Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Under ] the introduction is missing a key "notable" topic re Israel - the international criticism it has received. Whether or not we agree with the criticism, its existence is widely recognised and it is highly relevant to the country. It is clearly a sensitive topic however - I have put a suggestion below, and would ask if all editors could help me make sure it is balanced before putting it in. Thanks.
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=Talk:Israel/Archive index |mask1=Talk:Israel/Archive <#> |mask2=Talk:Israel/Israel and the Occupied Territories-<#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}
''Israel has faced ongoing international criticism since its Independence in 1948, including with respect to its refusal to allow post-war Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, its invasion, occupation and annexation of neighbouring territories and the building of settlements therein, and accusations of economic strangulation of occupied territories and human rights abuses of Palestinian Arabs.''
] (]) 17:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
:Might I suggest that you read ]? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
:: Agree with Malik, the lead is already quite long and aspects of the proposed text (although not exact mathces) are already present in the lead. --] (]) 11:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
__TOC__
Thanks both. Dailycare, the key aspect of the proposed text is not already in the lead, that is, there is no description of the international criticism which Israel has had to defend itself against. Malik, your comment was flippant given I have said that I am aware this is sensitive - I have tried to remove any POV. Please expand your critique or preferably suggest an appropriate balance - it is clearly a highly notable subject with respect to Israel.] (]) 20:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
: Is international criticism an important feature relating to Israel as such? WP:NPOV states that those viewpoints that are given space in reliable sources should be given roughly proportionate space in articles. I'm not dead-set against mentioning criticism specifically, but you'd need to show that reliable sources (per ]) give it significant space to warrant including it in the lead. Please also see ] --] (]) 21:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
:: Run a ] - put the words "international criticism" into google, and count out of the top 100 articles, how many refer to Israel. It is highly disproportionate. ] (]) 23:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
:: Also, try putting the terms "israel criticism" (not in quotes) into google news archives. The most striking part is not the huge number of articles, but the fact that they almost exclusively refer to criticism OF Israel rather than BY Israel ] (]) 23:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
:::The content of a lead is determined by ]. Arguments for changes to the lead need to be based on ]. The lead is dependent on the content in the article so providing reasons for changes to the lead based on ghits and related arguments without referring to content in the article body isn't the right approach. It's the content in the article body and the relative importance of that information that determines whether and how something should be included in the lead. I haven't checked whether something similar to the material you are proposing is already present in the article body but its presence is a prerequisite for inclusion in the lead. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 04:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
== RfC ==
Below is a raft of ] on the proposed topic. Sean, I take your point - i'll clarify and add as appropriate in the body of the article and then come back to the lead.
<!-- ] 23:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1735340468}}
* '''The Case For Israel, Alan Dershowitz, 2004, p1''' "The Jewish nation of Israel stands accused in the dock of international justice. The charges include being a criminal state, the prime violator of human rights, the mirror image of Nazism, and the most intransigent barrier to peace in the Middle East. Throughout the world, from the chambers of the United Nations to the campuses of universities, Israel is singled out for condemnation, divestment, boycott and demonization."
Should the article ] be linked from this article, and if yes, where?
* '''The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace, Alan Dershowitz, 2009, p1-2''' "For a tiny nation of little more than six and a half million citizens living in an area roughly the size of New Jersey, Israel has proportionally more enemies than any nation on earth. No nation has been threatened more often with divestment, boycotts, and other sanctions. No nation has generated more protests against it on college and university campuses. No nation has been targeted for as much editorial abuse from the worldwide media. No nation has been subjected to more frequent threats of annihilation. No nation has had more genocidal incitements directed against its citizens. It is remarkable indeed that a democratic nation born in response to a decision of the United Nations should still not be accepted by so many countries, groups, and individuals. No other UN member is threated with physical destruction by other member states so openly and with so little rebuke from the General Assembly or the Security Council. Indeed, no nation, regardless of its size or the number of deaths it has caused, has been condemned as often by the UN and its constituent bodies. Simply put, no nation is hated as much as the Jewish nation."
:Possible answers:
* '''In Defense of Israel, John Hagee, 2007, p1''' "You look toward the United Nations, which Ambassador Dore Gold calls 'the Tower of Babble'. You look at Europe, where the ghost of Hitler is again walking across the stage of history. You open your newspapers and read about American universities, where Israel is being vilified by students taught by professors whose Middle Eastern chairs are sponsored by Saudi Arabia. You look to America's mainline churches and see their initiatives to divest from Israel. You go to the bookstore and see slanderous titles by the former president of the United States - and you feel very much alone"
*'''No,''' it should not be linked
* '''Will Israel Survive, Mitchell Bard, 2008, p1''' "Israel might be the only country in the world whose right to exist is debated and whose future is questioned. Can you imagine anyone asking whether the United States will survive or whether it should exist? Or anyone saying "no" is asked?"
*'''Yes,''' it should be linked in the lead.
* '''Israeli views of International Criticism''': According to survey by Tel Aviv University, more than half of Israelis believe "the whole world is against us", and three quarters of Israelis believe "that no matter what Israel does or how far it goes towards resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, the world will continue to criticize Israel".<ref name="peace index">{{cite web|title=Tel Aviv University, Israel Democracy Institute, Peace Index August 2010|url=http://peaceindex.org/indexMonthEng.aspx?num=56|accessdate=2010-12-07}}</ref>
*'''Yes,''' it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph)
* '''UN Criticism''': In recent years, the Middle East was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions, 100% of the ] resolutions, 100% of the ] resolutions, 50% of reports from the ], 6% of ] resolutions and 6 of the 10 ]. These decisions, passed with the support of the ] countries, invariably criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.<ref>''database search from </ref> For further details, see ] and the ].
] (]) 00:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
: I propose to add appropriate text under either ''2.4 History / Conflicts and peace treaties'' or ''4.5 Government, politics and legal system / International Criticism''. Let me know if any preferences. ] (]) 00:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
:: Added as promised.] (]) 19:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::Remove the POV "international criticism" section from the article, it's not to be found in articles about other countries-nor do similar sections.--] (]) 22:35, 11December2010 (UTC)
cheers, ] (]) 22:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
===Polling (RfC)===
::::::Agree. Even ] doesn't have such a section. Criticism of Israel can, by all means, be worked into the article, but I would suggest that: 10K in one go is far too much; material should not be drawn exclusively from sources representing one POV; given the sanctions, wording should be presented for comment on the talkpage first. --] (]) 23:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
{{notavote}}
::::::: The fact that other country articles do not have a similar section is <u>not a valid argument</u>. There are no standards. The volume and variety of sources on this topic is indisputable, and are drawn from all sides of the spectrum.] (]) 00:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Yes,''' it should be linked in the lead and the body of the article, attached to content similar to that {{u|Selfstudier}} developed above, and content similar to that {{u|Huldra}} developed in {{oldid2|1258656766}} would serve well in the lede. It's obviously something readers are going to be coming to this page to learn more about, and the information exists on the encyclopedia, the conversations about whether it belongs here or not have laready been had, so there's no reason this page should not serve reader needs. — ] 🚀 <sup>(] • ])</sup> 21:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: I agree that how other wiki pages are written aren't strong arguments for how to write this one, but all the sources mentioned above represent the POV that criticism of Israel is ''wrong''. --] (]) 11:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Yes,''' adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph + add a single sentence to the end of lead , ] (]) 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::While it should be mentioned somewhere, i dont think the article on the country itself warrants such a section regardless of comments that ]. (for the reasons mentioned below) Maybe a see also link.] (]) 04:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
*:I don't understand why it would be necessary to add it as a completely separate paragraph (if we were to add it) instead of just putting at the end of the third paragraph, which is far more related, and less abrupt. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes,''' {{TQ|adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph}} and add a single sentence to the <s>end of</s> lead per Huldra, but I would modify their suggested text ''("In 2024, Israel was accused of committing the ])"'' to ''"In 2024, Israel was accused of committing ]"'' or similar. My logic for the change is that the accusation/dispute centres on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide ''(or are legitimate self-defence/similar)'', rather than whether the 'Gaza genocide' is being committed by Israel ''(as opposed to some other State or body)'' which Huldra's text otherwise implies.] (]) 07:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', I agree with the inclusion in the lead. ] (]) 16:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' to Selfstudier's suggestion in the body per the weight of reliable sources given (I'll leave to others to determine where), with a summary in the lead. Only suggestion is to add the arrest warrants on. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' it should be included in the lede and in the body text.--] (]) 14:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' similarly to how self has suggested ] (]) 00:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' Not until a new article about Palestine's genocide against Israel is linked to the Palestine article.<ref name="b920">{{cite web | title=Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I issues warrant of arrest for Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri (Deif) | website=International Criminal Court | date=2024-11-21 | url=https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-warrant-arrest-mohammed-diab-ibrahim | access-date=2024-11-26}}</ref>] (]) 01:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*:See ] and then perhaps think about making a policy based argument or your !vote will likely be ignored by whoever closes this RFC. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' Given that there is no actual genocide. Very much not. ] (]) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' The article "Gaza genocide" presents claims that lack broad consensus within the international community and are subject to significant dispute. Linking to such an article may mislead readers into perceiving these claims as established facts rather than contested allegations, thereby compromising the integrity of the host article. ] (]) 20:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' per MaskedSinger, Allthemilescombined1 and Eladkarmel; feels like including this would unduly shoehorn something in that doesn't belong in the general overview article. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Not in the lede'''. It should be made clear that these are accusations and many sources do not agree with this characterisation. Note that many country articles don't mention genocides in the lede even when there is a consensus that it happened (], ], ] (]), ], etc). ]<sub>]</sub> 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::] just a question: when you say "nor in the lead; does that mean you think it should be in the body? If so, which paragraph? ] (]) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. There's a relevant section where it can be mentioned: ]. Right now, this article doesn't mention two important things: That the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a fugitive wanted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, and that Israel is being charged with genocide by South Africa in the International Court of Justice. I think there can be a new subsection in the "Israeli occupied territories" section, that mentions both facts. I see ] has given a sample text. I support that paragraph being added to the relevant section, but I think a mention of the ICC's arrest warrant of the Prime Minister of Israel (and Yoav Gallant's warrant too) could also be added, since it's also international litigation for crimes against humanity in Gaza. Mohammed Deif's arrest warrant doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. I think we can have a new subsection titled "Gaza Strip" that moves text that already exists in the section. So in addition to ]'s text, I would add the first sentence of the ] to the end of it, and make it look like ] (A link to a sandbox page that would show what the article would look like).--] (]) 05:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:As far as adding it to the lead, the already existing sentence in the lead, "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." seems to be a good enough summary, but I guess I would modify it to "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations, the International Criminal Court, and United Nations officials." The ICC is technically not a UN body, so it should be mentioned separately. But other than that, I think such a sentence would be fine. I'm open to suggestions on this though. ] (]) 05:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
<s>*'''No'''. The genocide allegation appears to be, at the moment, primarily a tool of propaganda. Unless substantial new evidence emerges, analyzed by impartial, non-politicized sources and supported by more than two vague statements and casualty figures (which include a significant number of Hamas militants but the Hamas-run Health Ministry prefers not to differentiate militants from civilians), such claims lack the rigor required for inclusion in serious, encyclopedic coverage. ] (]) 06:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)</s><small>Blocked sock ] (]) 11:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
*:"The genocide allegation appears to be, at the moment, primarily a tool of propaganda." This is simply not true. See: ]. ] (]) 07:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. This article is about the State of Israel. Not news. Should the articles about the ], the ], ], and many others feature the various ''proven'' genocides that actually took place, or even in the lead? Might as well say "also known as the Z.E.", in the lead or anywhere, with some extra brackets for good measure? This is a matter of an ongoing armed conflict, with fog of war and disinformation throughout. Not only would it be "commenting on an ongoing investigation" as they say, but entirely inappropriate and irresponsible. ] (]) 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Per ], required {{tq|mention of significant criticism or controversies}}, clearly true and which several of the No !votes have acknowledged as being the case. A mention should be added via inclusion within the sentence "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes <s>and</s> crimes against humanity ] ] against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." ] (]) 12:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Not in the lede''' - a good chunk of the lede is already criticism, so adding additional accusations would seem like POV shoehorning. Not necessarily against inclusion in the body, but there isn't a specific proposal to comment on. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 23:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::] there is a question about whether it should be in the body. ("Yes, it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph") So, if you agree: which paragraph? ] (]) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Re|Huldra}} Relevant material is currently in the body, unless it is reverted. The original dispute was about a sentence being added to the lead not material being added to the body, something which is not usually a source of dispute unless the amount of such material is undue. Option 2 already assumes material present in the body, no?. And option 1 just says no, so the third option is not really necessary. ] (]) 10:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{Re|Selfstudier}} When I started this RfC on the 22 nov, it wasn't in the body (that was first added the 27th) so the the third option is useful (necessary?) for keeping it there, ] (]) 23:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I just think the two things should not be mixed up, this RFC should not attempt to rubber stamp the addition that I made to the body, that should just be subject to the normal editing process. Imagine that I had not added it and people voted option 2? Then there would have had to have been another discussion about what should be in the body, so yes I have attempted to remedy a deficiency in the way the RFC was drafted and hopefully it meets with approval. ] (]) 23:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes in the body and the lede''': There are prominent RS (UN Special Committee, Israeli holocaust scholar ] to cite two examples) supporting the charachterization that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza, so there is no reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the body. Accordingly, lede summarizes the body, so it should include that, given that it is one of the most prominent controversies Israel is facing second to the crime of apartheid in the West Bank (I am in favor of including both in the lede), though admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed, that's why for now it can be described as an accusation. The perfect short phrasing in my opinion for the lede can be: {{cquote|Israel's practices in the occupied territories has drawn sustained international criticism for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including for maintaining an apartheid regime in the West Bank, as well as being accused of committing a genocide in Gaza.}} ] (]) 07:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:Update to my "admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed," that is beginning to change as Amnesty International launched a report today . While this does not yet mean the threshold has been reached, but it gives a whole new significance to the inclusion of the "accusation" to the lede. ] (]) 12:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes, both in the lead and body''': Per sources and my understanding of ]. Some of these policies and guidelines are:
::1) ]. ] sources can be used to assess ]. My understanding is that once DUEness is established, Misplaced Pages articles can be kept up to date. This is actually a strength of Misplaced Pages. For example, no one would argue mentioning something about the economy in this article is ]. ] and overview ] sources about Israel would include something about the economy. It could be too much or too little, but something about the economy would be DUE in this article. However, economic stats in this article would probably be much more up to date than many published overview ] sources about Israel such as .
::Similarly, ] sources mention Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict at length. As such, Gaza genocide would be DUE. If in several years, newly published ] sources do not mention this, it can be taken out of the lead. If in several years, both newly published ] and overview ] sources about Israel do not mention this, it can also be taken out of the body. But for now, to keep the article up to date, this is DUE. ('''Update: quote from intro chapter in overview secondary source provided below''' ] (]) 19:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC))
::Sources are below, I cannot give lengthy quotes due to word count restrictions in ]
{{Collapse top|Coverage of Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict in ] sources:}}
::*Britannica mentions these issues in the lead, although it's more brief than here
::*, Israel entry (accessible through Misplaced Pages library). Partial quote from the lead:
::{{tq2|...That conflict, which became known as the Arab-Israeli conflict, has heavily influenced Israel's development, as security issues have dominated Israeli politics and society since 1948...}}
::*, Israel entry (accessible through Misplaced Pages library). There's nothing similar to the Misplaced Pages lead. The "lead" in encyclopedia entry is just few sentences about geography. But the history section mentions these issues.
::* Israel entry (accessible through Misplaced Pages library). There's no history section, but large coverage, especially under Contemporary politics section.
{{Collapse bottom}}
::More tertiary sources can be found using Google Books, Google Scholar, or the (for example: )
::{{small|wording suggestion removed}}
::The above wording makes the lead neutral as only the accusation is added in Wikivoice. Similarly, the text in the body should be NPOV.
::2) ]. Lots of ]. See ]. There are already ] sources about this such as by ]. This source also ties Gaza genocide with Israeli-Palestinian conflict: {{tq|In this urgent, insightful essay, a respected historian places the Israeli-Palestinian war in context, challenging Western attitudes about the region}}
::3) ]. The above proposal would trim the lead word count by something like 26 words. It'd still be more than 400 words, but even many featured articles are longer than 400 words. ] (]) 17:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::You linked to four tertiary sources, but I don't see the word "genocide" in any of them? (Britannica links to recent news about it, but that seems temporary.) Maybe this is a sign that our lede's focus should somehow be different, but in terms of accusations of genocide, if anything it seems like a sign that we should omit them.
::I don't think there's any dispute that something like {{tq|accusations that it has committed genocide}} would pass ], but that isn't really an argument for highlighting material in a lede. That comes down mainly to ] and to ], which tell us to {{tq|briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article}}. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 01:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I gave my reasoning for this.
:::This is a recent and ongoing event. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, published in 2008, would not have mentioned 2024 events. It's a reliable source, but they are not clairvoyant.
:::My DUE argument was due to heavy coverage of Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict in Israel entries in tertiary sources.
:::If sources published in the next few years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, it can be taken out of the body or the lead.
:::But for now, we can keep the article up to date. I believe this is the precedent in Misplaced Pages. Otherwise Misplaced Pages would be several years or longer behind everything if we had to wait for overview ] or ] sources for everything. Once those type of sources covering recent events are available however, those sources would determine how we proceed. ] (]) 11:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', it should be linked in the lead, at the end of the third paragraph where it discusses war crimes and crimes against humanity. This text has been through various iterations, but would benefit from greater precision by means of specificity. A great many countries have been accused of war crimes, making that a rather generic, not outstanding observation. While it is probably more notable that Israel has been accused of a particularly voluminous number of different war crimes in the post-WWII period, sitting above that are the very specific crimes against humanity in which it has been implicated –namely apartheid and genocide. Now apartheid has already been through the RFC process and denied a mention (based on rationales that grow poorer by the day) but to the question here, yes, it is extremely pertinent to mention the particularly nation-defining crime against humanity of genocide – the so-called crime of crimes. ] (]) 18:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' it is notable enough for an article, therefore should be linked. ] (]) 23:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Yes, but not in the lead.''' There's some discussion of genocide in the 21st century section of the article and this link could be put there, but it's not clear why this should be added to the lead. I am '''strongly opposed''' to adding it to the lead and most of the arguments for inclusion into the lead can be discounted on ]/]/] grounds. ] (]) 22:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes for the body, no for the lead''' It is certainly notable enough to mention in a relevant part of the article, but I think it is too recent to mention in the lead, since we cannot assess long-term historical importance yet. ] (]) 15:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|QuicoleJR}}, can you point to the relevant ] for your argument? ] (]) 15:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The bar for something being included in the lead is pretty high, much higher than inclusion in the body. According to ], emphasis on material, such as the Gaza genocide, should reflect its relative importance to the topic as described by reliable sources. I think the current state of the lead is fine, although I would also be fine with adding a sentence or two about how Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal. I don't think the Gaza genocide by itself has enough weight to warrant inclusion in the lead. ] (]) 15:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Gaza genocide is part of the Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict, which is heavily covered in Israel entries in ] sources. See the sources above. ] (]) 15:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Yes, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly warrants inclusion in the lead. However, is the Gaza genocide ''itself'' heavily covered in those entries? It is the level of coverage for the specific topic that matters, not the level of coverage of the wider subject it is part of. ] (]) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::See the discussion above. ] (]) 15:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::] requires mention of significant criticism or controversies, this fits the bill, it needs no more than a wikilink. ] (]) 16:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::It says summarize the most important points. I am simply contending that this is not one of them. Israel is a sizable country with a lot of history, and I don't believe that this has enough DUE weight in reliable sources about Israel as a whole to warrant including prominently in the lead, although I think it is important enough to mention in the body. ] (]) 16:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::To be clear, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict definitely warrants inclusion in the lead, and we could probably add a sentence about the legality of Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, but I think including the Gaza genocide specifically in the lead would be recentist and UNDUE, especially since the Israel-Hamas war is only covered by "several wars" in the lead. ] (]) 16:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::See the wording suggestion above. This could be added into the lead while trimming the lead. For ], we can look at coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict. If newer tertiary sources in the upcoming years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, Gaza genocide can be taken out. Do we have any tertiary sources published in the past few months?
*::::::::If the only sources were newspaper articles, recentist arguments would succeed. However, we have so many secondary sources on Gaza genocide now. ] (]) 16:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Yes, we have many secondary sources on the Gaza genocide. We also have many secondary sources on a variety of other things, like the 7 October attacks or the ] of Israeli athletes. Those aren't included in the lead either. My question is whether secondary or tertiary sources on the topic of Israel as a whole mention the genocide. If not, it shouldn't be in the lead yet. ] (]) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Assessing DUEness of Munich massacre is easy, since it happened in 1972. Look at tertiary sources. ] (]) 16:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Arguing that we should rush this into the lead because we can't assess long-term importance yet is pure recentism. I'm not saying we can't update the body to add this information, but we should wait on adding it to the lead until the long-term impact is more clear. ] (]) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::That wasn't my argument, I won't respond any further to not ] ] (]) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::It says {{tq|summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies}} I can assure you this is a prominent controversy. Well, unless you can convince me it isn't. ] (]) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::It is a decently prominent controversy, but the State of Israel has had a ''lot'' of prominent controversies in its short history, and we can't stuff them all in the lead. I think mentioning that their occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal would cover the most important controversy, being their illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The Gaza genocide is arguably a subtopic of that. For an applicable example from another article, the featured article ] does not mention the atrocities they committed against China in World War II in the lead, even though it was, and still is, a very prominent controversy. Similarly, the lead of ] only gives the Holocaust two words in a sentence about the Nazi government. Similar considerations apply here. ] (]) 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::And this would be exactly one word in the lead, per my suggestion. ] (]) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{od}} {{u|QuicoleJR}}, can you provide recent sources (second half of 2024 for example) that supports your interpretation of Wiki policies? ] (]) 14:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What do you mean by that? ] (]) 14:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Please provide a recent (second half of 2024 for example) tertiary or overview ] source about Israel, and show that these issues are not mentioned. ] (]) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The only one I have been able to find is Brittanica, which has been updated recently and makes no mention of the genocide. Very few overview sources have been published in that timeframe, and you are asking me to prove a negative. ] (]) 14:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The ONUS is on you to prove that they ''are'' covered in such sources. ] (]) 14:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::And I did provide recent sources below.
::::::Britannica's updates seem superficial. They have in history section, but it seems to stop at a certain point. ] (]) 14:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Only in the body''' while it’s a non-insignificant criticism, it’s not sufficiently significant to be included in the lead. Both based on the uncertain status and the recency of the accusation, the lead should instead continue referring to other, certain misconduct, per the relevant policies cited above, instead of referring to a disputed interpretation of some of the very recent actions. ] (]) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|FortunateSons}}, can you please specify "the relevant policies"? ] (]) 16:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*::], ], ], ] would probably be the most relevant ones ] (]) 08:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{u|FortunateSons}}, thank you for clarification. Note that ] and ] are not '''policies''', they are '''explanatory essays'''. You can get more information in ].
*:::For interpretation of ] and ], we disagree, but this has been discussed above, so I'm not going to get into it again. ] (]) 14:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Of course, but they are broadly accepted as a concretisation of policy; nevertheless, thank you for the reminder. ] (]) 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{od}} {{u|FortunateSons}}, can you provide recent sources (second half of 2024 for example) that supports your interpretation of Wiki policies? ] (]) 14:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What do you imagine this source to be? There are news reports that don't mention genocide, but that not what you mean? ] (]) 14:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Something like or an encyclopedia, but published on second half of 2024. ] (]) 14:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I would defer to the cited Britannica here; more importantly, the fact that we’re discussing less than a handful of sources and a timeframe of 6 Months (or a year) is a strong indication that this is in fact recency bias. ] (]) 15:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{u|FortunateSons}}, Britannica doesn't seem that updated. See above. ] (]) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::None have been published to my knowledge, and it is on you to prove that they do exist. ] (]) 17:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Plenty of sourcing, obviously relevant and controversial enough to outweigh proforma objections. ] (]) 17:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Not in the lead''' per ]. Would prefer to wait until a court conviction or acquittal has been made to decide. ] (]) 04:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The ] is not recent only the ] is and that is still a significant controversy, regardless. ] (]) 17:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Since 1955, the population of Palestine has steadily increased. The life expectancy has increased, the infant mortality and child death rate has decreased. So I don’t understand how Israel has been genociding the Palestinians if all these numbers are improving for them. ] (]) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Reminder of ] and ]. ] (]) 00:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Here is a source so it is not OR or NOTAFORUM. The source is a Jewish advocacy group. ] (]) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::That isn’t a reliable source for the topic. ''']''' - 02:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Without even getting into if the advocacy group source you provided is a reliable source, for accusation of genocide, we would use ] sources such as , so the source you provided does not invalidate those, per ]. ] (]) 14:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' should be linked in lead per Iskandar323's reasoning. ] (]) 23:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment, newer sources'''
:*Overview ] source: . From the '''introduction''' chapter:
::{{tq2|In this context we should not overlook the latest turning point in the history of Palestine – the attack by Hamas on 7th October 2023 on Israeli settlements adjacent to Gaza and the subsequent genocidal war that the state of Israel has carried out in the Gaza strip}}
::'''Although the title says Palestine, it covers Israel too. See the definition on page 3''' in
:*. Although this is an entry about geopolitics, and not an entry about Israel as a country, the prominence of ] is notable. Genocide accusations are also mentioned.
::Given no recent (second half of 2024 for example) overview secondary or tertiary sources about Israel have been provided in this RfC, and given the lengthy coverage of Arab-Israel conflict in older tertiary sources about Israel, and given the above sources, I now think that '''three things are due both in the lead and in the body:'''
::{{Ordered list
|]
|Most recent ]
|]}}
:: ] (]) 14:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::The lack of recent overviews (I don't think many have been published) does not mean that we should include these things in the lead. I support adding the Israel-Hamas war, I think the other two would be both be giving UNDUE weight to recent events. ] (]) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The lack of recent overviews means we have to use what we have (above), while keeping in mind the heavy coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict in older sources. I just pinged you to ask for newer sources though, no need to discuss what we already discussed above. ] (]) 14:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', the available sourcing here and on the related article indicates that it's a major part of the coverage and history of Israel. The arguments against inclusion don't make any sense, either; whether individual editors ''agree'' with it, or whether it's disputed, are reasons to be cautious about the precise wording for how we cover it, but they're not what we use to determine if we cover it at all - that question comes down to how broad and high-quality the sourcing is and how significant they treat it as. And the extensive academic sourcing clearly justifies treating it as a high-profile aspect of the topic worth discussing prominently here. A lead is supposed to contain {{tq|mention of significant criticism or controversies}}; we don't exclude high-profile stuff just because it's controversial. The sourcing disputing it above doesn't help; while it's not terribly high-quality, I'm sure higher-quality sourcing for that perspective exists... but it's written from the perspective of "this is an important and central argument over Israel", ie. a controversy worth covering even if they have a clear perspective on it. The sort of coverage that would be necessary to exclude it isn't just academics who disagree, but sourcing that establishes that it is broadly ''fringe'', which doesn't seem to be the case. --] (]) 15:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Discussion (RfC) ===
Please could editors kindly keep comments to WP policies and guidelines relating to the text and sources in the article? Dailycare's comment that four of the quotes in the talk page represent a pro-Israel POV makes no comment on the text and variety of sources in the article. The question of article size requires a considered analysis of the article as a whole, rather than singling out the latest additions.] (]) 09:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
:This doesn’t seem that actionable an RfC, or that productive a question. The content of the article is what is discussed, and links serve as navigational aids for delving into the content. Considering a link alone in the aether rather misses its purpose. ] (]) 09:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::Seems that there should be first some material in the body related to the wikilink and ]. {{Re|Huldra}} Suggest you pull the RFC tag on this for now until some material can be put together for the article body. ] (]) 11:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Something like this perhaps
:::] is accused of carrying out a ] against the ] by experts, governments, ] agencies, and ]s during ] of the ] in the ongoing ].<ref name="ohchr">{{cite web |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=16 November 2023 |title=Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people |url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231224050530/https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against |archive-date=24 December 2023 |access-date=22 December 2023 |website=] |quote=Grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians in the aftermath of 7 October, particularly in Gaza, point to a genocide in the making, UN experts said today. They illustrated evidence of increasing genocidal incitement, overt intent to "destroy the Palestinian people under occupation", loud calls for a 'second Nakba' in Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the use of powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts, resulting in a colossal death toll and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure.}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last=Burga |first=Solcyré |date=13 November 2023 |title=Is What's Happening in Gaza a Genocide? Experts Weigh In |url=https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts |magazine=] |access-date=24 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231125022352/https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/ |archive-date=25 November 2023}}; {{cite news |last=Corder |first=Mike |date=2 January 2024 |title=South Africa's genocide case against Israel sets up a high-stakes legal battle at the UN's top court |url=https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/south-africas-genocide-case-israel-sets-high-stakes-106055104 |access-date=3 January 2024 |work=] |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240107013809/https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/south-africas-genocide-case-israel-sets-high-stakes-106055104 |archive-date=7 January 2024}};{{Cite web |last=Quigley |first=John |date=3 July 2024 |title=The Lancet and Genocide By "Slow Death" in Gaza |url=https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-lancet-and-genocide-by-slow-death-in-gaza/ |access-date=13 July 2024 |website=Arab Center Washington DC |language=en-US |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713161805/https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-lancet-and-genocide-by-slow-death-in-gaza/ |archive-date=13 July 2024}}</ref> Observers, including the ] and ] ],<ref name="Albanese_anatomy_of_a_genocide">{{cite Q|Q125152282|url-status=live}}</ref> have cited statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an "]" (in whole or in part) Gaza's population, a necessary condition for the legal threshold of genocide to be met.<ref name="ohchr"/><ref>{{harvnb|Burga|2023}}; {{cite journal |last=Soni |first=S. |date=December 2023 |title=Gaza and international law: The global obligation to protect life and health |journal=South African Journal of Bioethics and Law |volume=16 |number=3 |pages=80–81 |doi=10.7196/SAJBL.2023.v16i3.1764 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="StateCrime">{{cite web |publisher=] |title=International Expert Statement on Israeli State Crime |website=statecrime.org |url=http://statecrime.org/international-expert-statement-on-israeli-state-crime |access-date=4 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106140101/http://statecrime.org/international-expert-statement-on-israeli-state-crime |archive-date=6 January 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref> A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".<ref name="Brookings">{{cite web |url=https://www.brookings.edu/articles/gloom-about-the-day-after-the-gaza-war-pervasive-among-mideast-scholars/ |title=Gloom about the 'day after' the Gaza war pervasive among Mideast scholars |last1=Lynch |first1=Marc |last2=Telhami |first2=Shibley |date=20 June 2024 |publisher=] |access-date=29 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240626215734/https://www.brookings.edu/articles/gloom-about-the-day-after-the-gaza-war-pervasive-among-mideast-scholars/ |archive-date=26 June 2024}}</ref> On 29 December 2023, South Africa instituted ] at the ] pursuant to the ],<ref name=":6">{{Cite news|date=December 29, 2023|title=South Africa launches case at top UN court accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza|url=https://apnews.com/article/south-africa-israel-un-court-palestinians-genocide-ffe672c4eb3e14a30128542eaa537b21|access-date=January 5, 2024|work=]|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240102144544/https://apnews.com/article/south-africa-israel-un-court-palestinians-genocide-ffe672c4eb3e14a30128542eaa537b21|archive-date=January 2, 2024|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Rabin|first1=Roni Caryn|last2=Yazbek|first2=Hiba|last3=Fuller|first3=Thomas|date=2024-01-11|title=Israel Faces Accusation of Genocide as South Africa Brings Case to U.N. Court|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/world/middleeast/genocide-case-israel-south-africa.html|access-date=2024-01-13|work=The New York Times|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=13 January 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240113053852/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/world/middleeast/genocide-case-israel-south-africa.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="ICJ_SA_proceedings_vs_IL_29Dec2023">{{Cite web|date=December 29, 2023|title=Proceedings instituted by South Africa against the State of Israel on 29 December 2023|url=https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf|access-date=January 5, 2024|website=]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105144115/https://www.icj-cij.org/index.php/node/203394|archive-date=January 5, 2024}} </ref><ref>{{Cite press release|date=December 29, 2023|title=South Africa institutes proceedings against Israel and requests the International Court of Justice to indicate provisional measures|issue=2023/77|url=https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icj-southafrica-israel-genocide-29dec2023/|location=The Hague, Netherlands|publisher=]|agency=]|access-date=January 5, 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240105144230/https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icj-southafrica-israel-genocide-29dec2023/|archive-date=January 5, 2024|url-status=live}}</ref>
:::This is just wrt the genocide issue, need something about the arrest warrants as well. ] (]) 15:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::It doesn't seem very neutral to cover statements from sources like Albanese without also covering accusations of bias on their part. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 23:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It doesn’t make sense to cover things that aren’t relevant to the topic, like accusations of bias instead of addressing the substance of the statement. ''']''' - 00:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::If we don't want to get into such accusations of bias then we shouldn't be using sources like Albanese in the first place. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That makes no sense to me. We dont include accusations of bias against the Times of Israel anytime we use them as a source, or the NYTimes, or Benny Morris, or whatever other reliable sources we cite. The ad hominem of "she's biased" is not relevant to the argument she makes or the qualifications she has to make them. At most, such accusations belong in the biography of Albanese, or Morris, or whatever other article that covers the sources themselves, not whenever they are cited. ''']''' - 17:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That's not at all comparable. NYT and Morris are occasionally criticized by both sides for various perceived biases. Accusations of bias against Albanese are far more significant, e.g. with officials from several different governments openly calling her antisemitic or unfit for her role. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::They are directly comparable, and governments arent reliable sources for anything other than the views of the politicians heading those governments. It is a basic ad hominem, and it has nothing to do with the actual content of her comments. ''']''' - 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::It doesn't really make sense to call this an ad hominem, when source selection inherently involves evaluating sources rather than the content of their statements. Surely the ] here would be uninvolved ones with some semblance of objectivity.
::::::::::Covering Albanese's claim here is like covering 's claim that there isn't a genocide. Clearly neither is among the BESTSOURCES, and neither claim is noteworthy enough that it would need to be covered anyway. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Biden is a politician speaking as a politician. Albanese is an expert in international law, speaking as an expert in international law. ''']''' - 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I should add that she isn't just speaking as an expert in international law (which she undoubtedly is), but she is speaking as a UN official who is the current ]. To compare her speech with Biden (a non-expert politician who has absolutely no scholarship on the issue and doesn't have an international law background) is ridiculous. ] (]) 18:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Special Rapporteurs are not UN officials, they are independent experts consulted by the UN, and they remain independent. See ] for an overview. ''']''' - 20:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::And Jews and others praising her, no? She must be doing something right. Afaics, she has tended to be ahead of the curve on most matters. ] (]) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
{{talk ref}}
:: This section should be suspended, until user Oncenawhile can find a consensus for including this section. Firstly, the section is a major and unprecendented edit, which goes against every other country on wikipedia; secondly, ] has a strong NPOV agenda, as has been shown by his past record of edits on this page.] (]) 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
::: I agree i have a neutral-point-of-view agenda. But assuming you meant the opposite, I have no idea what you are referring to so please can you expand with specific examples - I am keen to learn and improve. I would be delighted to critique your POV as well if you like. Spurious accusations of POV should not be thrown around so loosely.] (]) 14:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
== Tag ==
The last few paragraphs of the proposed section are particularly problematic. I don't like the idea of citing Wikileaks cables without a secondary source explaining them, since they are unfiltered private comments. However, even if quoting this cable were encyclopedic, the commentary on the cable is not ("suprisingly...", "In the WikiLeaks cable Dermer didn't offer evidence...") First, this is POV and original research (Misplaced Pages is responding to Dermer instead of quoting someone else responding to Dermer), but just as importantly, when we cherrypick one private conversation and then criticize it we risk creating straw men - that is to say we run the risk of choosing one particular form of an idea, say the one that we think is weakest, rather than the most mainstream or well-thought-out version of that idea so that we implicitly make the other side's position look stronger. ] (]) 05:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
{{resolved}}-tag removed !<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
----
{{Re|Moxy}} Reasons for , please? ] (]) 13:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:Nothing but military info looks like nothing but conflict for 20+ years ...this article is not ]. Need info like ..90s saw first featuring direct election of the prime minister etc. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 13:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
: for what it's worth, i agree with the above editors that the criticism section is grossly disproportionate and inconsistent with ].--'']] ]'' 05:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
::You tag says undue not that the section needs updating, which material is undue? And why? ] (]) 13:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::To be blunt, criticism sections in general suck. They are a lazy way of writing an article. Criticism should be dealt with in the context of the specific things being criticized. To pull out one section just to discuss criticism is to invite issues of POV and undue weight. Criticism of Israel's foreign policy, etc. are better dealt with in those sections. The only reason why there should ever be a specific criticism section would be to discuss criticism of Israel as a phenomena and I don't think that issue is significant enough to merit its own section here. ] (]) 15:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
:::undue because its nothing but military history....no memtiom of any other history. Sounds like the most unstable country doing nothing but being at war. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 13:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::History on its own at 5116 words is half an article by itself. A lot is likely undue. ] (]) 13:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Agree so much details - over info that can be and is covred in sub articles that can be trimed like :''The Jewish insurgency continued and peaked in July 1947, with a series of widespread guerrilla raids culminating in the Sergeants affair, in which the Irgun took two British sergeants hostage as attempted leverage against the planned execution of three Irgun operatives. After the executions were carried out, the Irgun killed the two British soldiers, hanged their bodies from trees, and left a booby trap at the scene which injured a British soldier. The incident caused widespread outrage in the UK" <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 13:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::The section that has been tagged is ], a short section, the material {{tq|The Jewish insurgency continued and peaked...}} is not even in it, that material is in ] section, which has not been tagged.
::::::So did you mean to tag something else? ] (]) 14:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Moxy explained that subsection above, it is just one of a few with similar issues. ] (]) 16:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::They haven't explained it, the material they quote is not tagged. ] (]) 16:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry I thought I was pretty clear.... the whole section is just about military.... in fact we have two paragraphs for something that's happening in the past year. What we are looking for is substantial historical significant information about the country's social and historic evolution in that time. Best we simply don't regurgitate American news headlines. For example should mention ]... What kind of social human rights progress has there been? In 20 years there must be some sort of legal process that has changed.... democratic decline perhaps? What has happened on the diplomatic front.... like the mass increase in foreign aid? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|the whole section is just about military}} Which section? The only section that you tagged is the 21st Century section. If you meant to put the tag for the entire history section, then do that, I would also agree with that inline with multiple prior discussions asserting that it was way too long. ] (]) 21:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{green|Which section?}} Not interested in some sort of gameplay. Your initial post was about a tag in a section this is the topic of the ongoing conversation..... with mention by another and myself about the excess detail overall in the history section with an example that I gave. You either agree it's excessive or you don't.... best course of action would be to come up with some sort of prose for the section.... and a better summary. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 21:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::OK, you don't want to admit you got this all backwards, fine by me, bfn. ] (]) 23:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::What you have to ask yourself is does your approach to this conversation help improve that article or not. There is clearly a problem all over the history section...but the info in this tagged section is the topic of conversation...do you have any input what can be done to help the section? Then perhaps we can move on to other sections. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 15:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I asked you what the problems were and your response was to quote something else from an untagged section, so if you can answer the original question that would be good. ] (]) 16:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::<s>Best you let someone that is competent deal with the tag</s>. <small>My bad just frustrated that the post has not moved forward in actual improvements. Will address the problem with prose after the content addition dispute is over.</small> <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Couldn't agree more. ] (]) 18:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Was not aware of . Let's deal with the content issue after all the current concers. Last post from me here.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::<s>I don't see what that has to do with the issue you have been describing in this section.</s>. OK, resolved for now. ] (]) 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024 ==
Wikibias blog has brought this up: --] (]) 16:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
:"''while Sean.hoyland and Dailycare seem to be enabling his contributions with subtle approval or indifference''". Finally, somewhere to go to check what I'm been doing and why. I thought I was busy being indifferent to something else. Silly me. I was thinking of rejoining this discussion but having read that now I'll just let ] take its course. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 18:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
::Supreme, thanks for bringing this up - this proves the notability of the topic "Criticism of Israel" perfectly. Despite its broad-sounding name, the wikibias blog is essentially a single-issue pressure group dedicated to challenging any criticism of Israel. Can anyone provide examples of similar websites re criticism of other countries? ] (]) 14:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
So I gather international criticism of Israel and the attitude of Israelis to it are irrelevant as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned? Because its "an entirely unprecedented section"?] (]) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
{{edit extended-protected|Israel|answered=yes}}
Please could editors kindly keep comments to WP policies and guidelines relating to the text and sources in the article? The main arguments given against the section refer to there being no precedents for it in other country articles. Not only is that argument not valid, ghit analysis and the WP:RS provided show that the topic is highly notable. ] (]) 14:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
In 21st century history, please change
:The topic is notable, and has several articles dedicated to it. You have yet to explain why it should be included in ''this'' article. The fact no other country article has such a section and that this encyclopedia is supposed to be consistent (see ] "''When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes''") is indeed a valid argument. ] (]) 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
{{TextDiff|A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".|A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars who were polled believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".}}
::Good to see we have common ground. To answer your question, we could debate whether the criticism is disproportionate versus other countries - the stats show that in the UN no other country comes close, and although harder to calculate it is clear that in academic writings Israel also stands out from the crowd. Or we could debate about the relative importance in wikipedia country articles of Israel's "music and dance" section, or perhaps the "Humanitarian situation" section in the WP:FA ] or the "Personality cult" section in ]. But the clearest answer to your question is how important supporters of Israel see International Criticism to be:
::*The Israeli government think it is critical - see e.g. headline communication from the Ministry of Public Diplomacy here, a government-sponsored branding study here or even more impactfully the "Background and Purpose" from a paper at this year's ] here.
::*The people of Israel see it as a huge issue - see the poll data provided above, or another one here .
::*Supportive academics think it is fundamentally important to Israel's ongoing existance (see e.g. the quotes provided by Dershowitz, Hagee and Bard).
::In other words, Israel, Israelis and their supporters all believe that International Criticism of the country is a critically important topic. And finally, and I admit this is not scientific, but you could ask yourself this open question - do you think criticism of israel is important? ] (]) 05:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
:::That you think "Israelis and their and their supporters" all think it's "critically important" isn't a relevant argument to include material.
:::That you keep trying to edit war the material back into the article despite the ongoing discussion is something that may get you blocked from editing articles in this topic area.
:::By the way, do you or have you ever edited en.wiki with another account? ] (]) 19:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
::::You asked a question and I answered it in good faith. Then you respond with (1) an illogical response to a single sub-point whilst ignoring all the other points; (2) a threat; and (3) an attempt to undermine (the answer is no btw). I suggest you review ]. Happy new year. ] (]) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::That was not a threat, it was a warning. People get blocked for this sort of behavior. Also, my response was quite logical. What we as editors think is irrelevant. What the sources say is what counts. You have yet to provide a source saying this is as important as you think it is. ] (]) 16:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::A number of the sources provided suggest that defending against international criticism is fundamental to the continued existence of Israel - a topic cannot be more important than that, and therefore the text simply must remain in the article. As per below, it's now time to explain any valid facts and arguments behind your side of the discussion. ] (]) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
"mostly US-based Middle East scholars" is not an identifiable group, the phrase as written doesn't have a concrete definition. Which Middle East scholars' beliefs are being talked about here? The scholars who were polled are being talking about. Adding language that clarifies the source of these statistics and defines the group in question could make the statistics more useful. Thank you for your consideration. ] (]) 17:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Whilst numerous facts and arguments supporting the inclusion of the text have been set out in the discussion above, none of the posts against inclusion have been substantiated with valid or adequately explained arguments or facts. This makes it very difficult to move towards real consensus. <u>Perhaps each of the dissenting editors could explain clearly exactly how important and notable a topic would need to be to justify inclusion in this article, in their judgement?</u> My view is clear - it is one of the most notable topics of all in relation to Israel, almost a defining topic, as illustrated by all of the broad facts and WP:RS shown above - and shown best in our world by the sheer number of POV WP editors which exist in relation to this overall topic. ] (]) 14:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
:From the given citation, added "758" before "mostly" and "polled in 2024 by ]" before "believe" to clarify matters. ] (]) 17:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Could I suggest that this section be added to the '''Foreign Relations''' part of the article as a ''summary paragraph'', with the link to the ] to be developed. This is simply because the nature of criticism encompasses so many different aspects, but it is International, and that seems to fit its placement better. Also the size of the article is probably not going to handle more than a summary paragraph which won't do the subject justice it deserves] (]) 12:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
:: Personally I think that would be underweight, given how fundamental this is to the overall topic of Israel. The foreign relations section is already very long, and to add the International Criticism text as another paragraph within it would imply that the overall criticism faced by the country is only of equivalent importance and notability to e.g. Israel's relationship with Ethiopia... ] (]) 18:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
]
:::Not at all. Israel's relationship with Ethiopia pails into insignificance with that of EC, the USA, or China for obvious economic reasons, and this is why the mention of ] has to be in that section.
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 7#"Israel"}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 15:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::International criticism has been the 'background noise' that provides a benchmark which has existed to some degree since 1948, and on which Israel's foreign policy is evaluated....to avoid criticism as far as possible due to its initial dependence on these relationships.
:::This externally imposed national ] has also been a dominant factor in the success of Israeli democracy. Much of this ] is not really democracy, but the attempt by near-] sectors of the Israeli population to be seen as ], afflicting themselves with every kind of 'humanitarian' stringency most countries never implemented in a sort of state-wide ] behaviour where in a situation of traumatic entrapment (leading to ]), being not fully accepted in the 'West', and facing threat from the 'East', ] may seem to be be the only defensive option for some to achieve hoped-for end to ].
:::If it were a reported abuse case, it would perhaps be diagnosed as classic ], although even professionals tend to get some things wrong, saying "Attitudes towards violence and aggression are largely shared across the world, with a general consensus that such behaviour is socially destructive." (Dennis Lines, THE BULLIES: UNDERSTANDING BULLIES AND BULLYING, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2008, p.80), and assuming that if it is ''socially destructive'', they won't engage in ''violence and aggression'' where as of course this is where the entire issue started in 1920s (in Europe and Israel, at least this century), and has been proven to be a ] in almost every state surrounding Israel from which majority of the criticism comes to the international forum.
:::And yet, Israel still gets criticism, mostly for ensuring self-security and social stability of an integrated rather than dysfunctional society, and even manages to prosper and contribute significantly to the global good.
:::However, despite the impact on domestic socio-political behaviour, and mental health of its citizens, the influencing factor for this behaviour is ], and therefore has to go in the ] ] (]) 12:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
== Lede ==
===Relative notability of Criticism within the ''Government, politics and legal system'' section===
Most editors will have seen the following ] over the past two weeks, which has now closed. Many good points were raised on all sides of the debate. Perhaps we can now try to agree on this page as to whether the relative notability of ] versus the other topics in the ''Government, politics and legal system'' section justifies the inclusion of a summary. I'll start:
* '''Include''' - notability and ] confirmed and unchallenged, both in the previous discussion on this page, and in the ]. ] (]) 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Include''' - we should reflect the international criticism on israel in this article. at least one half of the aforesaid main article consists of answers, reactions, discussions of this criticism BTW. in the article about the PLO the criticism is camouflaged, for example in the section "wealth". in the PR China article criticism on the state is mentioned inter alia under "Sociopolitical issues and reform","Environment",...it would make sense to summarize the main points of the criticism here - without making this section a coatrack for counteraccusations and delegitimization and defamation of this criticism.--] (]) 19:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Do not include'''. If there is information relevant to this article in the travesty that is ] it can be included in the various relevant sections that already exist in this article. The addition of a section dedicated to criticism out of its context remains inappropriate considering that no other country articles appear to have such a section. --] (]) 02:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Do not include'''. No reason why this country's article should be any different than all the rest of Misplaced Pages's articles. ] (]) 03:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
*'''Include''' - the notability and importance is unquestionable. This is simliar to how nations commonly accused of human rights problems have Human Rights sections while most nations do not have such sections. That Israel is the only nation with a specific criticism page also shows its notability and importance. ] ] 03:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
*:WRONG. See ] <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
::okay....your example of anti-americanism doesn't do anything for you, anyways you never responded to my question, do you have ] ] ] 04:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Do not include''' there's an article dedicated to this, putting a whole section in this article would be UNDUE. Also per FormerIP. ] (]) 12:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ping|Terrainman}} Are these your first edits to articles on WP that relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If so, please familiarize yourself with ] and ] which states that adding contested content requires achieving consensus on the talk page, not reverting. This responsibility is known as onus lying with the inserter of the material. ] (]) 12:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. To summarise:
* 3x Include votes based on ]
* 2x votes based on the "no-other-country" argument, which has no basis in wikipedia policy
* 1x vote from NMMNG who's argument doesn't make sense - there is a "main article" for every single section in the Israel article
As such, unless any opposing editors can produce policy-based arguments, a section will be added to the article in due course. I'll wait a bit longer though before adding as keen to ensure all opportunities are given for any possible policy-based counter-arguments. ] (]) 22:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
:Ok, thank-you. The information I added was to improve the context of the paragraph, in a much needed way. From what I can see, nothing contested was added. ] (]) 12:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Include''' - Denying that Israel's policy in the last decades has drawn significant reaction is to say nothing. On a sidenote, I think everybody should be welcomed to write in that section and accustom it according to NPOV policy. ] (]) 18:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::{{ping|Terrainman}} Your additions to the lede/lead were reverted so the material is by definition is now contested, meaning you will have to gain consensus for them in the talk page, not revert. ] (]) 12:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Do not include''' as separate section - that does not match the style for country pages, including those with their own separate 'Criticism' articles. As one of the "include" comments above suggests, there is a place for mentioning criticism in existing sections, which seems to be house style. The current "politics and legal system" section and the modern "conflict" subsection of history would work. ] (]) 18:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I understand but your edit reason was to keep the brevity of the lead when my edit was rather brief in my view. It has been further edited by another user to make the additions more concise. ] (]) 13:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:* Unless I am misreading this post, I think this is actually a vote to include, albeit spread over two sections. On the other hand, it also appears to be another invalid "no-other-country" argument. I don't understand why the latter argument keeps being repeated - it has absolutely no basis in wikipedia policy. ] (]) 23:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Terrainman}} Your additions still increased the material about the 1948 war from six to eight sentences in the lede. This needs to be trimmed even below six sentences. ] (]) 13:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I understand since that para is already very long, however unfortunately the topic is extremely complicated; hence why it was the longest para in the lead long before my edit. My addition provided essential context in my view, I also received thanks for it and it has been refined since by another editor. In my view if this para is to be made more concise we need to explore other options for that. ] (]) 13:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Terrainman}} Receiving thanks is not a measure of consensus, but discussion on the talk page. Your addition still duplicates mention of the UN partition plan in the second and third lede paragraphs, as well as non-summarizing elaborations on the Oslo Accords, which is also a duplicate mention in the third lede paragraph. ] (]) 14:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph explains that the partition plan failed, which is crucial context!
:::::::Regarding Oslo accords, it is not a duplication. The second mention references them in a sentence about progress since then. ] (]) 14:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Furthermore, if we are setting this low a threshold in what is essential to the lead, there are multiple parts of the third paragraph which elaborate to a significant extend, rather than merely state the existence of key historical events which are in-fact needed to provide context for the rest of the paragraph. ] (]) 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Then all should be trimmed. ] (]) 17:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:Additionally, when you say Lede, do you mean Lead? I just want to be sure I am not missing something here. ] (]) 12:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Lede and Lead are legitimate alternative spellings; both refer to the intro material which, in Misplaced Pages, should summarize the major points of rest of the article. A major issue for many Misplaced Pages articles is putting too much stuff in the lede. ] (]) 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== Minor edit Request ==
"International Criticism" (whatever that means) is mostly related to Israel's occupation of the west bank which is covered by a large section. Another cause is the large body of Arab states in conflict with Israel and their ability to dominate international bodies, such as the UN human rights committee whose chair was Libya until recently. That would come under foreign policy.
I think the non-specific title is POV. If there is something you want to criticize you should say what it is and try to express it in terms which are acceptable to different perspectives. Its not easy. ] (]) 09:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Remove "synonymous with Canaan" from the lede.
* '''Include''' - True and properly sourced information should always be made available and different aspects should be expressed. To supress certain information is by default a POV. As for neutrality, suporters of each stance can provide and incorporate material into the section and let the reader decide the value of each for his/her self, as long as they can support the information with reliable sources. ] (]) 18:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
1. The borders of ancient Canaan don't line up with modern day Israel.
== History section ==
2. No real reason to mention ancient Canaan just like we don't mention that it's synonymous with British Mandatory Palestine or the Judea province of the Roman Empire.
I reverted an edit by a confirmed sock puppet from a few weeks ago. OuroborosCobra reverted my revert. The edit in question was a duplication of information already summarised in another section (Jewish History of the Southern Levant). The new information is overweight and selective, showing only the Jewish history of the region without explicitly saying so - unlike "Jewish History of the Southern Levant" which I believe is balanced and appropriate. The duplication makes the article look absurd. I have no intention of debating this further - this article is too contentious. OuroborosCobra, I am not going to try again - if you think the sockpuppet was right, you should explain here. Otherwise I suggest you self revert or spend the time to improve it as you see fit. ] (]) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:So now you are going to claim this is about a sockpuppet, something you also didn't say in the edit summary? On you to prove that, not me. --] (]) 23:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
::Sorry to be personal but you are being lazy. It is here - ]. ] (]) 23:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:Why am I being lazy? You never made the claim of sockpuppetry in the first place, and the onus is on the person MAKING a claim to back it up, not on everyone else to prove it for you. Your removal of vast amount of content for reasons that don't even match what you stated them to be was frankly vandalistic. --] (]) 23:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
::You are avoiding the question. You should explain to everyone your view on the text. ] (]) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
:My view on the text is that it establishes more clearly the history of Hebrew/Jewish history in the region, which carries some continuity to the modern state. There certainly should be balance with the history of other cultures, but you don't establish that by unilateral blanking, lying about or changing the reason for your blanking, claiming you won't get further involved when that's precisely what you keep doing, and then calling other people lazy to boot. You said on my talk page that I was being "over sensitive about a contentious article." If it is so contentious, why after almost a month had none of the many people who watch this article taken such extreme issue with the content to warrant its outright blanking ''with no discussion'', something normally done only to vandalistic content? --] (]) 00:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
3. The fact that Canaanites lives there is in the following sentence. ] (]) 22:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Like OuroborosCobra, I think we should keep adding shit to this article, which is already too long and takes ''way'' too long to load, until it bursts at the seams. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Has the sock been circumcised? ] (]) 10:01, 14April2011 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] (]) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Restore Canaan and rephrase to avoid implying synonymity. ] (]) 16:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This didn't address the points they made. 'Variably known as' still conflicts with all three points here. ] (]) 17:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== RFC: Human rights violations section ==
== Introduction ==
<!-- ] 18:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738692065}}
Dear friends,
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=9BBC7A9}}
Should this article include a top level section about violations of human rights by the state of Israel? ] (]) 17:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
An introduction should present general facts in an easy-to-read format.
I have edited the introduction to represent the general facts first, followed by the more specific facts, as any well written article would do.
===Survey===
Many of the more particular secondary facts, such a the 'Seam Zone' shouldn't be in the introduction, because an introduction should only present the general facts in an easy-to-read format.
'''Comment''' Not currently a subject of dispute? Maybe just create one and see what happens first? I wouldn't object personally but do we need an RFC for this right now? ] (]) 17:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:It was reverted quickly: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israel&diff=1266366530&oldid=1266365841 ] (]) 18:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
This edit happens to also allow information to follow a more chronological order. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::That might have been just the into the sea thing? {{Re|Remsense}}. I would have thought a hr top level section would have involved moving stuff from elsewhere in the article into it? ] (]) 18:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I made a mistake, please feel free to revert. Apologies. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 19:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Could you revert so that I don't annoy any admins violating 1rr (even though I have your permission)? ] (]) 20:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::ah I see, I had totally misunderstood your edit summary. Thanks for reverting. ] (]) 20:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''No''' How many countries have human rights violations? I would maybe accept a top level section for ] because that is pretty unique and a big part of what Israel physically is. Absolutely no for HR violations generally. ] ] 23:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Coverage of Israel in RS is very often centered around human rights. That's not the case for most other countries. We should follow RS and similarly give top level attention to coverage of human rights. ] (]) 01:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Agreed that Israeli-occupied territories should be a top level section. There could be a Human rights subsection under Government and politics section ] (]) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* Information should be integrated into the article where it would be relevant rather than standing out on its own... ] = "Avoid ] or ]. Try to achieve a ] by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections. " This poor article really needs some work..... most of the articles is focused on military actions and one point in time.<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 00:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
===Discussion===
] (]) 12:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
== Historicalclaims ==
== Sweep them into the sea ==
Original sentence: 'The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state and to "sweep them into the sea".'
I have serious problems with this article, that I am incapable of remedying... Please fix, they are: that though
the world which can be proven to at times be at least mildly anti-semitic spins it as "false massaia's" or "failed
rabbi's" there has never been a time in history where any Jews gave up their claim to Israel until the modern
Hassidic Satmar movement being the exception. Everyone from the Vilna Gaon to Maimanodes to Saadia Gaon to the Talmud
and all in between have said they would like to see the people they lead to settle in Israel and form a country.
Some had even left with their whole villages and students to do so , these were not comparable to the Muslim/Christian
crusades, because these were not religious, (the Jewish religion is ingenious with or without Israel) but an attempt to
right a wrong, where they were banned from most Middle Eastern countries by the Arabians and Romans before.
Maimonodes for example even kisses up to the Arabian religion in his books, in order for them not to continually
destroy the Jews, and ban them from every country, as they did in all of Arabia, tried to do in Syria and Lebanon.
And fanatically did in the "Al Asqa" region of "Al Kuts". <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Proposed change: 'The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state.'
== Etymology ==
The quote that allegedly supports the inclusion of the the statement 'and to "sweep them into the sea"' is:
There is a factual error in the Etymology section. The article states, "According to the Bible, Jacob and his sons had lived in Canaan and were forced by famine to go into Egypt for four generations...". Instead of "four generations", it should read "four hundred and thirty years". Reference Exodus 12:40 <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12&version=NASB</ref> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{tq2|A week before the armies marched, Azzam told Kirkbride: "It does not matter how many there are. We will sweep them into the sea.}}
This quote is of course not consistent with the claim that the '''purpose''' of the invasion was to sweep the Jews into the sea. The other citations for this sentence include:
{{tq2|Morris 2008, p. 396: "The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal."}}
== First to recognize ==
{{tq2|David Tal (2004). War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy. Routledge. p. 469. ISBN 978-1-135-77513-1. Archived from the original on 19 December 2023. Retrieved 1 December 2018. "some of the Arab armies invaded Palestine in order to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, Transjordan..."}}
I'm not going to change it without a citation, but I swear I learned in one of my undergrad history courses that the Soviets actually beat the US to recognizing Israel after the UN vote. If I remember correctly, the difference was a matter of hours, if less.. Do we have a citation for the claim "The United States was the first country to recognize the State of Israel, followed by the Soviet Union."? ] (]) 05:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
:According to linked to at the end of the following sentence, "On May 14, 1948, the United States became the first country to extend de facto recognition to the State of Israel." (page 24) — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
{{tq2|Morris 2008, p. 187: Ahmed Shukeiry, one of Haj Amin al-Husseini's aides (and, later, the founding chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization), simply described the aim as "the elimination of the Jewish state." ... al-Quwwatli told his people: "Our army has entered ... we shall win and we shall eradicate Zionism"" }}
::I did some googling, and actually found the answer on wikipedia itself. While the US was the first state to recognize Israel de facto (11 minutes after the declaration), the USSR was the first de jure. http://en.wikipedia.org/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#Aftermath Should this be mentioned on this page as well? ] (]) 07:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
None of these support the claim about sweeping Jews into the sea.
If you check Simon Montefiore's biography of Stalin he says the USSR was first, but given the conflicting reports and that it was a matter of a few hours I don't think its worth making an issue out of it. ] (]) 08:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Additionally:
: I only ask in the interests of accuracy. This is one page where I wouldn't want to edit anything without consensus. Perhaps we should phrase it similar to the Israeli Declaration of Indepedence page? ] (]) 22:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Ben-Ami: {{tq|The Arab states were driven to war in great measure by theperception that prevailed in their societies as to the Jewish state andthe threat it posed to the Arabs.}}
:: The US was the first to recognise. Ahron Bregman: "Thus, just 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion declared independence Washington recognized Israel . Shortly afterwards Russia and the government of Guatemala followed the US example in recognizing Israel."--] (]) 16:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Rouhanna: {{tq|One goal of some of these armies was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; the Jordanian army, however, also sought to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state by conquering and annexing (after achieving the tacit understanding of the Zionist leadership) parts of Palestine for the Hashemite Kingdom.}}
== Just grammar ==
Shapira: {{tq|As the sheer magnitude of the Palestinian Arabs’ defeat emerged, and as the horror stories of the Jews’ alleged brutality spread throughout the Arab world, the pressure exerted by public opinion on the Arab states to come to the aid of their Palestinian brethren intensified. Despite difficulties arranging a unified military command, as well as mutual suspicion regarding each other’s objectives in Palestine, on April 30 the Arab states decided to invade.}}
In the opening, "efforts by elements within both parties to diplomatically solve the problem have so far only met with limited success" might look a little nicer as "but efforts by elements within both parties to solve the problem diplomatically have so far met with only limited success". I might even go so far as to suggest "on both sides" instead of "within both parties", as the term "party" can refer to a party in the dispute or contract, or to a political party. I understand that we're dealing with the former case, the "parties" being Israel on the one hand, and the Arab states on the other. ] (]) 05:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Shlaim: {{tq|Seven Arab states sent their armies into Palestine with the firm intention of strangling the Jewish state at birth.}} ] (]) 17:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:This request has been up for 20 days now, highlighting a potential ambiguity and making a suggestion for a noncontroversial change; nobody has responded in opposition and yet no changes have been made to the article. If the editors with access to the article can't be bothered to edit it, perhaps it should not be protected. ] (]) 07:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
== Edit Request ==
{{Resolved|1=By . --] (]) 10:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)}}
Change the new "Human Rights violations" section, no other country the I checked (including those with serious human rights violation claims like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Myanmar) have any kind of section named anywhere near as negatively. Those claims are usually found in the Government and Politics tab. The way it is now is a violation of ] ] (]) 20:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== Too long, too long ==
:Yeah, this is extremely unusual. ] ] 23:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that most of the different sections in the article, especially the lede, but also the history, military, foreign relations and occupied territories need to be drastically cut.
::Looks like we need an RFC after all. ] (]) 00:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I don't know what you mean. The HR violations section was created accidentally, right? ] ] 00:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Nope. ] (]) 00:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Are we both talking about the top level section I just deleted? ] ] 00:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I created it. It was not created accidentally, please revert your edit. ] (]) 01:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, I was confused by a comment Remsense left. I think it's an extremely controversial addition. Is there some WP rule reason that I have to revert, or is there consensus I'm not seeing? ] ] 02:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::There's definitely an open discussion.... Best leave it out till the process is done. Thinking about adding undue tags in relation to three or four sections... there's more to this country than it's relationship with with Palestine. Will gather some thoughts together and bring it up at the project page see if we can help. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 02:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|there's more to this country than it's relationship with with Palestine}}, right, and its relationship with Palestine and Palestinians is a core part of the coverage of Israel in RS. I'm curious where you think the undue tags should go. ] (]) 02:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Article is to big ingeneral and suffers from in the new style - 21st century should be summarized much better. Israeli-occupied territories, International opinion and Accusations of Apartheid should be integrated into history and/ or foreign relations with just a few sentences for each topic leading our readers to main articles. See ] for how its done.,see also ] and ]. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 03:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::That seems like a strange suggestion, of course the occupation is relevant to the history, but it is also a crucial aspect of Israeli politics today. ] (]) 03:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Israel != Germany ] (]) 09:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Edit request regarding the map ==
In the lede I would drastically cut the two sections related to history. Just provide the minimum of essential historical information.
] (]) 14:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I am writing to express concern about the recent changes to the map. The current map includes territories marked in green, representing areas such as Palestinian territories and even the Golan Heights. This change departs from the previous map, which accurately reflected the internationally recognized borders as endorsed by the United Nations. Marking these territories in green introduces a controversial interpretation that is not widely accepted by major international organizations.
== Editors interpreting things ==
1. Lack of Consensus: Major international bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union, and other globally recognized entities do not depict these territories in a distinct color that implies sovereignty or control by specific nations. The new map’s coloration could mislead readers into assuming a level of recognition or legitimacy that does not exist.
Some discussion is needed about . My view is that adding the text "''but Israel as a Holy Land of the Jews was recognised in the Qur'an by the Sura 5:21." is an editor's rather than a secondary source's intepretation. The source used is Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad Sayyārī, ''Revelation and falsification: the Kitāb al-qirāʼāt of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Sayyārī'', BRILL, 2009, p.118''" () which says "For God rescinding His decree granting the Holy Land to the Children of Israel" see etc. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 13:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:Was not aware of it previously and in general I'm not an expert on Islam. It might appear that is "Zionist":
:* In ] from ] believes that ''opposing state of Israel is opposing Divine Decree''.
:* In ] from ] believes that Sura 5:21 ''can provide a platform for peace grounded in an acceptance of truth.''
:From other hand the source quoted says ''For God His decree granting ...'', i.e. cancelling, and Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Sayyārī gives references, so I guess there could be number of interpretations. ] (]) 17:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
:: I think attribution should be used here along the lines of "some Islamic scholars say ...". --] (]) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Neutrality Concerns: Misplaced Pages strives to maintain a neutral perspective, especially on contentious geopolitical issues. By adopting a map with disputed territories marked differently, the page risks appearing to take a stance, which could alienate users and detract from Misplaced Pages’s reputation as an impartial source.
== The world's largest solar parabolic dish ==
3. Consistency with Historical Usage: The previous map, in use for over 20 years, was widely accepted as a neutral representation of the region. It respected international consensus and did not introduce contentious visual elements. Returning to this map would preserve the neutrality and credibility of the content.
Please change the description of the picture in the Chapter "Science and Technology". The picture does not show the "The world's largest solar parabolic dish" and also the article cited does not describe it as such.
4. Precedent for Reliable Sources: Most authoritative atlases and online mapping tools, including those maintained by major international organizations, avoid marking these territories in distinct colors to sidestep misinterpretation. Aligning with these standards would bolster Misplaced Pages's reliability.
You can change it to "One of the world's largest solar parabolic dishes at the Ben-Gurion National Solar Energy Center in Israel." that is the description of the same picture under http://en.wikipedia.org/Parabolic_reflector. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I respectfully request that the map be reverted to its previous version, which better reflects the official and internationally recognized borders. This change would ensure that Misplaced Pages adheres to its guiding principles of neutrality and accuracy. ] (]) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== the lergest city in south israel is Ashdod, not Ashqelon please fix that. ==
:You don't have the needed qualifications to edit about this topic(you don't yet have 500 edits), please see your user talk page. ] (]) 18:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:]The map reflects Israel's international recognized borders and the territories it claims (East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) and occupies militarily (West Bank excl. East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). This is mostly consistent with other country articles, such as ] (map depicts unrecognized claim over the former Sanjak of Alexandretta) and ] (map depicts claims over the Ukrainian territories it occupied since 2014). However, there is an argument to removing the West Bank (excl. East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip from the map and using ] instead, since Israel does not ''de jure'' claim the territory and it is internationally recognized as being part of the State of Palestine. ] 22:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::There is no basis for Israeli claims to either EJ or the Golan, they are unrecognized annexes and along with the West Bank and Gaza are considered as occupied territories. ] (]) 22:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::However, for consistency reasons, it would be justifiable to exclude territories not annexed by Israel, as locator maps don't typically include territories under military occupation, but do include territories unilaterally annexed. For example, the map of Russia does not include ] and ] in light green, despite them being internationally recognized as Russian-occupied territories, but does include Crimea, as it was illegally annexed in 2014. Similarly, the map of the ] does not include ]. as it is not annexed territory of the US. ] 23:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Anyone that wants to can see Green Line Israel by clicking on a radio button, the initial question really is what we want the default view to be, that or with occupied territories shown. If it were up to me I would show Green Line Israel, excluding Golan, as default.
::::Then the alternate view should show all occupied territories, including purportedly annexed territories. Btw "disputed" is not a NPOV term here, see ].
::::Other article maps do not affect what happens with the situation here. ] (]) 11:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If all territories under military occupation are to be included on the map, why are Southern Lebanon and parts of Southern Syria, newly occupied since 2024, excluded? There is also a significant difference in the legal status of East Jerusalem versus the rest of the West Bank. Israeli civil law is applied in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, whereas it is extended to Israeli settlers in the rest of the West Bank only via emergency regulations. Gaza remains militarily occupied due to control over its airspace, territorial waters, and borders, but Israeli civil law is not extended and Israel does not formally claim the territory as its own. Meanwhile, if militarily-occupied territories are to be included, Southern Lebanon nor the newly occupied parts of Syria are shown in light green.
:::::The map of Russia excludes Ukrainian territories that are occupied but not annexed, and the Ukraine map omits its military occupation of parts of Kursk Oblast. The Russian article map did not include the four annexed oblasts until after they were annexed, despite Russia beginning settlement activities before then . Other Misplaced Pages articles consistently differentiate between annexed and occupied territories, marking only annexed areas.
:::::The map should either show all territories under Israeli military presence or limit itself to lands Israel ''formally'' claims as its own. Unrecognized or illegal claims should be marked in light green, in contrast to the West Bank (beyond East Jerusalem) and Gaza, which are solely claimed by the State of Palestine. This distinction is already visible on the map for the State of Palestine, where annexed territories like East Jerusalem and Latrun are marked differently from areas claimed exclusively by Palestine. ] 19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just to repeat that what we do here on this page for the map here does not depend on what is done at any other page.
::::::Southern Lebanon and parts of Southern Syria have not as yet been declared as occupied territory by any competent authority afaik.
::::::Lands that Israel {{tq|formally claims}} (EJ/Golan) are also illegal claims, so designated by the UNSC (reaffirmed recently by the ICJ in respect of EJ), so this distinction is of no import.
::::::As things stand, I simply want to note the OP request as not done (no consensus of EC editors). Presumably you do not want to do that. So I suggest we wait and see if any other editors have a view. ] (]) 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2025 ==
== Religion in Israel ==
{{edit extended-protected|Israel|answered=no}}
The source that tries to estimate religiousness of Jews is false. I made that statement about a year ago and it's stil here, unanswered. Here, is an oficial estimate, 2010: http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st07_04x&CYear=2010. Please, someone, fix it. ] (]) 07:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I request an edit change of the GDP (Nominal), GDP (PPP), GDP Per Capita (Nominal), and GDP Per Capita (PPP) of Israel to 2025 in Accordance to IMF's October 2024 Database. The source will remain the same as the source currently shown, but the access date will be changed to "2 January 2025". Please Change Before (X) to After (Y).
Before (X): 2024 Estimate
== History ==
GDP (PPP)
• Total
Increase $541.343 billion (47th)
• Per capita
Increase $54,446 (29th)
GDP (nominal)
I find statements like "In 1516, the Land of Israel was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the region until the 20th century..." to be word play with facts of history to make a false political and/or religious point. No one can honestly make an assertion that anyone had connquered the "Land of Israel" when no "Land of Israel" ever existed before 1948. The allusion that it has always been known as such, which is sprinkled throughout the article, is wrong, and the bible is not an historical evidence to be cited in what presents itself as academically factual. I am not going to edit these statements out because I do not know the editing history and what agreements had been reached, but I hope that sober minds who already have invested effort in this article do some needed editing to make it more acceptable to the non-biased mind. ] (]) 08:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Total
* "No "Land of Israel" ever existed before 1948."? No extra-Biblical proof (which I presume is what you meant when you say "the bible is not a historical document")? Are you serious??] (]) 04:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Increase $528.067 billion (29th)
:Well, I suppose on the one hand the term ], Land of Israel or whatever have been in common usage since long before 1948 and on the other, it might be better to say something generic like the area, the region or whatever. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 05:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Per capita
:This little exchange is a good example of all the small moments that collectively make up Misplaced Pages's Israel/Palestine problem. There's a legitimate concern here: we should use contemporary terms when discussing historical concerns. But the first editor decided to add some unhelpful commentary; despite being unfamiliar with the history, they note the text is the product of dishonest wordplay from biased editors. That just invites a hostile response from another editor who will usually overreact, sidestep the real content question and engage in conflict over the commentary. I realize that Biraqleet is a new user so I don't want to criticize them although I would suggest reading ]. But I wanted to bring this up because I think the editors in this warped little corner of WP ought to recognize how interractions that would be mundane elsewhere are so problematic here. --] (]) 08:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Increase $53,110 (18th)
::Yes, normally the way it works is: statement a -> statement b -> hundreds of oscillations between those and various other chaotic orbits around the ] -> some active or inevitable damping through energy loss -> some meta-statements and analysis -> a meta-meta-etc analysis -> everyone distracted by something shiny elsewhere -> the end -> sockpuppet makes an edit. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 08:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
== Might I make a suggestion? ==
After (Y): 2025 Estimate
I have noticed that the article text occasionaly uses terms that are not contemporary or specific to the subjects they describe. For example, the section "Jewish History in Israel and the Palestinian Territories" uses the term "]" to describe the area as late as the 16th Century even though it is anachronistic there. It is also a nebulous description and one that may or may not correspond to modern Israel, the subject of this article. In fact, I would suggest that the term is more of a theological concept than a geographic one and it would be best if we reserved its usage for that purpose. I'm not picky about alternate terms but I'd be happy to hear any suggestions. Thanks --] (]) 23:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
GDP (PPP)
::I agree. --] (]) 07:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Total
:I recommend Cisjordan. --] (]) 04:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Increase $565.878 billion (47th)
:: Cisjordan doesn't occur in dictionary.com. In French, "Cisjordanie" means the West Bank. If "Palestine" isn't usable what about going boldly with "the area"? ;) --] (]) 18:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Per capita
Increase $55,847 (29th)
GDP (nominal)
:I recommend using whatever term was the prevalent at that time in history. "Israel" ceased to exist after the territory was conquered by the Assyrian army, so using that term prior to 1948 is just foolish. Similarly, the area was referred to as "Palestine" from sometime at least as early as 18th/19th century up until 1948 and from the time of the Roman occupation, the area was divided up into several smaller provinces such as Samaria, Judea, Peraea and Phoenicia. Although I'm a strong proponent of Israel and their historical claim to the area, I think we need to use the proper terminology for whatever historical period we are discussing throughout the article. My 2 cents. ] (]) 14:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
• Total
:: According to ], that term has been used since 450 BCE. --] (]) 15:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Increase $550.905 billion (29th)
:::I have not gone to that page, but all I can say is I personally disagree. It is also not supported by historical documents that can be found in about a 15 sec Google search. For instance, I found a page that had numerous Roman maps, for instance, and ''Palestine'' was not a roman province - unless it was an "unofficial" reference. As we all probably know, the regional naming convention is a political football that is tossed back and forth depending on your POV and what axe you have to grind. Again, my 2 cents. ] (]) 15:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
• Per capita
When I wrote the request, I wondered if anybody would respond and if nobody did, I was thinking of using the "area" term. It seems Cisjordan most commonly refers to the West Bank. In WP it is a redirect to that article. I think that it also refers to the are more generally but it seems that usage is mostly among academics. As for the contemporary terms, it seems that the Mamluks divided the area into sanjaks (districts) of the Damascus Wilayah (province). I'm thinking of using a term like "Mamluk Levant" since that also gives some of the bigger picture as well. But I'm fine with any of the terms I've heard. Thanks for all the input. --] (]) 18:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Increase $54,370 (18th) ] (]) 18:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Academic writers in English call it Palestine with very few exceptions. This is true even for Israeli historians who call it ''Eretz Yisrael'' in the Hebrew editions of their books. To Ckruschke: the place was divided into three provinces, Palestina Prima, Palestina Secunda, and Palestina Tertia, in the late Roman and Byzantine periods. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
::::: Looking at some on ], emperor ] officially named the area Palestine in CE 70. Before that, the area was known as "Syria Palestina" and apparently the name ultimately stems from Philistines that lived in or around the area. --] (]) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Latest revision as of 19:19, 3 January 2025
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Israel is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 74 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2023, when it received 13,344,140 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report13 times. The weeks in which this happened:
view·edit Frequently asked questions
Why is Jerusalem listed as Israel's capital in the infobox?
Israel declares Jerusalem to be its capital, and has its seat of government there. However, the lack of international recognition is notable, hence the subtext was added "(limited recognition)" as the result of this RfC. For further information see Status of Jerusalem.
RfC
Should the article Gaza genocide be linked from this article, and if yes, where?
Possible answers:
No, it should not be linked
Yes, it should be linked in the lead.
Yes, it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Yes, it should be linked in the lead and the body of the article, attached to content similar to that Selfstudier developed above, and content similar to that Huldra developed in would serve well in the lede. It's obviously something readers are going to be coming to this page to learn more about, and the information exists on the encyclopedia, the conversations about whether it belongs here or not have laready been had, so there's no reason this page should not serve reader needs. — penultimate_supper 🚀 21:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph + add a single sentence to the end of lead like this, Huldra (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why it would be necessary to add it as a completely separate paragraph (if we were to add it) instead of just putting at the end of the third paragraph, which is far more related, and less abrupt. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes,adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph and add a single sentence to the end of lead per Huldra, but I would modify their suggested text ("In 2024, Israel was accused of committing the Gaza genocide)" to "In 2024, Israel was accused of committing genocide in Gaza" or similar. My logic for the change is that the accusation/dispute centres on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide (or are legitimate self-defence/similar), rather than whether the 'Gaza genocide' is being committed by Israel (as opposed to some other State or body) which Huldra's text otherwise implies.Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes to Selfstudier's suggestion in the body per the weight of reliable sources given (I'll leave to others to determine where), with a summary in the lead. Only suggestion is to add the arrest warrants on. TarnishedPath09:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
No The article "Gaza genocide" presents claims that lack broad consensus within the international community and are subject to significant dispute. Linking to such an article may mislead readers into perceiving these claims as established facts rather than contested allegations, thereby compromising the integrity of the host article. Eladkarmel (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
No per MaskedSinger, Allthemilescombined1 and Eladkarmel; feels like including this would unduly shoehorn something in that doesn't belong in the general overview article. Andre🚐21:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes. There's a relevant section where it can be mentioned: Israel#Israeli-occupied_territories. Right now, this article doesn't mention two important things: That the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a fugitive wanted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, and that Israel is being charged with genocide by South Africa in the International Court of Justice. I think there can be a new subsection in the "Israeli occupied territories" section, that mentions both facts. I see Selfstudier has given a sample text. I support that paragraph being added to the relevant section, but I think a mention of the ICC's arrest warrant of the Prime Minister of Israel (and Yoav Gallant's warrant too) could also be added, since it's also international litigation for crimes against humanity in Gaza. Mohammed Deif's arrest warrant doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. I think we can have a new subsection titled "Gaza Strip" that moves text that already exists in the section. So in addition to Selfstudier's text, I would add the first sentence of the arrest warrant article to the end of it, and make it look like THIS (A link to a sandbox page that would show what the article would look like).--JasonMacker (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
As far as adding it to the lead, the already existing sentence in the lead, "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." seems to be a good enough summary, but I guess I would modify it to "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations, the International Criminal Court, and United Nations officials." The ICC is technically not a UN body, so it should be mentioned separately. But other than that, I think such a sentence would be fine. I'm open to suggestions on this though. JasonMacker (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*No. The genocide allegation appears to be, at the moment, primarily a tool of propaganda. Unless substantial new evidence emerges, analyzed by impartial, non-politicized sources and supported by more than two vague statements and casualty figures (which include a significant number of Hamas militants but the Hamas-run Health Ministry prefers not to differentiate militants from civilians), such claims lack the rigor required for inclusion in serious, encyclopedic coverage. ABHammad (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
No. This article is about the State of Israel. Not news. Should the articles about the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and many others feature the various proven genocides that actually took place, or even in the lead? Might as well say "also known as the Z.E.", in the lead or anywhere, with some extra brackets for good measure? This is a matter of an ongoing armed conflict, with fog of war and disinformation throughout. Not only would it be "commenting on an ongoing investigation" as they say, but entirely inappropriate and irresponsible. Skullers (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes Per WP:LEDE, required mention of significant criticism or controversies, clearly true and which several of the No !votes have acknowledged as being the case. A mention should be added via inclusion within the sentence "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Not in the lede - a good chunk of the lede is already criticism, so adding additional accusations would seem like POV shoehorning. Not necessarily against inclusion in the body, but there isn't a specific proposal to comment on. — xDanielx /C\ 23:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
User:XDanielx there is a question about whether it should be in the body. ("Yes, it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph") So, if you agree: which paragraph? Huldra (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@Huldra: Relevant material is currently in the body, unless it is reverted. The original dispute was about a sentence being added to the lead not material being added to the body, something which is not usually a source of dispute unless the amount of such material is undue. Option 2 already assumes material present in the body, no?. And option 1 just says no, so the third option is not really necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: When I started this RfC on the 22 nov, it wasn't in the body (that was first added the 27th) so the the third option is useful (necessary?) for keeping it there, Huldra (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I just think the two things should not be mixed up, this RFC should not attempt to rubber stamp the addition that I made to the body, that should just be subject to the normal editing process. Imagine that I had not added it and people voted option 2? Then there would have had to have been another discussion about what should be in the body, so yes I have attempted to remedy a deficiency in the way the RFC was drafted and hopefully it meets with approval. Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes in the body and the lede: There are prominent RS (UN Special Committee, Israeli holocaust scholar Omer Bartov to cite two examples) supporting the charachterization that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza, so there is no reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the body. Accordingly, lede summarizes the body, so it should include that, given that it is one of the most prominent controversies Israel is facing second to the crime of apartheid in the West Bank (I am in favor of including both in the lede), though admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed, that's why for now it can be described as an accusation. The perfect short phrasing in my opinion for the lede can be:
“
Israel's practices in the occupied territories has drawn sustained international criticism for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including for maintaining an apartheid regime in the West Bank, as well as being accused of committing a genocide in Gaza.
Update to my "admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed," that is beginning to change as Amnesty International launched a report today charachterizing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. While this does not yet mean the threshold has been reached, but it gives a whole new significance to the inclusion of the "accusation" to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
1) Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. WP:Tertiary sources can be used to assess WP:DUE. My understanding is that once DUEness is established, Misplaced Pages articles can be kept up to date. This is actually a strength of Misplaced Pages. For example, no one would argue mentioning something about the economy in this article is WP:UNDUE. WP:Tertiary and overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel would include something about the economy. It could be too much or too little, but something about the economy would be DUE in this article. However, economic stats in this article would probably be much more up to date than many published overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel such as Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Israel.
Similarly, WP:Tertiary sources mention Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict at length. As such, Gaza genocide would be DUE. If in several years, newly published WP:Tertiary sources do not mention this, it can be taken out of the lead. If in several years, both newly published WP:Tertiary and overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel do not mention this, it can also be taken out of the body. But for now, to keep the article up to date, this is DUE. (Update: quote from intro chapter in overview secondary source provided belowBogazicili (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC))
...That conflict, which became known as the Arab-Israeli conflict, has heavily influenced Israel's development, as security issues have dominated Israeli politics and society since 1948...
World Encyclopedia, Israel entry (accessible through Misplaced Pages library). There's nothing similar to the Misplaced Pages lead. The "lead" in encyclopedia entry is just few sentences about geography. But the history section mentions these issues.
A Guide to Countries of the World (4 ed.) Israel entry (accessible through Misplaced Pages library). There's no history section, but large coverage, especially under Contemporary politics section.
3) MOS:LEADLENGTH. The above proposal would trim the lead word count by something like 26 words. It'd still be more than 400 words, but even many featured articles are longer than 400 words. Bogazicili (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
You linked to four tertiary sources, but I don't see the word "genocide" in any of them? (Britannica links to recent news about it, but that seems temporary.) Maybe this is a sign that our lede's focus should somehow be different, but in terms of accusations of genocide, if anything it seems like a sign that we should omit them.
I don't think there's any dispute that something like accusations that it has committed genocide would pass WP:V, but that isn't really an argument for highlighting material in a lede. That comes down mainly to WP:DUE and to MOS:LEDE, which tell us to briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. — xDanielx /C\ 01:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I gave my reasoning for this.
This is a recent and ongoing event. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, published in 2008, would not have mentioned 2024 events. It's a reliable source, but they are not clairvoyant.
My DUE argument was due to heavy coverage of Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict in Israel entries in tertiary sources.
If sources published in the next few years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, it can be taken out of the body or the lead.
But for now, we can keep the article up to date. I believe this is the precedent in Misplaced Pages. Otherwise Misplaced Pages would be several years or longer behind everything if we had to wait for overview WP:Secondary or WP:Tertiary sources for everything. Once those type of sources covering recent events are available however, those sources would determine how we proceed. Bogazicili (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it should be linked in the lead, at the end of the third paragraph where it discusses war crimes and crimes against humanity. This text has been through various iterations, but would benefit from greater precision by means of specificity. A great many countries have been accused of war crimes, making that a rather generic, not outstanding observation. While it is probably more notable that Israel has been accused of a particularly voluminous number of different war crimes in the post-WWII period, sitting above that are the very specific crimes against humanity in which it has been implicated –namely apartheid and genocide. Now apartheid has already been through the RFC process and denied a mention (based on rationales that grow poorer by the day) but to the question here, yes, it is extremely pertinent to mention the particularly nation-defining crime against humanity of genocide – the so-called crime of crimes. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but not in the lead. There's some discussion of genocide in the 21st century section of the article and this link could be put there, but it's not clear why this should be added to the lead. I am strongly opposed to adding it to the lead and most of the arguments for inclusion into the lead can be discounted on WP:10YT/WP:NOTTHENEWS/WP:RECENTISM grounds. Nemov (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes for the body, no for the lead It is certainly notable enough to mention in a relevant part of the article, but I think it is too recent to mention in the lead, since we cannot assess long-term historical importance yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The bar for something being included in the lead is pretty high, much higher than inclusion in the body. According to MOS:LEADNO, emphasis on material, such as the Gaza genocide, should reflect its relative importance to the topic as described by reliable sources. I think the current state of the lead is fine, although I would also be fine with adding a sentence or two about how Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal. I don't think the Gaza genocide by itself has enough weight to warrant inclusion in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly warrants inclusion in the lead. However, is the Gaza genocide itself heavily covered in those entries? It is the level of coverage for the specific topic that matters, not the level of coverage of the wider subject it is part of. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It says summarize the most important points. I am simply contending that this is not one of them. Israel is a sizable country with a lot of history, and I don't believe that this has enough DUE weight in reliable sources about Israel as a whole to warrant including prominently in the lead, although I think it is important enough to mention in the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict definitely warrants inclusion in the lead, and we could probably add a sentence about the legality of Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, but I think including the Gaza genocide specifically in the lead would be recentist and UNDUE, especially since the Israel-Hamas war is only covered by "several wars" in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
See the wording suggestion above. This could be added into the lead while trimming the lead. For WP:DUE, we can look at coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict. If newer tertiary sources in the upcoming years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, Gaza genocide can be taken out. Do we have any tertiary sources published in the past few months?
If the only sources were newspaper articles, recentist arguments would succeed. However, we have so many secondary sources on Gaza genocide now. Bogazicili (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we have many secondary sources on the Gaza genocide. We also have many secondary sources on a variety of other things, like the 7 October attacks or the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes. Those aren't included in the lead either. My question is whether secondary or tertiary sources on the topic of Israel as a whole mention the genocide. If not, it shouldn't be in the lead yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Arguing that we should rush this into the lead because we can't assess long-term importance yet is pure recentism. I'm not saying we can't update the body to add this information, but we should wait on adding it to the lead until the long-term impact is more clear. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It says summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies I can assure you this is a prominent controversy. Well, unless you can convince me it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It is a decently prominent controversy, but the State of Israel has had a lot of prominent controversies in its short history, and we can't stuff them all in the lead. I think mentioning that their occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal would cover the most important controversy, being their illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The Gaza genocide is arguably a subtopic of that. For an applicable example from another article, the featured article Japan does not mention the atrocities they committed against China in World War II in the lead, even though it was, and still is, a very prominent controversy. Similarly, the lead of Germany only gives the Holocaust two words in a sentence about the Nazi government. Similar considerations apply here. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The only one I have been able to find is Brittanica, which has been updated recently and makes no mention of the genocide. Very few overview sources have been published in that timeframe, and you are asking me to prove a negative. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Only in the body while it’s a non-insignificant criticism, it’s not sufficiently significant to be included in the lead. Both based on the uncertain status and the recency of the accusation, the lead should instead continue referring to other, certain misconduct, per the relevant policies cited above, instead of referring to a disputed interpretation of some of the very recent actions. FortunateSons (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I would defer to the cited Britannica here; more importantly, the fact that we’re discussing less than a handful of sources and a timeframe of 6 Months (or a year) is a strong indication that this is in fact recency bias. FortunateSons (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Since 1955, the population of Palestine has steadily increased. The life expectancy has increased, the infant mortality and child death rate has decreased. So I don’t understand how Israel has been genociding the Palestinians if all these numbers are improving for them. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Without even getting into if the advocacy group source you provided is a reliable source, for accusation of genocide, we would use WP:Secondary sources such as , so the source you provided does not invalidate those, per WP:NPOV. Bogazicili (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
In this context we should not overlook the latest turning point in the history of Palestine – the attack by Hamas on 7th October 2023 on Israeli settlements adjacent to Gaza and the subsequent genocidal war that the state of Israel has carried out in the Gaza strip
Given no recent (second half of 2024 for example) overview secondary or tertiary sources about Israel have been provided in this RfC, and given the lengthy coverage of Arab-Israel conflict in older tertiary sources about Israel, and given the above sources, I now think that three things are due both in the lead and in the body:
The lack of recent overviews (I don't think many have been published) does not mean that we should include these things in the lead. I support adding the Israel-Hamas war, I think the other two would be both be giving UNDUE weight to recent events. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The lack of recent overviews means we have to use what we have (above), while keeping in mind the heavy coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict in older sources. I just pinged you to ask for newer sources though, no need to discuss what we already discussed above. Bogazicili (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the available sourcing here and on the related article indicates that it's a major part of the coverage and history of Israel. The arguments against inclusion don't make any sense, either; whether individual editors agree with it, or whether it's disputed, are reasons to be cautious about the precise wording for how we cover it, but they're not what we use to determine if we cover it at all - that question comes down to how broad and high-quality the sourcing is and how significant they treat it as. And the extensive academic sourcing clearly justifies treating it as a high-profile aspect of the topic worth discussing prominently here. A lead is supposed to contain mention of significant criticism or controversies; we don't exclude high-profile stuff just because it's controversial. The sourcing disputing it above doesn't help; while it's not terribly high-quality, I'm sure higher-quality sourcing for that perspective exists... but it's written from the perspective of "this is an important and central argument over Israel", ie. a controversy worth covering even if they have a clear perspective on it. The sort of coverage that would be necessary to exclude it isn't just academics who disagree, but sourcing that establishes that it is broadly fringe, which doesn't seem to be the case. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion (RfC)
This doesn’t seem that actionable an RfC, or that productive a question. The content of the article is what is discussed, and links serve as navigational aids for delving into the content. Considering a link alone in the aether rather misses its purpose. CMD (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't seem very neutral to cover statements from sources like Albanese without also covering accusations of bias on their part. — xDanielx /C\ 23:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
It doesn’t make sense to cover things that aren’t relevant to the topic, like accusations of bias instead of addressing the substance of the statement. nableezy - 00:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
If we don't want to get into such accusations of bias then we shouldn't be using sources like Albanese in the first place. — xDanielx /C\ 17:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
That makes no sense to me. We dont include accusations of bias against the Times of Israel anytime we use them as a source, or the NYTimes, or Benny Morris, or whatever other reliable sources we cite. The ad hominem of "she's biased" is not relevant to the argument she makes or the qualifications she has to make them. At most, such accusations belong in the biography of Albanese, or Morris, or whatever other article that covers the sources themselves, not whenever they are cited. nableezy - 17:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
That's not at all comparable. NYT and Morris are occasionally criticized by both sides for various perceived biases. Accusations of bias against Albanese are far more significant, e.g. with officials from several different governments openly calling her antisemitic or unfit for her role. — xDanielx /C\ 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
They are directly comparable, and governments arent reliable sources for anything other than the views of the politicians heading those governments. It is a basic ad hominem, and it has nothing to do with the actual content of her comments. nableezy - 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't really make sense to call this an ad hominem, when source selection inherently involves evaluating sources rather than the content of their statements. Surely the WP:BESTSOURCES here would be uninvolved ones with some semblance of objectivity.
Covering Albanese's claim here is like covering Biden's claim that there isn't a genocide. Clearly neither is among the BESTSOURCES, and neither claim is noteworthy enough that it would need to be covered anyway. — xDanielx /C\ 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Biden is a politician speaking as a politician. Albanese is an expert in international law, speaking as an expert in international law. nableezy - 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
And Jews and others praising her, no? She must be doing something right. Afaics, she has tended to be ahead of the curve on most matters. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
^ "Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people". OHCHR. 16 November 2023. Archived from the original on 24 December 2023. Retrieved 22 December 2023. Grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians in the aftermath of 7 October, particularly in Gaza, point to a genocide in the making, UN experts said today. They illustrated evidence of increasing genocidal incitement, overt intent to "destroy the Palestinian people under occupation", loud calls for a 'second Nakba' in Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the use of powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts, resulting in a colossal death toll and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure.
undue because its nothing but military history....no memtiom of any other history. Sounds like the most unstable country doing nothing but being at war. Moxy🍁 13:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Agree so much details - over info that can be and is covred in sub articles that can be trimed like :The Jewish insurgency continued and peaked in July 1947, with a series of widespread guerrilla raids culminating in the Sergeants affair, in which the Irgun took two British sergeants hostage as attempted leverage against the planned execution of three Irgun operatives. After the executions were carried out, the Irgun killed the two British soldiers, hanged their bodies from trees, and left a booby trap at the scene which injured a British soldier. The incident caused widespread outrage in the UK" Moxy🍁 13:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The section that has been tagged is Israel#21st century, a short section, the material The Jewish insurgency continued and peaked... is not even in it, that material is in Israel#British_Mandate_for_Palestine section, which has not been tagged.
Sorry I thought I was pretty clear.... the whole section is just about military.... in fact we have two paragraphs for something that's happening in the past year. What we are looking for is substantial historical significant information about the country's social and historic evolution in that time. Best we simply don't regurgitate American news headlines. For example should mention Disengagement Plan... What kind of social human rights progress has there been? In 20 years there must be some sort of legal process that has changed.... democratic decline perhaps? What has happened on the diplomatic front.... like the mass increase in foreign aid? Moxy🍁 20:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
the whole section is just about military Which section? The only section that you tagged is the 21st Century section. If you meant to put the tag for the entire history section, then do that, I would also agree with that inline with multiple prior discussions asserting that it was way too long. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Which section? Not interested in some sort of gameplay. Your initial post was about a tag in a section this is the topic of the ongoing conversation..... with mention by another and myself about the excess detail overall in the history section with an example that I gave. You either agree it's excessive or you don't.... best course of action would be to come up with some sort of prose for the section.... and a better summary. Moxy🍁 21:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
What you have to ask yourself is does your approach to this conversation help improve that article or not. There is clearly a problem all over the history section...but the info in this tagged section is the topic of conversation...do you have any input what can be done to help the section? Then perhaps we can move on to other sections. Moxy🍁 15:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I asked you what the problems were and your response was to quote something else from an untagged section, so if you can answer the original question that would be good. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Best you let someone that is competent deal with the tag. My bad just frustrated that the post has not moved forward in actual improvements. Will address the problem with prose after the content addition dispute is over. Moxy🍁 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In 21st century history, please change
−
A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".
+
A majority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars who were polled believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".
"mostly US-based Middle East scholars" is not an identifiable group, the phrase as written doesn't have a concrete definition. Which Middle East scholars' beliefs are being talked about here? The scholars who were polled are being talking about. Adding language that clarifies the source of these statistics and defines the group in question could make the statistics more useful. Thank you for your consideration. Mikewem (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@Terrainman: Are these your first edits to articles on WP that relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If so, please familiarize yourself with WP:ARBPIA and WP:ONUS which states that adding contested content requires achieving consensus on the talk page, not reverting. This responsibility is known as onus lying with the inserter of the material. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thank-you. The information I added was to improve the context of the paragraph, in a much needed way. From what I can see, nothing contested was added. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Terrainman: Your additions to the lede/lead were reverted so the material is by definition is now contested, meaning you will have to gain consensus for them in the talk page, not revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand but your edit reason was to keep the brevity of the lead when my edit was rather brief in my view. It has been further edited by another user to make the additions more concise. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Terrainman: Your additions still increased the material about the 1948 war from six to eight sentences in the lede. This needs to be trimmed even below six sentences. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand since that para is already very long, however unfortunately the topic is extremely complicated; hence why it was the longest para in the lead long before my edit. My addition provided essential context in my view, I also received thanks for it and it has been refined since by another editor. In my view if this para is to be made more concise we need to explore other options for that. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Terrainman: Receiving thanks is not a measure of consensus, but discussion on the talk page. Your addition still duplicates mention of the UN partition plan in the second and third lede paragraphs, as well as non-summarizing elaborations on the Oslo Accords, which is also a duplicate mention in the third lede paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph explains that the partition plan failed, which is crucial context!
Furthermore, if we are setting this low a threshold in what is essential to the lead, there are multiple parts of the third paragraph which elaborate to a significant extend, rather than merely state the existence of key historical events which are in-fact needed to provide context for the rest of the paragraph. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Lede and Lead are legitimate alternative spellings; both refer to the intro material which, in Misplaced Pages, should summarize the major points of rest of the article. A major issue for many Misplaced Pages articles is putting too much stuff in the lede. Erp (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Minor edit Request
Remove "synonymous with Canaan" from the lede.
1. The borders of ancient Canaan don't line up with modern day Israel.
2. No real reason to mention ancient Canaan just like we don't mention that it's synonymous with British Mandatory Palestine or the Judea province of the Roman Empire.
Comment Not currently a subject of dispute? Maybe just create one and see what happens first? I wouldn't object personally but do we need an RFC for this right now? Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
That might have been just the into the sea thing? @Remsense:. I would have thought a hr top level section would have involved moving stuff from elsewhere in the article into it? Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
No How many countries have human rights violations? I would maybe accept a top level section for Israeli-occupied territories because that is pretty unique and a big part of what Israel physically is. Absolutely no for HR violations generally. Bitspectator⛩️23:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Coverage of Israel in RS is very often centered around human rights. That's not the case for most other countries. We should follow RS and similarly give top level attention to coverage of human rights. DMH223344 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed that Israeli-occupied territories should be a top level section. There could be a Human rights subsection under Government and politics section Bogazicili (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Information should be integrated into the article where it would be relevant rather than standing out on its own... WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS = "Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections. " This poor article really needs some work..... most of the articles is focused on military actions and one point in time.Moxy🍁00:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
Sweep them into the sea
Original sentence: 'The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state and to "sweep them into the sea".'
Proposed change: 'The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state.'
The quote that allegedly supports the inclusion of the the statement 'and to "sweep them into the sea"' is:
A week before the armies marched, Azzam told Kirkbride: "It does not matter how many there are. We will sweep them into the sea.
This quote is of course not consistent with the claim that the purpose of the invasion was to sweep the Jews into the sea. The other citations for this sentence include:
Morris 2008, p. 396: "The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal."
David Tal (2004). War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy. Routledge. p. 469. ISBN 978-1-135-77513-1. Archived from the original on 19 December 2023. Retrieved 1 December 2018. "some of the Arab armies invaded Palestine in order to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, Transjordan..."
Morris 2008, p. 187: Ahmed Shukeiry, one of Haj Amin al-Husseini's aides (and, later, the founding chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization), simply described the aim as "the elimination of the Jewish state." ... al-Quwwatli told his people: "Our army has entered ... we shall win and we shall eradicate Zionism""
None of these support the claim about sweeping Jews into the sea.
Additionally:
Ben-Ami: The Arab states were driven to war in great measure by theperception that prevailed in their societies as to the Jewish state andthe threat it posed to the Arabs.
Rouhanna: One goal of some of these armies was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; the Jordanian army, however, also sought to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state by conquering and annexing (after achieving the tacit understanding of the Zionist leadership) parts of Palestine for the Hashemite Kingdom.
Shapira: As the sheer magnitude of the Palestinian Arabs’ defeat emerged, and as the horror stories of the Jews’ alleged brutality spread throughout the Arab world, the pressure exerted by public opinion on the Arab states to come to the aid of their Palestinian brethren intensified. Despite difficulties arranging a unified military command, as well as mutual suspicion regarding each other’s objectives in Palestine, on April 30 the Arab states decided to invade.
Shlaim: Seven Arab states sent their armies into Palestine with the firm intention of strangling the Jewish state at birth.DMH223344 (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Edit Request
Change the new "Human Rights violations" section, no other country the I checked (including those with serious human rights violation claims like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Myanmar) have any kind of section named anywhere near as negatively. Those claims are usually found in the Government and Politics tab. The way it is now is a violation of WP:NPOVFyukfy5 (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confused by a comment Remsense left. I think it's an extremely controversial addition. Is there some WP rule reason that I have to revert, or is there consensus I'm not seeing? Bitspectator⛩️02:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
There's definitely an open discussion.... Best leave it out till the process is done. Thinking about adding undue tags in relation to three or four sections... there's more to this country than it's relationship with with Palestine. Will gather some thoughts together and bring it up at the project page see if we can help. Moxy🍁02:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
there's more to this country than it's relationship with with Palestine, right, and its relationship with Palestine and Palestinians is a core part of the coverage of Israel in RS. I'm curious where you think the undue tags should go. DMH223344 (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Article is to big ingeneral and suffers from in the new style - 21st century should be summarized much better. Israeli-occupied territories, International opinion and Accusations of Apartheid should be integrated into history and/ or foreign relations with just a few sentences for each topic leading our readers to main articles. See Germany for how its done.,see also Misplaced Pages:Summary style and WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS. Moxy🍁03:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
That seems like a strange suggestion, of course the occupation is relevant to the history, but it is also a crucial aspect of Israeli politics today. DMH223344 (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I am writing to express concern about the recent changes to the map. The current map includes territories marked in green, representing areas such as Palestinian territories and even the Golan Heights. This change departs from the previous map, which accurately reflected the internationally recognized borders as endorsed by the United Nations. Marking these territories in green introduces a controversial interpretation that is not widely accepted by major international organizations.
1. Lack of Consensus: Major international bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union, and other globally recognized entities do not depict these territories in a distinct color that implies sovereignty or control by specific nations. The new map’s coloration could mislead readers into assuming a level of recognition or legitimacy that does not exist.
2. Neutrality Concerns: Misplaced Pages strives to maintain a neutral perspective, especially on contentious geopolitical issues. By adopting a map with disputed territories marked differently, the page risks appearing to take a stance, which could alienate users and detract from Misplaced Pages’s reputation as an impartial source.
3. Consistency with Historical Usage: The previous map, in use for over 20 years, was widely accepted as a neutral representation of the region. It respected international consensus and did not introduce contentious visual elements. Returning to this map would preserve the neutrality and credibility of the content.
4. Precedent for Reliable Sources: Most authoritative atlases and online mapping tools, including those maintained by major international organizations, avoid marking these territories in distinct colors to sidestep misinterpretation. Aligning with these standards would bolster Misplaced Pages's reliability.
I respectfully request that the map be reverted to its previous version, which better reflects the official and internationally recognized borders. This change would ensure that Misplaced Pages adheres to its guiding principles of neutrality and accuracy. AIexperts (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
You don't have the needed qualifications to edit about this topic(you don't yet have 500 edits), please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The map reflects Israel's international recognized borders and the territories it claims (East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) and occupies militarily (West Bank excl. East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). This is mostly consistent with other country articles, such as Syria (map depicts unrecognized claim over the former Sanjak of Alexandretta) and Russia (map depicts claims over the Ukrainian territories it occupied since 2014). However, there is an argument to removing the West Bank (excl. East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip from the map and using File:Israel (orthographic projection) with disputed territories.svg instead, since Israel does not de jure claim the territory and it is internationally recognized as being part of the State of Palestine. 2018rebel22:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
There is no basis for Israeli claims to either EJ or the Golan, they are unrecognized annexes and along with the West Bank and Gaza are considered as occupied territories. Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
However, for consistency reasons, it would be justifiable to exclude territories not annexed by Israel, as locator maps don't typically include territories under military occupation, but do include territories unilaterally annexed. For example, the map of Russia does not include Abkhazia and South Ossetia in light green, despite them being internationally recognized as Russian-occupied territories, but does include Crimea, as it was illegally annexed in 2014. Similarly, the map of the United States does not include Al-Tanf. as it is not annexed territory of the US. 2018rebel23:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone that wants to can see Green Line Israel by clicking on a radio button, the initial question really is what we want the default view to be, that or with occupied territories shown. If it were up to me I would show Green Line Israel, excluding Golan, as default.
If all territories under military occupation are to be included on the map, why are Southern Lebanon and parts of Southern Syria, newly occupied since 2024, excluded? There is also a significant difference in the legal status of East Jerusalem versus the rest of the West Bank. Israeli civil law is applied in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, whereas it is extended to Israeli settlers in the rest of the West Bank only via emergency regulations. Gaza remains militarily occupied due to control over its airspace, territorial waters, and borders, but Israeli civil law is not extended and Israel does not formally claim the territory as its own. Meanwhile, if militarily-occupied territories are to be included, Southern Lebanon nor the newly occupied parts of Syria are shown in light green.
The map of Russia excludes Ukrainian territories that are occupied but not annexed, and the Ukraine map omits its military occupation of parts of Kursk Oblast. The Russian article map did not include the four annexed oblasts until after they were annexed, despite Russia beginning settlement activities before then . Other Misplaced Pages articles consistently differentiate between annexed and occupied territories, marking only annexed areas.
The map should either show all territories under Israeli military presence or limit itself to lands Israel formally claims as its own. Unrecognized or illegal claims should be marked in light green, in contrast to the West Bank (beyond East Jerusalem) and Gaza, which are solely claimed by the State of Palestine. This distinction is already visible on the map for the State of Palestine, where annexed territories like East Jerusalem and Latrun are marked differently from areas claimed exclusively by Palestine. 2018rebel19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Just to repeat that what we do here on this page for the map here does not depend on what is done at any other page.
Southern Lebanon and parts of Southern Syria have not as yet been declared as occupied territory by any competent authority afaik.
Lands that Israel formally claims (EJ/Golan) are also illegal claims, so designated by the UNSC (reaffirmed recently by the ICJ in respect of EJ), so this distinction is of no import.
As things stand, I simply want to note the OP request as not done (no consensus of EC editors). Presumably you do not want to do that. So I suggest we wait and see if any other editors have a view. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2025
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
I request an edit change of the GDP (Nominal), GDP (PPP), GDP Per Capita (Nominal), and GDP Per Capita (PPP) of Israel to 2025 in Accordance to IMF's October 2024 Database. The source will remain the same as the source currently shown, but the access date will be changed to "2 January 2025". Please Change Before (X) to After (Y).
Before (X): 2024 Estimate
GDP (PPP)
• Total
Increase $541.343 billion (47th)
• Per capita
Increase $54,446 (29th)
GDP (nominal)
• Total
Increase $528.067 billion (29th)
• Per capita
Increase $53,110 (18th)
After (Y): 2025 Estimate
GDP (PPP)
• Total
Increase $565.878 billion (47th)
• Per capita
Increase $55,847 (29th)
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Why is Jerusalem listed as Israel's capital in the infobox?
Israel declares Jerusalem to be its capital, and has its seat of government there. However, the lack of international recognition is notable, hence the subtext was added "(limited recognition)" as the result of this RfC. For further information see Status of Jerusalem.
Resolved
The redirect "Israel" has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 7 § "Israel" until a consensus is reached. Ca 15:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Done QuicoleJR (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
_with_disputed_territories.svg)
