights. The Al Aqsa mosque was raided because of reports that they had bombs, and panned to lock themselves inside the mosques, looking at the history of the city, that could well be the case. And the African racism thing is common all over the world among older generations. Crainsaw (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Israel absolutely does discriminate based on race. Palestinians have to go through checkpoints and gates and are denied basic human rights such as access to healthcare, and peaceful people praying in Al-Aqsa mosque are brutally attacked for just being Palestinian. And racism isn't only to Arabs, but also black Africans aren't considered "normal" to some. AhmedAkram903 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no apartheid, and Arab nationalists need to stop pushing their emotional propaganda on pages which are supposed to be factual and neutral. Qatar and Saudi Arabia have also been accused of apartheid but we'd never see that on their wikipedia pages. 2A00:23C7:C09E:ED01:D18A:A13:B49E:FC8C (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Updated/Working source for the photo in section 'History' that a 1980 Law proclaimed "the complete and united Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel"

Direct Source for the law: https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/activity/documents/BasicLawsPDF/BasicLawJerusalem.pdf

This should be used to update source [229]

Accessed from: https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/activity/Pages/BasicLaws.aspx I am a Leaf (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Chronological Consistency and Continuity of References

Change "Palestine" to "Syria Palaestina" in "With the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century, the situation for the Jewish majority in Palestine "became more difficult".[94]" as that is how it is referenced to that point, i.e. "With the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century, the situation for the Jewish majority in Syria Palaestina "became more difficult".[94]" No reference for "Palestine" identification at this point. 2600:8802:E04:3900:9802:C09:41CA:9E68 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done. The source uses "Palestine"; it cannot be assumed that "Syria Palaestina" is implied. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The source mistakenly uses an anachronistic designation; it can only be assumed that "Syria Palaestina" is implied, as that is the official designation in the 4th century, and the designation previously introduced in the presented history, preceded only by "Judea". 2600:8802:E04:3900:9802:C09:41CA:9E68 (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Or they just mean Palestine (region) in the general sense, not the Roman Province per se. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC on implementation of apartheid RFC

Previously, an RFC was held that established clear consensus to include broader wording about the human rights situation in the lead that was not focused on apartheid. Should that include the sentence Human rights organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.? Nableezy 15:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - Israel is unique in that the UN Security Council has repeatedly, and recently, determined it is guilty of ongoing war crimes (eg United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 passed in 2016 said that the council "Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace") and it further has been accused of crimes against humanity by a number of human rights organizations (eg Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B'Tselem have all accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid.) These are notable controversies about Israel, and per WP:LEAD notable controversies belong in the lead. There are countless sources discussing the accusations that Israel is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the weight given to these controversies in the sources is considerable. Not just news sources every time a new report is issued (eg here or here or here or here or here), or the scholarly sources focused on them (eg here). That Israel has been consistently accused by the international community and by the world's leading human rights organizations or war crimes and crimes against humanity is a notable controversy that has the weight in sources to be included in the lead. nableezy - 15:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Meh A while back I wrote the following to Nableezy (see archive): I think it's pushing it far. Russia for example does not have the term "crimes against humanity" in its lead, despite killing at least 5x more civilians in the city of Mariupol alone in under two months than Palestinian combatants+civilians combined have died since 2008. Neither do other fucked up places like Burma. This is disproportionate.

Later I've been told that it's not because other articles are poorly written, that this one should be too. Now, I understand that argument, but I still deep down stand by my idea that Israel would be uniquely demonized on Wikipedia; would that be really productive for its credibility on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, considering these topics are still covered on here at length in any case? --Synotia (moan) 16:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Comparisons of criminality based on numbers of dead are distasteful to say the least; levels of criminality tend to be determined as much by the degree of intent as anything else. To the point of proportionality, no other country in the world can boast a military occupation on the longevity and scale of Israel's nor match its drawing night to the same crisis of morality as reflected in South Africa's original sin. As noted here, no other country has 45 UNHCR resolutions to its name. However, these additions need not be unique: why not start some similar RFCs on the Russia and Burma pages? If they sink, you can cry foul. For now, the claim of singling out is speculative. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course there are other such countries - Turkey has been occupying a part of Cyprus for 50 years and the ethnic cleansing there was much more thorough. Alaexis_¿question? 21:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Synotia. 'Israel would be uniquely demonized on Wikipedia'. No. We have a middle ground between 'demonization' and 'euphemization' which consists in simply stating the fact that Israel has been accused of those crimes often by highly regarded investigative bodies. Alaexis. The analogy is patently skewed. Turkey does not hold under occupation the other, Greek side of Cyprus, has not regularly bombed civilian infrastructure and does not conduct nightly raids all over the Greek side, or shoot up Greek Cypriotes in their towns as terrorists.Nishidani (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, they don't do it because there are no Greeks left under their occupation. Alaexis_¿question? 06:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Tell that to the olderly inhabitants of Rizokarpaso. You'll probably need a good dictionary of Cypriotic dialect to understand the profanity of their replies. Please desist from replying if you can't understand what is being said, i.e. an analogy was drawn between Northern /Southern Cyprus and Israel/ the Palestine Territories, and it shows you point was meaningless. Jeezus, does one have to spell out the obvious?Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

According to Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus there were 343 Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyrpus, which is about 0.2% of the pre-war Greek population of Northern Cyprus. On the other hand, 40% of Palestinians live between the sea and the river. This is precisely what I meant when I said that the ethnic cleansing was much more thorough - and recent - in Cyprus. Alaexis_¿question? 09:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No. This was just asked and answered a couple months ago at another RFC, Talk:Israel/Archive 91#RFC re human rights violations in the lead. I don't see any new information since the last RfC, so same answer as before. Repeating this RfC is disruptive, as is trying to edit war the language in. Levivich (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

An RFC that had no consensus is not a reason to oppose a new one. Nor is a talk page a place for complaints about user conduct, if you feel it is disruptive go report it., I hope the closers give this comment the weight it deserves. And yes, there is new information, namely we now have an established consensus that the lead should include material on the wider human rights situation outside of apartheid. nableezy - 16:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No. WP:NPOV. Many countries have been accused "of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

How is this NPOV specifically? Where is the quote "of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity" in the WP:NPOV Chefs-kiss (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No. We should wait considerable time before starting a new RFC per Levivich. This will be violation of WP:NPOV without mentioning the Palestinian terrorism also the lead is already too large and this matter is already discussed in WP:DUE manner anyhow the current wording is too much but I willing to accept it as matter of compromise --Shrike (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No. The lede of this article already promotes a very specific, fairly biased point of view on the subject by framing the whole history of Israel as the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - and continues to overlook the profound effect that Palestinian terrorism has had on Israeli history and daily life to this very day. We don't need to make room for highly disputed claims. Following the previous RFC, this article already mentions that Israel has been charged with violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, and this is more than enough. Tombah (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No per NPOV, Levivich, and Shrike. I would have expected someone proposing the text to include properly weighted sourcing, and absent such don’t see any reason to add. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

See the section Israel#International_opinion nableezy - 00:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes per OP.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No Per WP:NPOV @Nableezy: ffs keep the Israel-Palestine coverage on Wikipedia neutral. Sounding like agenda-based news agencies will only create mistrust in the user reading the articles for the first time on Wikipedia. Moreover, denouncing Israel on Wikipedia isn't going to make it any weaker. Best wishes!! Pg 6475 ^TM 05:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

ffs, please dont ping me again, especially if you are unable to articulate something approximating a reasoned argument. NPOV means including all significant views, and the view of the United Nations (General Assembly and Security Council), International Court of Justice, and the world's leading human rights organizations that Israel has committed and is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity is indeed significant. And "news agencies", regardless of the fake news-esque attempt at critique in calling them agenda-based, are what we on Wikipedia refer to as "reliable sources". But mostly dont ping me. Thanks. nableezy - 05:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I will, and I will keep keep pinging until I strive to make Wikipedia better. Wikipedia was created for knowledge. Not for politics. Pg 6475 ^TM 08:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No, you should definitely not ping editors who are notably on a talk page and who have requested you to desist.Bad manners. The point you tried to made is void of useful argument, since you patently fail to understand NPOV and fail to grasp a very elementary distinction by mashing up POV pushing fake news tabloid sources with RS. We are dealing here with the question of whether or not consistent and repeated references to a feature of Israel's history in highly reliable sources merits inclusion or not. And wikipedia is programmatically opposed to censuring material on the grounds of editors' personal or political distaste.Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Review WP:Harassment then. nableezy - 16:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• No - No other country in Wikipedia has accusations of "crimes against humanity" in lead, which is hyperbolic and WP:UNDUE, specially in this case. Take for example the articles of North Korea, Syria, Russia (its President is looked by the ICC for God's sake!) and China (even accusations of genocide in Xinjiang are not in lead). Dovidroth (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There is virtually no engagement by detractors with the proposition at all, despite having been invited to put forward alternative formulations on several occasions. There appears to be not just a refusal for the specific form of words but for any form of words at all, even though WP:LEAD says "The lead should....summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Are the detractors asserting that well sourced accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity are not a prominent controversy? I also fail to see what the treatment given to other countries has to do with the Israeli case. Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• SupportThe 'other countries are worse and Israel is being singled out' argument is an official meme circulating for decades. There are categories of nations. Israel is a democracy, not a totalitian or third world basket case. In Western terms it is anomalous: a democracy that has occupied another people for 56 years, sacks its resources, colonizes it best lands, closets the target population into bantustans, vaunts the ethnocratic nature of its state, demolished 56,000 houses beyond its borders, and shoots to kill people who exercise their legitimate right to protest at these violent practices by demonstrations on the grounds that throwing stones constitutes a lethal threat to occupying soldiers armed to the teeth.etc.etc- These anomalies that disconcert our expectations that Israel is 'normal' like us are endlessly noted by Israeli /diaspora scholarship, and authoritative NGOs. They are structural features of the state. Everyone editing here knows all this, it constitutes a section of the page and per WPMOS has to be summarized in the lead. As selfstudier says, y'all have to come up with an alternative to the phrasing objected to, which crisply captures the gist of these endemic accusation. And the euphemistic waffle about some generic phenomenon of 'allegations that Israel has abused human rights' is pointless. Please try to productively find a solution, rather than trust that numbers will paralyse any change.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the political essay. It was almost convincing. But keep in mind that this is Wikipedia, a site created to spread knowledge, not political agendas. No, we won't utilize the platform to evaluate a country using the standards an editor has just invented. Tombah (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes There are four types of crime prosecutable at the ICC, aggression, genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The latter two are subject of RFC. War crimes refer to crimes committed in the conduct of an armed conflict and there are 10 mentioned subtypes of crimes against humanity, see Quigley .

Quigley discusses "persecution", one of the ten, as alleged by HRW and reported by the BBC, among others. Apartheid is another of the ten regardless of whether the word itself is used and accusations by major human rights groups have been reported on extensively,

The 2022 US State report on human rights for Israel states (this source is generally supportive of Israel):

"Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings; arbitrary or unjust detention, including of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories;restrictions on Palestinians residing in Jerusalem including arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, and home;substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and association;arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative;restrictions on freedom of expression and media including censorship;harassment of nongovernmental organizations;violence against asylum seekers and migrants;violence or threats of violence against Palestinians and members of national, racial, or ethnic minority groups;and labor rights abuses against foreign workers and Palestinian workers."

That covers several others of the ten cases which along with accusations of war crimes are simple to source. Israel received a letter from the ICC briefly laying out the three main areas the investigation will cover: the 2014 Gaza War, Israeli settlement policy and the 2018–2019 Gaza border protests.

The conclusion must be that accusations of crimes against humanity (without specifying them even though we perhaps should) against Israel are notable and a major topic of controversy in the case of Israel and therefore required for the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 21:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• No it's absurd to be singling out Israel for accusations of human rights abuses, when numerous other countries have no such wording in their articles. You can reply to this with "other stuff exists isn't a valid argument" but it is obvious to any reader that the wording makes Israel seem worse than every other country in the world, which clearly is not a NPOV relative to any other country. Countries more than 10x to 100x the population of Israel that have oppressed millions more people and commit plenty of war crimes, accused by many of "crimes against humanity," have nothing about that in their lead, and it is misleading to readers to feature that here when it is featured no where else on the Wiki. Bill Williams 22:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  We share the same thoughts Synotia (moan) 16:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes: Not particularly extraordinary information - pretty much the bare bones in the context. I have waited for some cogent no votes to emerge, but none have. Opposers crying 'NPOV!' have no case. NPOV means NPOV with respect to reliable sources, and the proposed text is that Israel has been accused of a litany of sins, which it surely has; I don't see anyone providing sources that countermand the notion that it has been accused of these things. There is no NPOV case to be made. The whataboutist voters should go take their complaints to the other country pages. Accusations of war crimes in the Russia lead, genocide in Burma, ethnic cleansing in China, etc. are all perfectly valid. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• No, clearly over the top and sensationally worded with crimes against humanity. It is also absurd to single out Israel for such a sentence when countries with far worse records, do not have this. This is lacking weight and neutrality. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• No I prefer the current phrasing "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians." While the proposed phrasing is less ideologically charged than apartheid, and I do not think the current phrasing is perfect either (much, though of course not all, "international condemnation of Israel" is simply due to applying a double standard), the proposed phrasing unduly emphasizes two specific controversial charges. To be clear, there is evidence that Israel commits war crimes, but so do many countries. The phrase "violating the human rights of the Palestinians" is more inclusive of the various human rights abuses committed by Israel, encompasses a wider range of commentary on Israeli practices, and less ideologically-charged. Thus, it is a much clearer case to make that there is DUE, NPOV criticism of Israel for "violating the human rights of the Palestinians," a phrasing I would support, than for those two specific changes. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• No (summoned by a bot) Mention of "accusations" of war crimes in the lede is simply UNDUE. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per the OP's reasoning. Regarding WP: NPOV a lot of people saying it violates it but not explaining in what way. It would be nice for people to elaborate precisely what about NPOV they think is violated. It is simply giving more context. To quote 'Avoid stating opinions as facts' however the proposed text is 'Human rights organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity'. It is not stating as fact. The proposer has also added tertiary sources to confirm their statement as well as academic sources. However I do agree that perhaps its better to wait for a while before another RfC is done. Chefs-kiss (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• No. There is violence on both sides. This matter is too tangled to just sum it up in a lead sentence. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - I was on the edge but after reflecting on it I believe it may be actually applicable to include that sentence as it reflects the allegations made by the respected human rights organizations. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• No. The proposal is undue, pov, and ideologically charged. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

If you mean that quite popular ideology of enshrining and protecting human rights, then sure. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

In my humble opinion the proposal is reasonable, not undue and it's based on respected sources. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, urgently. Things like that can not simply be dismissed and excused with NPOV. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• No, this is a double standard against Israel and is not neutral. The source is weak, mentioning "crimes against humanity" and Israel in a list and is a polemical essay. StellarNerd (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. This is a central issue in the public discourse on Israel - hence the excellent coverage by RSs - and relates to a situation that is in many respects exceptional. WP:WEIGHT implies that the concerns of human rights organisations should be included in the lead.

  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No The lead doesn't exist for pointeing out human rights violations, besides as pointed out by Synotia other countries who've killed way more people or have had extesive human right violations still don't get that pointed out in the lead.Crainsaw (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No, as the lead already mentions human rights violations. Many other countries have been accused of war crimes (including the US and Russia) and for better or for worse it's not mentioned in their ledes (before you start typing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, please note that it's an essay and WP:Some stuff exists for a reason). Alaexis_¿question? 15:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No, this is wikipedia. Starting an article on every country with the bad stuff some organizations say about it, makes it less useful. It’s ok to have specific section for every country, listing these accusations, it’s fair. Having it right at the start − that’s too much. A person opens article to learn about the country − [alleged] crimes of country’s leaders is not the first (or second) thing that person probably needs/wants from the article. And if it is only for Israel, then it’s even more wrong obviously, because then it’s just turning an article into a propaganda piece.Stansult (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Add references

• What I think should be changed :

you can use the following sites(thefamouspeople and poetryfoundation) for the following text for the Literature: "Leading Israeli poets have been Yehuda Amichai, Nathan Alterman, Leah Goldberg, and Rachel Bluwstein." and DW and fivebooks to prove "internationally famous contemporary Israeli novelists include Amos Oz, Etgar Keret and David Grossman."

• Why it should be changed:

to add Citation

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://www.thefamouspeople.com/israeli-poets.php

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/yehuda-amichai

https://www.dw.com/en/5-israeli-authors-you-should-know/a-59072065

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/israeli-novels-ayelet-gundar-goshen/

3000MAX (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Dates

Early in the article there's dates like "1st Millennium BCE", and soon after it mentions "7th Century". BCE is not widely known to be the same as BC, nor is it clear that 7th Century isn't also in the BCE system to a lay person reading. Can potentially be confusing. 92.41.42.172 (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Territory of Israel

Isn't the current territory of Israel the result of an invasion? isn't the map depicting the current territory of Israel technically invalid? I see a lot of unfairness in the delivery of information. even Israel's criminal acts are not properly conveyed (such as the massacre of ethnic Palestinians, the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi Nuclear Plant on 7 June 1981, etc.). Mahawijaya Wisnuwardhana (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic. They state the current status of territorial possessions in this region. You are free to disagree. The dispute in that area of the world will not be solved here, so we stick to summarizing independent reliable sources. If those sources are in error, you need to speak to them, not us. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2023

This needs to be edited because Israel is not originally part of “Middle East” Asia. 2600:1702:3F70:3740:4C15:36E4:AD0A:F811 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• The request edit process is for proposing specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. If you just want to discuss a potential change, it need not be an edit request. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

Why is this conflict not mentioned in the intro? Seems important. natemup (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Because this is an overview article about the entire country, so it doesn't make a ton of sense for every single individual conflict/war to have mention in the intro. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to make perfect sense to mention every *major* conflict (i.e., war) in a country that's only 75 years old. To mention the others and not the YKW seems silly. natemup (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Good thing not all of the others are mentioned, then? The Suez Crisis isn't mentioned, nor is the War of Attrition, the Yom Kippur War, nor the South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000), nor the 2006 Lebanon War. The Yom Kippur War did not result in much of any territorial change, unlike the 1948 war and the Six-Day War, which are mentioned in the introduction. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure those are on the same level as the YKW, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Even if it did not result in major territorial change, it was a major moment in the region because of Israel's early defeats, the Arab gains on several levels, and the landmark treaties after the war—which are mentioned in the intro, but not the war that caused them. natemup (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe if we delete some more of the ancient history there might conceivably be some room in the lead to fit some of this slightly more relevant material back in ... Iskandar323 (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

"back in"... So my suspicion is correct that the YKW was previously mentioned but removed? natemup (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. I have no idea if it was ever in the lead before. I misspoke. You'll have to check the page history yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Under the mandate the region ...

First, that the Hebrew used by the Mandate included the Hebrew abbreviation EY is relevant to what it was called by the British in Hebrew. But the sentence is about what it was known in English, not in Hebrew or Arabic, which is why there is no Arabic transliteration in that sentence either. Second, a Jerusalem Post article for a history topic is just silly, there exists actual scholarship to draw from for history, we dont need partisan news sources. A blog is likewise a crap source here. But regardless, the addition is off-topic there. nableezy - 05:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The line was already in the article (I did not add it, if you’ll note the edit history). I was merely correcting an incorrect labeling of a translation that was being transliterated as “Eretz Yisrael”.

Given that the Jewish population pushed the British authorities to call the mandate “Eretz Israel”, and went so far as to insist that the *official* name on all Hebrew documents be “Palestine (EY)”, and named their successor entity “Israel”, I absolutely do think this factoid relevant to the point in the article. (Just as this items has already been pointed out on both the Mandatory Palestine and Palestine Pound pages).

This is not controversial fact. It is well attested and on every single coin, paper money, and Hebrew language official document from the British Mandatory period. I didn’t think that needed to deep dive JSTOR for articles pertaining to this just to make muster, but someone else reverted my small correction as if I had vandalized the page, so I pulled some quick refs.

If you insist the blog source be removed, not an issue. And understood if you feel JPost is too partisan. But the article is not - it is tame historical rehash of a minor footnote in the history British Mandatory paperwork.

This should not devolve into some revert war. There are bigger fish to fry. Mistamystery (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You seemingly did not read what I wrote. The sentence is about what the region was known by in English. That the official British Hebrew name for the mandate was Palestine (EY) is certainly something to note and the reason for it likewise, maybe not in this article, but possibly. It however has nothing to do with what the region was known by. nableezy - 05:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote, I just don’t think we’re looking at this the same way.

I don’t take that sentence as explicitly being focused exclusively or conditional on what the name of the mandate was in English. We have one sentence separating an official naming of the British Mandate, to the name chosen for one of its successor states. That the *official* Hebrew name of the Mandate bears direct relationship on the the successor entity I think is reasonably relevant, and the subsequent correction I was going to make was to point out that it was officially known in Hebrew as such.

Of course one could include the Arabic as well…

Need to point out this item has been on the page for a while, with no one raising a single fuss about it until an innocent edit brought it to attention and immediately attracted two reverts with zero discussion. Mistamystery (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

And for other editors to comment on (not about just us, after all), I’m proposing the following adjustment to the previous version of the section opener:

“Under the British Mandate (1920–1948), the whole region was officially known as 'Palestine' (officially in Hebrew: פלשתינה [א״י], lit. 'Palestine [Land of Israel]'). Upon independence in 1948, the country formally adopted the name 'State of Israel' (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל).”

Obviously can raid JSTOR for more “neutral” sources, but I don’t think the facts pertaining to the EY appellation are particularly controversial.Mistamystery (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

First off, no the official name was not literally Palestine [Land of Israel], it was Palestine [EY]. Second, why would we only include the Hebrew there? Arabic was an official language of the Mandate, and spoken by an overwhelming majority of the population? nableezy - 14:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Even that's not what the blog source actually noted, which was that under nationality the Hebrew language documents put "Palestinian [EY]"; that appeared to be the extent of it from what I gathered from the source. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Replying to all three recent comments: .

1. Obviously, if it’s suitable and there’s room for it, the Arabic name should be included as well. Given that it’s merely “Palestine” in Arabic, perhaps there may be a redundancy issue (if the section now seems too overfilled), but this is not an item of concern to me. Absolutely can mention the Arabic name, and note the diplomatic arrangement pertaining to the “official” name(s) that the British arranged while we’re at it.

Also, absolutely not insisting that *only* the Hebrew name be in the sentence. That’s merely what was there preceding my edit, and I think it relevant to preserve the item to connect to the following sentence around the naming of the country.

2. Not what the blog post says. (though again, will admit again the blog citation overall was just a quick grab pending the inclusion of a a more substantive source). Blog says:

“The same acronym shows up in all official documents where the words Palestine or Palestinian were used in Hebrew, most prominently on currency and stamps.”

The official policy (established during the administration of the first Mandate High Commissioner Herbert Samuel) was that in Hebrew, on all Hebrew language documents, as well as all official state currencies and postage, the official name was [פלשתינה [א״י (translation “Palestine (EY)”, acronym: Eretz Yisrael, lit. “Land of Israel”)

See: File:Palestine stamp.jpg,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#/media/File:عملة_فلسطينية_معدنية.jpg,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stamp_palestine_10_mils.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mill_(British_Mandate_for_Palestine_currency,_1927).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1_Palestine_Pound_1939_Obverse.jpg

3. Noted re: country comment, re-proposing section to read as follows:

“Under the British Mandate (1920–1948), the territory was officially known as 'Palestine' ( Arabic: فلسطين, : Filasṭīn, Officially in Hebrew: פלשתינה [א״י], lit. 'Palestine [ EY ]'). Upon independence in 1948, the Jewish state formed out of the 1947 Partition Plan formally adopted the name 'State of Israel' (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל) Mistamystery (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Upon independence in 1948, the country formally adopted the name 'State of Israel' (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל).” What country? Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Infobox maps

Under the first image that shows Israel on the globe, I suggest changing the caption from "Israel within internationally recognized borders shown in dark green; Israeli-occupied territories shown in light green" to "Israel within internationally recognized borders shown in dark green; Disputed territories shown in light green", since it depicts both the areas claimed but not controlled by Israel, as well as the areas controlled by Israel and claimed by its neighbours (Palestinians and Syrians), adding the note that would explain the current status of each disputed region (West Bank partially controlled by the PNA; Golan Heights controlled by Israel but claimed by Syria; Gaza Strip controlled by Hamas and claimed by Israel). The second image that shows the map of Israel is totally irrelevant, since it shows West Bank and Gaza as disputed territories, while ignoring the Golan Heights. I suggest changing this image with File:Israel de facto territories.png, that shows the actual situation in the region, as well Israel's internationally recognized borders. CapLiber (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No, they are widely regarded as occupied territory. "Disputed territories" is a made up term used by Israel to attempt to detract from that near universal agreement that these territories are occupied. The second map shows Israel proper, it does not include the West Bank or Gaza in it. White is Israel, grey is outside of Israel. Beyond that, Israel does not even claim wither the West Bank or Gaza, and whether or not they claim the Golan, while logically obvious, has been historically left ambiguous by the state so as not to draw even more international condemnation for the unambiguous violation of international law of annexing occupied territory. nableezy - 13:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

In this case the term "disputed territories" is not chosen for some sake of neutrality, but rather to unite both the territories claimed by other states that are currently under Israeli control (Golan Heights, parts of West Bank) and territories claimed but not controlled by Israel (Gaza Strip). To call them all "occupied lands" is simply misleading as not all of them are under Israeli military control. This change is not rhetoric-driven to neither Israeli nor Palestinian side. A link to the article Israeli-occupied territories in this caption would help people who are unfamiliar with the whole thing to get a proper insight on the situation. CapLiber (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Gaza has the same status as the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan, that being Israeli-occupied. There is more dispute about that than the others, and that is laid out in the text, but Gaza remains widely considered occupied territory. See for example Amnesty International or the ICRC ("The ICRC considers Gaza to remain occupied territory on the basis that Israel still exercises key elements of authority over the strip, including over its borders (airspace, sea and land – at the exception of the border with Egypt). Even though Israel no longer maintains a permanent presence inside the Gaza Strip, it continues to be bound by certain obligations under the law of occupation that are commensurate with the degree to which it exercises control over it.") nableezy - 15:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Uh you cant just decide the sourced responses provided to you are irrelevant and insert your own POV. And yes, it is POV, you are specifically espousing the POV of Israel that these are "disputed territories". See for example here. The view that these territories are occupied is a super majority view in reliable sources, and our map shows that. nableezy - 04:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Is there no page about the current events in Israel? If there is, please ad a box on the top of this page, so people can find it, thanks. AidepikiWeerF (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

See October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict, which is linked on the Main Page in the In the news section. General Ization ^Talk 00:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. AidepikiWeerF (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

doesnt really talk about how they are jewish

jewish 2600:8800:39A:6000:F88A:523B:3E03:EECC (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If by "they", you mean the residents of Israel, "they" are not exclusively Jewish. Read the article, in particular Israel#Religion. General Ization ^Talk 01:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Area of Israel

I get it, there are many border disputes with the neighbor country of Palestine, but i have something to ask y'all: Can somebody please correct the area of Israel from 20770-22072 sq km to 21937 sq km? Because The World Factbook says that Israel is 21937 sq km (Source: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/israel/). I know they do have some outdated info that has been updated but some parts of The World Factbook are still accurate right now. The edit will also make the area of Israel more neutral, but it's worth having an efn within it. 2601:280:5000:D2F0:A3ED:7895:E701:7D9F (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats with the Golan, which an overwhelming majority of sources do not include within Israel. We include the entire range, what is Israel proper, and what would it be including East Jerusalem and the Golan. nableezy - 03:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023

There is some misinformation i want to edit Yanis-Ali (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023 (2)

I want to requesting straight-forward changes like grammar, spelling, formatting and some mistakes I found in the articles FreelancerTop1 (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. General Ization ^Talk 19:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

the name should be changed to zionist entity Freepalestine45 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Parham wiki (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023: Lead

Change "Israel [...] is a country in West Asia." to "Israel [...] is an apartheid state in West Asia."

Another possibility is "Israel [...] is a Jewish ethnocracy in West Asia."

In particular, allowing the lead continue to call it just "a country" is not tenable. It amounts to a lie by omission. KetchupSalt (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Parham wiki (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Mental asylum

what happened to test subjects 2603:9008:1907:E0BC:F582:1CB5:AA27:6223 (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)