Talk:Criticism of Israel/Archive 2

Proposal
I'm under the impression that this article is merely a compliment of Israel and the apartheid analogy. There is no Criticism of the US government], [[Criticism of the Syrian government, Criticism of the Russian government, etc...even though more than enough content exists to support such articles.

But, as an AFD will end in a "no consensus" like the apartheid analogy, I have a few suggestions.


 * To streamline the article and reduce its size, perhaps single issues should include both positive and negative criticism.
 * Right now the article starts off with a dozen+ critical sections about the Israeli government which aren't challenged until much later in the article. Editors should be discouraged from promoting these types of frames.

That's all I have to add. Wikifan Be nice 09:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Except that there are articles such as Criticism of the United States (which redirects to Anti-Americanism, as that is apparently the common term). There are not articles on the other two, but that is largely because no one has made them yet. You can certainly make one about Syria at this point. One on Russia, however, might need to be split between the Soviet Union, Tsarist Russia, and Modern Russia. But, as was discussed above here, the reason why this isn't titled Criticism of Israel is because that could be misconstrued in a number of ways just because it's Israel we're dealing with. Thus, the current name is more explicit for the content.


 * And the thing you have to remember is that most of these Criticism of articles are made following WP:SPLIT, once they became too large in their main articles. This article definitely is one of those that was done that way. Oh, and a few articles you missed include Criticism of the United Nations, Anti-Canadianism, and the like. Silver  seren C 20:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Anti-Americanism is not comparable to this article. This article is not about hostility to Israel, it is a long synthesis collection of talking points that aren't challenged follow by another section which counter those talking points. Only one other article on Wikipedia has the same format - Israel and the apartheid analogy. But because this article won't be deleted even though it should be, there are some easy problems that can be fixed but it would have to involve the editors who work on this article. Wikifan Be nice  22:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikifan, I suggest you review the previous AfD for this article before repeating the various arguments here. You should also read the footnotes, which contain a number of quotes from RS which substantiate the notability of this topic and all the subtopics. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Criticism of the Israeli government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101124215826/http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/want-to-delegitimize-israel-be-careful-who-you-mess-with-1.284184 to http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/want-to-delegitimize-israel-be-careful-who-you-mess-with-1.284184

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Request move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the Israeli government → Criticism of Israel or Criticism of Israel (politics) – as per WP:COMMONNAME. Google: "Criticism of Israel" → About 2,500,000 results; "Criticism of the Israeli government" → About 949,000 results. Criticism can relate to issues such as: Israeli political interventions, Israeli political opinions, results of actions of Israel Defense Forces and the presence of Israeli settlements in Israeli-occupied territories. Often the the subject of "Criticism of Israel" is discussed as a subject in its own right: Google: "Criticism of Israel" AND "anti-Semitism" OR "anti-Semitic" OR "anti-Israeli" OR "anti-Israelism". A similar proposal was raised at Talk:Criticism_of_the_Israeli_government. Some have argued that "Criticism of Israel" is a symptom or manifestation of "antisemitism"-"anti-Semitism". Others view them as separate issues. Regardless of title, the same rules of apply to all Wikipedia articles. Common name should be applied. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Some" (in "Some have argued") is a Weasel word. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I guess I must be a pretty confused weasel then because I balanced "Some" with "Others". Feel free to click on the Google links above to find a flood arguments from both sides. Gregkaye (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - proposed move target is insufficiently precise to disambiguate between criticism of the behaviors of the country vs opposition to the existence of an Israeli state. Incidentally, Criticism of Israel probably should redirect to Anti-Zionism rather than here (or to a disambiguation page if that was considered more neutral, since someone reaching Criticism of Israel could plausibly be looking for either article). Nominator, WP:COMMONNAME does not say what you think it does. VQuakr (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument is irrelevant. Some topics are broad in scope, see Universe, Earth, Human.  In cases like this it is standard practice to have a brief section on a topic accompanied by a link to the main article.  Criticism of Israel is not the same as Anti-Zionism.  There may be overlap but that is a common feature of many Wikipedia articles.  Criticism of Israel is a commonly used title which encompasses Criticism of the Israeli government.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that should give complete coverage of subject topics.  Criticism of the Israeli government does not give complete coverage.  The article, like any other in Wikipedia, should treat its subject matter with neutrality.  At every topic point there should be opportunity for responses from representatives of the Israeli government and military or other commentators with relevant things to say.  All content should be fair and balanced and, as necessary, it can be policed to be so.  Gregkaye (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentaly there is information in the anti-Zionism article that would be better placed in an article on Criticisms of Israel. For instance the first picture is captioned: "Protest against the Gaza war in Dar es Salaam..".  Even if some of those people held anti-Zionist agendas they were there to protest against the Gaza war. Gregkaye (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Criticism of the Israeli govt and Criticism of Israel are distinct topics, as VQuakr has also said above. "...of Israel" is a more general term, but the most logical interpretation, IMO, would be criticism of/opposition to the existence of Israel, irrespective of what its government is doing; "...of the Israeli government" refers specifically to its treatment of Palestinians, assassination of Iranian scientists, etc. The former topic is already (sort of) covered by Anti-zionism. So this should stay as is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support, I am a Zionist according to the definition that I am supporter of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel. I love the people and the place and, after five years of living there, nothing has changed.  I am also a Critic of Israel with some of those criticism being levelled at behaviours of the IDF and other criticisms being levelled at the presence of Israeli settlements in Israeli-occupied territories.  I mention this again just to make the point that this activity does not fit in with the Wikipedia definition of Zionism.  In education and employment it is possible to criticise a student or a worker with no thought being given to them being expelled or sacked.  You can criticise a family member or fellow citizen with no thought to them being disinherited or deported.  There is such a thing as constructive criticism which which holds hope for change for the better.  Anti-Zionism does not reflect this. Gregkaye (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Gregkaye, I understand your point, I think; but it seems to me that "criticism of the Israeli government" is a more specific term for exactly those criticisms as you have described; you may think of it as "criticism of Israel," but why does that rule out something more specific? I think of the USA as "America" in my head, but the correct term is still the "United states of America." In short, I don't think your views are incompatible with the current title. Or am I missing something? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Human shield incidents
Category:Human shield incidents has been removed. Special:Diff/1059613098. I note that there is an entire section on #Human_shield_allegations.

I suggest that the category be restored, as the article discusses Human shield incidents. Please respond. Venkat TL (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article mentions some allegations of human shields incidents, as well as their rebuttal. Adding Category:Human shield incidents would imply that these allegations are correct, violating WP:NPOV, just as adding Catetegry:False claims of use of human shield and implying that they are false would violate it. A neutral category, such as Category:Human shield accusations or Category:Human shield allegations would be fine. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, the human shield section is woefully inadequete, focusing on one incident when there are countless more. Will see about incorporating a better summary of this here.  nableezy  - 19:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Better name for article?
not moved. While I agree that in general 'criticism of X', where X is a country, is almost always taken to apply to the government and policies of the country itself, formerIP makes a very valid point that this assumption does not necessarily hold up in the case of Israel. Shortening the article title in the interests of conciseness may lead to an unwarranted ambiguity and there is no harm in avoiding that potential ambiguity with a qualifier. --rgpk (comment) 17:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the Israeli government → Criticism of Israel — I've been reading through some of the sources, and it looks like the phrases most commonly used in this topic area are "criticism of Israel" or "criticism of Israeli policies". The phrase "criticism of Israeli government" seems to be a distant third. Conciseness would suggest "Criticism of Israel" may be best. Dershowitz's book is The Case for Israel, not The Case for the Israeli Government :-)    I understand the change from   "Criticism of Israel"  to  "Criticism of the Israeli government" happened as a result of some suggestions made in the AfD discussion, but that discussion was not expressly about the article's name.   I guess I'm suggesting a return to the original name of the article.   Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't read The Case for Israel, but my impression is that it is a response to Anti-Zionism, not particular criticisms of Israel/The Israeli government as are detailed in this article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support a change back to Criticism of Israel. I understand the change to the current title, but it just seems far too PC, in my opinion. And, as Noleander points out, the majority of sources do not use the current title and we should really be reflecting our sources and not our own opinions on the matter. Yes, the subject matter is very uncomfortable to a lot of people and high emotions are raised from it, but we should work on treating the subject in the proper, encyclopedic way without being influenced by who is going to be upset by it. There will always be those who disagree or are offended on a subject such as this, even if it is treated in an NPOV manner. Silver  seren C 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support [as proposer] - I looked at the various articles that link to this article. There are maybe 60 or so.  Almost all of them do so in the context of "criticism of Israel", and many have that exact phrase in their text (and that text is linked to this article).   In other words, the extra word "government" rarely appears in the linked articles.  Another relevant statistic:   the phrase "Criticism of Israel" appears in WP 343 times; the phrase "Criticisim of Israeli government policies" 6 times.  The phrase "Criticism of Israeli government" only once ... in this article. --Noleander (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose- the some suggestions made in the AfD discussion amounted to the following (summary for Noleander) - while there is criticism, the journalistic expressions are not encyclopǣdic. Criticism of Israel includes its entire population, while Criticism of Israeli policies include state and non-state institutional policies. While journalists may have the licinse to use such general phrases, the consensus was that Wikipedia editors do not Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * K: Thanks for summarizing the info from the AfD.  However, the WP:Title policy is quite clear:  the title must use the phrase most commonly used in the sources, even if some editors perceive that common title as inappropriate.   To quote from that policy:
 * "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms....Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Queen (London, England rock band)" over Queen (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."
 * It is clear from the sources that "Criticism of Israel" is the most common phrase.   Consensus of editors cannot override policy.  --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Koakhtzvigad. I seems to me that this discussion has only just been had. It is not clear that "Criticism of Israel" is more common in sources, and even if it is policy requires the title to be "as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously". "Israel" and "Israeli government" are clearly two different things, and we can't have a title which is ambiguous as to which is referred to. --FormerIP (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FormerIP: Why do you say "It is not clear that "Criticism of Israel" is more common in sources"? To the contrary, it is far and away the most common phrase.  Can you find examples of "Criticism of Israeli government" in the sources?   If you search hard, you may be able to find one or two, but you'll see that they are heavily out-numbered by "Criticism of Israel".  It is not our role as editors to replace common phrases with uncommon ones, in order to impose our own perspectives.   --Noleander (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The current name feels very contrived (i.e. I agree with Silverseren), Criticism of Israel is by far the most common phrase for this subject with 2.5m google hits, 600 book references and WP:RS calling the phrase a "ubiquitous rubric" here (i.e. I agree with Noleander). We can use the first sentence to make it abundantly clear what the article refers to. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Summary of hit statistics from Google:
 * I think the statistics are pretty overwhelming. Plus, there is the WP:Title guidance encouraging conciseness in article titles.--Noleander (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just a bad use of statistics, Noleander. Searching for "Criticism of Israel" will return any page containing that string - i.e. it will return anything containing "Criticism of Israeli policies", "Criticism of Israel's government", "Criticism of Israeli pastry chefs", "Criticism of Israel Asper" etc etc.
 * In other words, it is not surprising or useful to the discussion to note that the shorter string gets more hits.
 * Also, just a note: the current title of the page is not "Criticism of Israeli government".--FormerIP (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that error related to the word "the". I've fixed that in the table. --Noleander (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FormerIP:  I searched in Google for "Criticism of Israel Asper", and I got zero hits, so that is not an issue.  And the Google statistics for "Criticism of Israel" does not include phrases like "Criticism of Israeli ...", so that is not an issue.    But you raise a good point about the possibility that the phrase "Criticism of Israel" itself is ambiguous.  So let me ask this: Can you identify a significant usage of the phrase "Criticism of Israel" that does not mean "criticism of the government, state, or its policies?"   I cannot think of one.  Even if you find a minor usage of that phrase that is not relevant to the government, WP:Title is clear that we go with the concise title, and use disambiguation links & hatnotes to ameliorate the ambiguity.   --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples of the types of results you would need to identify and exclude to get at anything worth considering here:
 * For the last one, you'll need to scroll to page two (second down if it works the same for you) to see the result I am talking about.
 * For example, "Criticisms of Israel's" gets over a million hits, "Criticism of Israel-US" gets 142K. Once you start taking those types of example into account, the ghit gap is going to reduce quite substantially, I would suggest.
 * --FormerIP (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FormerIP:  Yes, I understand you point about the statistics, but my question remains unanswered:    Given that criticism of Israel's government/state/policies accounts for the vast majority of criticism, what confusion could result from the title "Criticism of Israel"?  In other words, what other target of criticism are sources talking about when they use that phrase?  Criticism of Israel's weather?  of Israel's soccer team?  Unless there is some other significant target of criticism that would cause confusion, WP:Title indicates that the concise, commonly-used phrase is best. --Noleander (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * General or theoretical anti-Zionism would be "criticism of Israel", but would fall outside of the purpose of the article, for example. --FormerIP (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think arguments here about COMMONNAME are way wide of the mark. Not only is it extremely unclear that we have a candidate name that really is more common than others, but it seems to me to be a bit muddled to think that COMMONNAME can be applied to such an abstract topic as this one in the first place.


 * I think the other mistake is thinking of "Criticism of Israel" and "Criticism of the Israeli government" as being completely interchangeable and it's just a matter which one you like best. This isn't the case. For example, in this article, the writer Howard Jacobson says "I would tear the settlements down with my own hands had I power enough in them". This clearly implies a criticism of Israeli government policy and would seem suitable in principle for inclusion in the article (subject to noteworthiness etc). But it is clear from the rest of the article and from Jacobson's other writings that he is a strong supporter of Israel and that his comment in this case is not criticism of Israel per se. So can it be included or not? Would we be able to include material if there is doubt as to whether it really constitutes "criticism of Israel"? Maybe it can be included along with some additional text so that we are not misrepresenting the author? Do we then do that for every author?


 * I'm sure there are potential answers to those sorts of questions, but that's not the point. Why change the title of the article so as to make it vaguer and more problematic? The article is contentious enough as it is. --FormerIP (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support rename. It is clear to everybody but the most picayune that "Criticism of Israel" means "Criticism of the Israeli government" or "Criticism of Israeli policies" or "Criticism of Israeli actions". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is a distinct difference between criticizing the Israeli government and its policies (as an entity), and criticizing Israel (as a people group or social construct). If we change the name of the article to Criticism of Israel, it could be more easily construed as anti-semitic, while the current title reflects those who disagree with the Israeli government, but bear no hostility to Israelis (or Jews) and their right to self determination. I think in sensitive issues like this we need to be as clear as possible so even the most picayune can understand the topic.--   Novus    Orator     06:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel regarded as antisemitism-section.
This section is too large and create a problem of WP:UNDUE because the opponents of the analogy have about 80% of section it should trimmed to present both views in equal way.--Shrike (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't present views in an equal way. It presents them according to WP:Balance. I don't know what the relative prominence of each view is in RS but it is unlikely that they will be coincidentally equal.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right I don't think that criticism of the analogy is far more prominent in the WP:RS.The other option would be to expand the view that support the analogy but the trimming would be more preferable per WP:SIZE.--Shrike (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrike, I don't agree. The section is not about whether the analogy is correct or not (in many occassions it may be fully justified) - the 80:20 you referred to are not directly opposing views. For example, you will not find any WP:RS who directly object to the suggestion in the "80% section" that the analogy is often misused. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This views that criticize the analogy are given too much prominence and I don't see a reason why?--Shrike (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Moreover there are other problems with the article.For example when given an example of critism there is no answer to this arguments.Per WP:NPOV we should include such answer to each example.Meantime I will tag the article.--Shrike (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add RS answers as you see fit. But your last edit was on the borderline of vandalism - add answers, don't delete the content. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I already explained why this section should be trimmed by calling my edit a vandalism you breaking WP:CIVIL.Adding more content will go against WP:SIZE.--Shrike (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrike, surely you understand the difference between "trimming" the section and deleting it in its entirety. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrike, if you are worried about wp:size, you should break the section out in to a new article. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Malik I didn't delete I left both views.Now the criticizers take about 80-90% of the section is clear case of WP:UNDUE but if you have other suggestion I would be happy to hear it.
 * @Once I don't think its notable enough to have its own article and it would probably be a WP:POVFORK.

--Shrike (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrike, you deleted nearly 31K of text! Trimming it would mean summarizing it and deleting what you felt wasn't necessary.
 * Here's a suggestion: There is a short, almost incomprehensible sentence that introduces the section you deleted ("They provide a variety of reasons for objecting to the equation, including stifling free expression, promoting anti-Semitism, diluting genuine anti-Semitism, and alienating Jews from Judaism or Israel.") Expand it into two or three (or more) sentences that summarize the rest of the section, including footnotes, and then delete the material you have summarized. You may want to draft some language here to avoid an edit war.
 * Just a suggestion. Feel free to accept it or ignore it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Criticism of the Israeli government
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Criticism of the Israeli government's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sharon": From 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict: Assaf Sharon, "Failure in Gaza", New York Review of Books, 25 September 2014, pp. 20-24. From Haifa:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ken Livingstone's position
Could someone with access edit the description of Ken Livingstone, where he is named the "Former Mayor of the City of London"? He was Mayor of London, not Lord Mayor of London. Thanks. WhistonTom (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * . Thank you for pointing that out. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 15:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)