Talk:Israel/Archive 105

Historically accurate information removed
User:Makeandtoss, who clearly edits with a pro-Palestine bias, has removed historically accurate information to perpetuate an inaccurate viewpoint. While the original article may have addressed the remaining territory, it's essential to note that the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza constitutes only 23% of the British Mandate for Palestine. This information holds significant importance for maintaining neutrality.

Compare:

The 1949 Armistice Agreements saw Israel's borders established over most of the former remaining Mandate territory, which is not including the 77% which was previously used to establish Jordan on 11 April 1922 , while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip , were taken by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I stopped reading at: who clearly edits with a pro-Palestine bias. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not simply examine his edit history to either invalidate or validate my claim? EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He promptly archived my talk post, which called out his edits, indicating a clear intention to conceal actions that could be viewed as biased editing from initial viewers. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please cease your ad hominem attacks immediately before action is taken against you. Archiving talk pages is within my right, which is even optional and not mandated by Wikipedia that even allows blanking talk pages. As for my editing is supported by reliable sources and according to WP guidelines, unlike the last recent edit you tried to insert without a source. If it is an "indisputable fact", then I am sure it would be easy for you to provide a reliable source. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/05/opinion/is-jordan-palestine-of-course.html
 * 80%, it's an obvious fact for anyone with any knowledge of history of the Levant, here's your reliable source. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I will gladly provide 100 more if you'd like... EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. And if it exists it is a fringe viewpoint in the literature. Doesn't belong in the lede as a summary of the body anyway. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a geographical fact, geography is not an opinion. The British Mandate for Palestine included both "Palestine" and "Jordan". Jordan constituted 80% of the British Mandate for Palestine. This is not an opinion, this is fact. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here I have provided additional sources to support the geographical fact that Jordan comprised roughly 80% of the british mandate for palestine. Do you think this is satisfactory to update and correct the article?
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/28/dueling-histories-debate-over-historic-palestine/
 * https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/cmenas-assets/cmenas-documents/unit-of-israel-palestine/Section1_BritishMandateInPalestine.pdf
 * https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/The%20League%20of%20Nations%20Mandate%20for%20Palestine%20-%201920.aspx?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template#:~:text=The%20territory%20of%20the%20British,separate%20administrative%20entity%20called%20Transjordan.
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/israel-palestine-gaza-west-bank-borders
 * EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * it's essential to note that the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza constitutes only 23% of the British Mandate for Palestine. Rubbish, this is the propaganda nonsense that includes Jordan in the Mandate. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your response is completely unconstructive and baseless. Jordan was indeed a part of the British Mandate for Palestine, ummm Mandate for Palestine. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And excluded from the Zionist provisions for nearly all of it, administered totally separately, and the border was not set until later so it wasn't even Jordan, it was just the other side of the Jordan. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the relevance between that and the fact I am trying to include for the sake of neutrality. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Me either, stop writing rubbish and I won't respond to it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The administration of the area that constitutes Jordan today does not alter the historical fact that approximately 77% of the land allocated under the British mandate was used to establish the state of Jordan. The timing of border agreements made by outside additional parties does not negate the established borders and the allocation of land. Your argument appears to rely on a strawman fallacy EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please cite a reliable source showing this 77%. When you can't find one, let me know. Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are these not Reliable sources?
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/28/dueling-histories-debate-over-historic-palestine/
 * https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/cmenas-assets/cmenas-documents/unit-of-israel-palestine/Section1_BritishMandateInPalestine.pdf
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/israel-palestine-gaza-west-bank-borders
 * EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Idk, you tell me. Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a rhetorical question. They are obviously reliable sources. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You mentioned the Mandate for Palestine -> "Whilst the Mandate for Palestine document covered both Mandatory Palestine (from 1920) and the Emirate of Transjordan (added in 1921), Transjordan was never part of Mandatory Palestine." and 4 reliable sources cited to that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome, from strawman fallacy to now changing the goalpost. :) I provide reliable sources, now they are not good enough. We're not talking about Mandatory Palestine, my edit CLEARLY said British Mandate for Palestine. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * British Mandate for Palestine was a document, but your edit falsely and misleadingly makes a geographic connection with the area size. This point is irrelevant as far as the literature is concerned. And it still does not belong to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Israel Hebrew Name
in the Hebrew name of Israel the vowels are very hard to read. Rishypeasy (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Rishypeasy not everyone can read niqqud. Ahri.boy (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

English
Just like Arabic, English is also a recognized language in Israel. Please add English alongside Arabic in the "recognized languages" section in the infobox. Here are the sources, as added to the article List of countries and territories where English is an official language.

MylowattsIAm (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please add English alongside Arabic in the "recognized languages" section in the infobox. The sources I already gave. MylowattsIAm (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: English is not a de jure official language in Israel as stated in your cites. The article text appears to cover this correctly. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then why not add it as a de facto recognized language with these citations and footnotes explaining it? It's stared that it's use comes even before Arabic so it makes no sense to leave it out of the infobox. MylowattsIAm (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There are a very large number of languages spoken in Israel as can be seen in the article on this at: Languages of Israel linked to in the languages section of this article. We cannot put them in an infobox. Please stop reopening this request. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But English has a completely different status. One of the sources literally states "after Hebrew but before Arabic". It's not just another language used by someone in Israel, it is a working language of the state, a bit less important than Hebrew but more important than Arabic. Some articles use a row titled "working language" so perhaps we could use that here. I will reopen the request again for the last time. MylowattsIAm (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to support this suggestion. More sources are needed to back the claim of English as the working language. Ahri.boy (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * English is used around the world, somewhat like French centuries ago. I've been to many countries in South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific and had little problem using English. {OK, some difficulty in parts of the US.) This is partly due the prevalence of tech related documents written in English, and partly due to pop music and movies, and partly due to the annoying American tourists countries put up with. Israel is a special case. But these factors still exist. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Separate section for "Criticism (of Israel)"?
In the Government and politics section, there is a "see also" link for the Criticism of Israel. I wonder if there should be a separate section altogether for that, especially considering some of the criticism for the state is not entirely about "government and politics" (examples: islamophobia, antisemitism, etc). Josethewikier (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Not what we are looking for...WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure..." WP:CSECTION " Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. " Moxy 🍁 03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

NPOV in the lede
Does anyone disagree with the content or the phrasing in this paragraph:
 * Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Judahite states, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. The region was successively conquered and assimilated by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine empires, the Arab Caliphates, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks and the Ottomans, causing the region to become very cosmopolitan. The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in Europe, a movement seeking a Jewish homeland, which garnered British support during World War I. During the war, the Ottomans were defeated and the British Mandate for Palestine was set up in 1920. Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine increased considerably, leading to intercommunal conflict between Jews and Arabs. The 1947 UN Partition Plan triggered a civil war between the two groups, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population, a central component of the fracturing, dispossession, and displacement of Palestinians known as the Nakba in Palestinian society.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've added
 * ...exacerbated by British colonial policy of divide and rule.
 * at the end of the sentence on intercommunal conflict Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you remove the cosmopolitan part in the lead OR add the corresponding info in the body as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body? Also could you please check the article length as this article was previously tagged as being too long? Wafflefrites (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a small paragraph summarising thousands of years of history, I think it is very concise, and smaller than a lot paragraphs in other ledes or even in this lede. Are citations included when discussing the article length?
 * Is that not a basic fact backed up by sources, therefore not needing to be in the body as per WP:Lede? Regardless I agree it needs to be mentioned in the body of the article, I'll work on it now. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please revert first and seek consensus, rather than the other way around. As much as I agree with the framing of your edits, but this is really overdetailed. Lede should be as brief and factual as possible, without any analyses or the mention of multiple other things. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll shorten the final sentence to
 * ...Arab population, a central component of what is known as the Nakba in Palestinian society.
 * Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Still overdetailed, especially the cosmopolitan and the whole Nakba thing. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They're small one clause sentences. The cosmopolitan part summarises the effect lots of different ruling empires had on the region and links that sentence back to the region/rounds it off. The Nakba sentence is just a few words long to add a highly relevant page link. Furthermore, the paragraph still remains quite short. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed very to fairly cosmopolitan Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to think of a couple words we could add to imply previous Jewish migrations such as after the Spanish inquisition Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am ok with shortening the sentence and don’t mind keeping the link to Nakba, but I will admit I my reasoning is completely biased, so I cannot really provide appropriate reasoning on that. Please see WP:LENGTH for article length guidelines. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are quite ambiguous, there might be a way to include the information in this paragraph with less words without killing the flow but I'm not seeing it Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s under WP:SIZERULE. I can check the length later and trim appropriately if needed. I think I am ok with keeping the link to Nakba because the link was previously in the lead and seemed important to some editors, but that is pretty much the reason. Probably need additional feedback from others. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the part saying in Palestinian society is key to state the perspective Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Would it not be easier to trim the sections down a little rather than the lede?
 * Also would very cosmopolitan be lede worthy? The only reason I put fairly was because I only had two sources. I suppose the word assimilated alludes to this, idk, but it wasn't necessarily the various empires causing this but waves of migration Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do really think this is key to the history of Israel/Palestine region and I'm amazed it wasn't already talked about in the article. Also, I don't understand why you referenced malaria Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with that part of the history. Is it in the Wikipedia article for Palestine (region)? I mentioned malaria because I am wondering how cosmopolitan the region was if malaria was endemic. Also I am wondering if the cosmopolitan part is not mentioned because this article is mostly focusing on the region when it was/is named Israel. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose it’s the age old focus on political history rather than social history Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wafflefrites how about rewriting the sentence that lists empires and replacing it with:
 * Located at a continental crossroad, the southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine empires, the Arab Caliphates, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks and the Ottomans, with its wide array of holy sites in various faiths attracting waves of immigration throughout history.
 * This leads into the next sentence well and flows well, and we could trim the 26 words from elsewhere. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would remove “many” and “its wide array of” for concision Wafflefrites (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I suppose 'many' is rendered superfluous by the long list immediately after Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What I'm seeing is mass changes by 2 new editors....... let's make sure we give good edit summaries. And let's make sure if there are reverts this is not taking personally....we can discuss things. Moxy 🍁 03:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry I get impatient Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Obv the premise for discussion shouldn’t be me defending changes but rather multiple people contributing to a consensus on the changes Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The list of empires wasn’t random, it was a list of empires in the order of those that ruled over the region. I really don’t think it makes sense for this period of history to be entirely ignored here. Alexanderkowal (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the copyedit; naming the various empires is unnecessary detail for the lead; "many different empires" is better. Although, I think even better would be improved by mentioning (in some brief formulation) that the different empires included Jewish, Islamic, Christian, and "other" empires. The whole "crossroads of three continents" thing. It explains why the area is important to Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others. Levivich (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, although the many different empires refers to the time period after Judah. I think that would have to be in the first sentence of the paragraph Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How about “… Holy Land, and has been controlled by Jewish, Muslim, and Christian polities throughout history.” Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Nakba in the lede
On whether to include the Nakba pagelink in this paragraph in the lede:
 * Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Judahite states, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Situated at a continental crossroad, the southern Levant subsequently came under the rule of different empires, such as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, Seljuk, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman empires. The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in Europe, a movement seeking a Jewish homeland, which garnered British support during World War I. During the war, British occupation led to the setting up of Mandatory Palestine in 1920. Increased Jewish immigration combined with British colonial policy led to intercommunal conflict between Jews and Arabs. The 1947 UN Partition Plan triggered a civil war between the two groups, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population, known as the Nakba,   while a minority remained and became Arab citizens of Israel.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm linking to this on Talk:Nakba and Talk:Zionism in the hope we can build a strong consensus on this issue. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can someone more experienced and more neutral than me please take over and manage discussion Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this supposed to be an WP:RFC? See WP:RFCOPEN. And where is the WP:RFCBEFORE? (ie Is this even disputed by anyone other than yourself?) Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t dispute it, I’m for its inclusion. Two people have stated either opposition or wariness. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a weak consensus at the moment to include it. On such a controversial issue, a strong one is infinitely better although the merit of this RfC would depend on a good facilitator and efforts to build a consensus from both sides. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me, where is the discussion where any editor queried the inclusion of the word nakba? Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It was reverted with a valid reason, I reinstated it due to weak consensus and started this RfC so as to hear arguments Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If all we are talking about is an insertion, a removal and a reinsertion without any subsequent discussion, then there is presumed consensus.
 * Btw, if the removal was for a valid reason, then it would have been better, although not compulsory, to have started the discussion per WP:BRD.
 * But if there is no current discussion, then this RFC is not required and you should close it (remove the RFC tags). Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ll close it and maybe reopen it if there’s further disagreement Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, include -- this is a different article from 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, so it makes sense to mention Nakba in the lead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is redundant, we already mention the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. HaOfa (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion not an RFC so no need for support/oppose comments. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Would it be an improvement if it were to say:
 * known as the Nakba in Palestinian society.
 * in order to make it clear that that article is written from the Palestinian perspective, and frame it. If this were done, would you support its inclusion in the lede here? Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * that article is written from the Palestinian perspective If that's true, add some other perspectives so that it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have stated that the Israeli perspective on the Nakba, current and past, should be included in the body and the lede of the article. It's too intense a topic for me to write on it without a deeper understanding. Until then, I do think it'd be good to frame the article here. This also clearly differentiates it from the expulsion and flight article, so the reader understands why we included them both. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, you can't frame the article as not being NPOV merely because it hasn't been edited to your satisfaction, that's not the way it works. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course you can, this is entirely how it works, via consensus of editors. If multiple editors question the NPOV of an article, it gets an NPOV banner until that is addressed. I think the Nakba article is very good article, and it's right that the bulk should be written from the Palestinian perspective, but there also needs to be a bit from the Israeli perspective, that isn't just apologia. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * this is entirely how it works, via consensus of editors. If multiple editors question the NPOV of an article, it gets an NPOV banner If that was the way it worked, every contentious article would have a permanent NPOV tag. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ahaha true Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no neutrality tag at the Nakba article, therefore it is NPOV and not written from the Palestinian perspective only. If you add such a tag, then go to the article and explain what needs to be fixed there and it will get fixed, either way it is not "Palestinian". Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll move discussion to that page and clarify my argument. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024
There is a typo. JewIsh instead of Jewish. Please fix it. Grakkus (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * done Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2024
The page states that Israel is located in the historic Canaan and “Palestine” areas. This is supposed to be “Judea” as historically “Palestine” only existed as a British Mandate from 1918-1948. Please update this language to be historically accurate as Canaan and Judea are the correct terms for this point in Israel’s history. Canaan does not exist today, and the land of Judea is where Israel currently exists. (Submitted by a Middle East historian) 98.246.173.176 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Unsourced opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent lede edits
The lede is a summary, and your recent edits do not treat it as such. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you specify which edits? The sentence about migration after WW2 has a paragraph on it in the body. I admit my incentive to edit was not to summarise the body but make a good summary of the topic, and that that is problematic. There should be a paragraph about the rise of antisemitism in Europe which gives context to the climate that Zionism was born in and popularised in. Whether I can write that and do it justice, idk, although the research is easy Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes
The recent edits are overdetailed and editorial, please summarize as follows: Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * From "Situated at a continental crossroad, the southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as" to "The southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as"
 * From " with holy sites of various faiths attracting waves of immigration throughout history." to "with holy sites of various faiths" [all countries have witnessed waves of immigration throughout history, nothing special here]
 * From "Increased Jewish immigration and British colonial policy of divide and rule led" to "Increased Jewish immigration and British policies led to"
 * From "most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population, known as the Nakba in Palestinian society, however a minority remained and became Arab citizens of Israel." to "most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population, also known as the Nakba"


 * I agree with the first change but not the others.
 * The point of the sentence on waves of immigration is to allude to it being historically ethnically diverse, and page link to a relevant page on social history of the region.
 * For the British policy one, maybe just page link to divide and rule through British colonial policy? I’m surprised the British empire page doesn’t have a section on their style of rule in comparison to other colonial empires.
 * The one about Arab citizens of Israel is key to clarify, although it is controversial due to the accusations of apartheid. I think it’s very open to discussion Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed the Nakba one, not just known to Palestinians, to many. Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that sentence was key to stating the perspective, and it is predominantly and primarily known in Palestinian society Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is just false. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is that the English Wikipedia reader is unlikely to have heard of it Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many things that an English reader might not have heard of, Aliyah for example, but both these things are explained in the text so not a problem. Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the Aliyah page is linked to via "Jewish migration" precisely because an english reader is unlikely to have heard it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Its loci is in Palestinian society, just like the loci for the much wider known holocaust is in Israeli society. Any remembrance of Nakba is focused on Palestinian society Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought you just made your point, is this another one? How many do you have? Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes and you'd do well to address it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As seen here there is no consensus for "in Palestinian society" so please remove it. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There also wasn’t consensus for him to remove it, but since I initially acted without consensus I’ll revert.
 * I have a really hard time knowing when consensus has been reached as people often don’t admit defeat in an argument when the outcome is binary Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I added it because I felt I’d totally refuted his points or argument, if I had left it a day with no response would that have been the time to change it? Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing was refuted, merely asserted.the loci for the much wider known holocaust is in Israeli society Jews everywhere, I would have thought. Any remembrance of Nakba is focused on Palestinian society, see The U.N. is marking the 75th anniversary of Palestinians' displacement Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I assumed your comment decrying my persistence was admission of refutation. I know Nakba is quite widely commemorated, especially in the Muslim world, however the loci is very important, Palestinians primarily commemorate it, if they stopped everyone would stop. The link you put also emphasises Palestinian society Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No-one disputes that Palestinians commemorate the Nakba. That was not the objection, it was the idea that Nakba is known only to Palestinians. In any case, that sort of detail is not necessary in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * it introduces the perspective of the Nakba article, and page links to Palestinian which is necessary for Israel's lede. Note that it isn't linked elsewhere Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Nakba link is sufficient for the perspective. The reason that Palestinians are not linked anywhere is due to the practice of referring to them as Arabs "which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population" for example, that "Arab population" is Palestinian, and the vast majority of "Arab citizens of Israel" are as well Palestinian. But it is not crucial for this article, links to the conflict, the territories and the hr issues are sufficient imo. Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll page link Palestinians from Arab Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No such thing as "defeat in an argument". On Wikipedia in particular decisions are made by consensus and consensus involves following the guidelines and making compromises. Also familiarize yourself with WP:1RR. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What if you're discussing something with someone and they don't reply Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also you removed the bit on waves of migration without consensus, I do really think this Demographic history of Palestine (region) needs to be linked to. I think putting
 * ... and experienced waves of migration.
 * with waves of migration linking to the page. This leads into the next sentence very well Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but not only are you editing aggressively and without compromise, but also without regard to any WP guideline. It is you who inserted the waves of immigration bit without consensus. You have also violated -and continued to violate- 1RR multiple times despite being told to familiarize yourself with it. I won't be filing a complain at WP:AE, but someone eventually will and AE will outright sanction you. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree I made an error in my first few edits and that this has wrongly changed the premise of discussion. However I started this discussion on the talk page and multiple editors have critiqued the edits and not stated opposition to certain inclusions, meaning there is a weak consensus, and I continue to engage in discussion. Can you please address my initial comment. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope any administrator would recognise that I am editing in good faith. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Gave a better wikilink for British policy. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In retrospect the ‘situated at a continental crossroad’ explains the succeeding sentence about why it came under the rule of lots of empires, but if you do still feel it’s too editorial than we can remove it Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The bit on the social history is context for the region having no real owner until the rise of ethnonationalism in the 19th century Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ottoman Empire owned it for centuries, that's a real owner. Levivich (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that it was more cosmopolitan than other regions, and the many series of migrations it saw meant that there wasn’t really an exclusive ethnic ownership Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't follow how migration or demographics means there wasn't exclusive ownership. The migrants didn't own or control the land. New York City is a cosmopolitan city with lots of migrants; it's still owned and controlled by the USA. Exclusively. Levivich (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s just my impression, it might be wrong. If New York City had changed hands 10s of times over the course of a millennium combined with waves of immigration and emigration I can imagine how strong ownership wouldn’t be felt. I suppose the Ottomans held onto Palestine for long enough for it to change. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t know whether the nominal ownership by Turkish, and the Arab population, would’ve negated sentiment of ownership Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose they possibility of losing something doesn’t always make people loosen their grip Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In the next paragraph I think it should mention that there was immigration to Israel from people displaced by WW2 (and the holocaust) Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the "with holy sites of various faiths attracting waves of immigration throughout history." has no consensus, please have it removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, can we discuss it? I can look through sources Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * states "Typical of the cities of the Levant was a mixed population. ‘Levantine’ was an omnibus term used especially to refer to the Armenian, Greek, Italian and Jewish merchants...Conversions of individuals from one cultural environment to the next and back again were everyday occurrences. A new light is shed on minorities here. Neither marginalised nor treated as objects of tolerance or intolerance, in a social system based on communication and flexibility, they were the system's pillars and driving force." That's just in the abstract, I don't have access to the article
 * states "Anyone who studies the material culture of Egypt and the Levant will agree that migration, trade, translation, and assimilation were common practice." unsure if this is talking generally or about the first millennium BC
 * states "Migrants of various ethnic, religious and social origins made their way to Palestine, or crossed it while heading to other locations, or relocated their place of permanent residence, virtually in any given period between the mid-seventh century and the turn of the twelfth, as well as later on." I don't have access so can't see it talk about motives
 * states "the westward migration of the Jewish merchants from Iraq [during the 10th century]...contributed greatly to the economic prosperity in Palestine and Egypt"
 * states "This means that the peoples living here have an identity distinct from the neighboring peoples but they have nevertheless always had an ongoing exchange through trade, inter�marriage, migration, exile, and displacement with many of the other regional peoples."
 * It appears Arabs migrated for economic prosperity, so saying holy sites was wrong. It is a good page to link to though. I do think mention has to be made of migration from across the old world, or something referring to it being cosmopolitan and relatively diverse. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, that is not how WP works. When material is challenged, reversion first and then discussion per WP:BRD. Even if true, it is not a unique piece of information and does not belong to the lede of Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ?? I did revert it. I then started discussion. Please WP:Assume good faith Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I only noticed now. I am not arguing against the factuality, but against the prominence of this to the summary of an article about Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's context for the later Zionist migrations. Palestine was fairly cosmopolitan and was effectively built on migration with no real indigenous people compared to other regions. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection with Zionist migrations. On the contrary genetic evidence has shown that Palestinians show a large degree of genetic continuity with Bronze era Levantines. Still not relevant to the lede of the state of Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course it is relevant, it summarises the social history of the region. If you disagree with the phrasing then we can rework it, but the content is very relevant in my view. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How would you summarise the social history of the region? I think the clause would have to refer to flow (migration) and stock (settled population), however I don't know where to place the emphasis. I think indicating ownership of the region by an ethnic group violates NPOV for this article and would also be WP:Synth. Maybe talking indirectly about the population and stating the Islamisation of the region? I think that's a good compromise Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "ownership of the region"? "social history of the region"? I really don't see any of this as due for the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The social history of the region is discussed in the body and the lede and it’s incredibly relevant to the conflict. It doesn’t make sense to only start talking about social history from the 19th century when the periods before that are so relevant. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Palestinians were the indigenous people of Palestine. Levivich (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it’s not as clear cut as other regions, and I think it’s natural for Israel’s page to have a slight Zionist bias. I’m more trying to correct for the lack of Zionist voices on this page, which I find surprising, to impale the content on the fence Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m more trying to correct for the lack of Zionist voices on this page Seriously? Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ? The only people I’ve engaged w on this page have been very anti-Israel, as much as I disagree with Zionism, particularly this manifestation of Zionism, in order to maintain NPOV Zionist arguments need to be involved and the grains of truth in them used, if what we’re trying to do is build a neutral encyclopaedia. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The other way of looking at it is there are a lot of pro Israel (not Zionist) editors at this page (there are) but they don't agree with you. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't received much disagreement, I'm surprised the Nakba inclusion didn't need an RfC. Also, see WP:Enemy Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't received much disagreement except from the very anti-Israel people who have engaged with you? Think you better ease off with the them and us rhetoric, tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah you’re probably right, it’s just the topic is often very partisan. I wouldn’t say I’m an us, more an irrelevant bystander with no deep understanding Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that's not WP:NPOV. The "V" in NPOV is the viewpoints of reliable sources, not the viewpoints of the subjects of the articles. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many RS that have a Zionist view or bias, including academic sources Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See Israel.
 * I think this article should mention the motives for the Arab migrations from the 7th to 12th centuries. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * because it's relevant detail and I think it's a question the reader might have. Just say for economic prosperity I think Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Makeandtoss I disagree with your reversion of my edit, the Islamisation of the region does summarise content in the body and is entirely relevant and lede worthy as it provides context for the current conflict. I don't understand your argument here, it seems a very common sense inclusion. Unless you think there's negative connotations with the term "Islamisation"? Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Same applies to paganism, Judaism and Christianity. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s included there as context for the subsequent sentences. Would you rather it referred to Arab migrations rather than Islamisation? Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * with the region having received many Jewish immigrants displaced in Europe during the Second World War 
 * I’d argue this is more lede worthy than the exodus from the Muslim world, it also page links to a relevant page on Jewish history Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You can’t have a summary of Israeli history without mentioning WW2 Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw feel free to revert my edit about migration following WW2, I altered it so 1RR doesn't apply, but I should've discussed it first. Why don't you feel migrations should be included in the lede? It seems a central component of Israeli history Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "It seems like..."? Respectfully, I think you should read/learn more about this before making or proposing changes to these articles. Like: how many Jews moved to Israel, when, from where, and according to what sources? There is a lot of literature on these topics, the answers are complex, and they may surprise you. Levivich (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's valid, however my statement there is correct. The migration from Europe occurred largely from 1920 to 1953. The Aliyah section has a table that shows where they migrated from, and how many, from 1948-1953, with 338,000 total from Europe. Ofc there was migration to Palestine during the war and before, which I struggled to include in my edit without splitting it into two sentences in different places. Bricha and Aliyah Bet discuss this. My edit was based off of what I read on wikipedia, ideally I'd be more knowledgeable and accustomed with the topic. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why I wrote "... and according to whom?" If you are reading things on Wikipedia articles and then changing other Wikipedia articles based on that, that's not a good approach. WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that table, for example, is itself not very well sourced. Not terribly sourced, it's sourced to scholarship at least, but it seems to have one source, a paper, that's 20 years old. There are many entire books written about this, and history is always updated, so there are just better sources available for these numbers. And of course not all the sources agree with each other. And then there's context (which Wikipedia articles are particularly lacking in): 338k out of how many total? While there is no disputing that the Holocaust was very important to the history of Israel, IIRC it's also true that most Holocaust survivors did not move to Israel (many more went to the US, for example), and most Jewish immigrants to Israel were not Holocaust survivors.
 * Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that you're volunteering to improve these articles, but the best way to go about that is sources->body->lead, of the same article, as opposed to changing the lead (or body) of one article just based on what it says in another article. (Keeping in mind that main articles will often have better information than sub-articles, but not always, which is why one always has to check the sources.) And sources, plural, never depending on just one source. Sources from a variety of viewpoints, not just one American, Israeli, or Palestinian author. And preferably, best sources, not just "any" paper or book. IMO, the best way to figure out what to write about immigration in the Israel article is to take a few recent books about Israel's history from the most reputable scholars from a variety of viewpoints, and see what they say about immigration, and then summarize that. Levivich (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll do more research in the future, thank you. Yeah cherry picking sources isn't the best way to go about it. In the sources I gave, one was from an Israeli journal, and one was critical of Israeli exceptionalism so I thought it was a wide consensus.
 * Pogrom lists pogroms after WW2, and a lot of Jewish migration was prior to the Holocaust Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, and also, off the top of my head, one thing sources from the '90s may not accurately capture (as compared to sources from, say, the last 10 years) is the significance of post-Soviet Jewish migration to the current demographics of Israel. IIRC, more Russian Jews came in the '90s and 2000s than Holocaust survivors in the '40s and '50s. How much a Wikipedia article talks about one wave of migration vs another should be based on how the current best sources treat the issue. And seriously, thanks for volunteering to work on this, Wikipedia could use all the help it can get. Levivich (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm surprised at the lack of active editors, no worries, I'll look into it. Thanks for the advice Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My impression does seem to be accurate, and I was very confident on it despite the weasel wording
 * is a journal article with the title: Immigration is Israel's History, So Far
 * is a book titled: Country on the Move: Migration to and within Israel, 1948–1995
 * is critical of Israeli exceptionalism and states: Migration has been a major social issue in Israel for well over 50 years. Indeed,its centrality in the value context of the society goes back to well before the establishment of the state in 1948 (Leshem and Shuval (Eds), 1998). Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My edits on the word 'pre-emptively' were wrong and naive, I just wanted to counter the narrative that people flee their homes willingly Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Map: add main towns, Isr. settlements outside Isr.
Maybe it's not the best place to open the discussion, but let's have it started.

Regarding maps of towns & regions:

It is important to have the main features on the map also on the other side of border or armistice lines. For the PA these are Palestinian towns & Israeli settlements, elsewhere Lebanese etc. towns, trans-border roads etc. Why? Because '''white surfaces aren't informative. There is peaceful and violent interaction across those lines''' - main roads into the West Bank, border crossings, common industrial zones, border incidents (shooting, terror attacks, IDF incursions, historical battles), ecological issues, and so forth. One comes here for inf. and gets - hic sunt leones.

Use a different colour, of course - keep the white or whatever - but border or armistice lines are porous, not the ultimate confines of Flat Earth. We should only add important features, but those are needed. If a selection or graphic alteration is too difficult to achieve, technically or otherwise, then keep all there is, but in pale grey. Arminden (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Concrete example. One reads about shooting from Tulkarem toward Bat Hefer. Going to B.H. page, there is no Tulkarem on the map/location plan. Current solution:
 * go to coordinates
 * choose type of map
 * figure out places, often spelled differently.
 * Tulkarem is a big town, should be on that sketchy map/location plan. Arminden (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Minor wording change in lede
Hopefully this is uncontroversial and accurate, but I am open to guidance if mistaken.

Please make the following change to the article: Infectedfreckle (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Apartheid in Lead
I think it's time for us to have this discussion.

I propose that the apartheid allegation be explicitly mentioned in the lead. This is an incredibly well-sourced allegation, and I think the current lead which vaguely talks about "crimes of humanity" and "war crimes" is avoiding the core of the issue — precisely which crime is Israel being accused of? Apartheid is the principal one.

Specifically, I propose that the current version "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." be replaced with "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." JDiala (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Option A: Mention apartheid.

Option B: No change.

Option C: Other.

Survey

 * Bad RfC we already had a recent discussion regarding the language in the lead. No significant change has happened since. FortunateSons (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest we wait for an action by the ICC or the ICJ before discussing this issue again, as that will probably influence the situation drastically. TucanHolmes  (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a binding decision by one of those could be such a significant change. FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A court decision by the ICJ supporting apartheid charachterization would turn the claims in to factual reality; i.e. Israel is maintaining an apartheid system, rather than Israel is accused of maintaining an apartheid system; i.e. Israel and apartheid would be turned into Israeli apartheid. In both cases this has nothing to do whether this should be mentioned in lede, because the lede is a summary of the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You voted in the wrong place, and you misunderstood my comment: As there is no significant change (and a decision would be such a change), there is no reason to re-open a discussion so soon. FortunateSons (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong support of option A: this mention is long overdue and this is pretty much the elephant in the article. This is supported by the world's leading human rights organizations, including HRW and Amnesty International which are RS per WP. The lede is a summary of the body and given that we have a subsection on apartheid charges, then the least we could do is provide a simple mention of this. WP:LEDE specifically says any prominent controversies should be mentioned; the charges of apartheid is obviously and most certainly a prominent controversy, which has its own WP article Israel and apartheid, and is being mentioned in international forums including the ICJ genocide case. We are quite literally beautifying the horrors of this long-standing occupation and increasing settlement construction by not mentioning the findings (yes findings, not accusations) of major human rights groups. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Option A Per Makeandtoss. JDiala (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you reformatting the RfC; would you be so kind as to actually do it by fully next time, by not excluding my vote? could you please include my vote next time?FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your snarky attitude towards honest mistakes is not congruent with policy. I refer you to WP:GF, WP:CIVIL. JDiala (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That wasn’t meant to be (overly) snarky, I just wanted my second correction regarding formatting to be less aggressive, I’ll fix the tone. :) FortunateSons (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * there should also be a reference to apartheid in its government type. Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That being said, just a technicality: it’s not an AGF violation (as no bad faith was assumed) and likely not yet a civility violation (those require a de minimis bar to be crossed that wouldn’t have been reached even if I had meant it in a mean way). However, I definitely could have gone for a nicer phrasing, and apologise for that. FortunateSons (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC per FortunateSons. Marokwitz (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support for A per Makeandtoss. I would have assumed the allegations of apartheid were already mentioned in the lead, it should absolutely be added. Professor Penguino (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option A: sufficient weight for inclusion. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Option A: Definitely sufficient weight and the weight has only become more pronounced over the past seven months as the state has sunk deeper into racial prejudice and persecution. Even before that, in August, a former head of Israel's northern command was calling it as apartheid. There's more in the HRW December update on the topic. And now we have the thousands of additional administrative detentions underscoring the complete legal inequality, among the litany of other abuses in the West Bank, including unlawful killings without charge. There was even a whole conference on the topic of the apartheid this past week. Or try one of the many journal pieces written already in 2024 alone on the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong support for option A: per Makeandtoss and Iskandar323. There is absolutely strong enough sources to support it. A Socialist   Trans Girl  08:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Modify slightly: Though, I think that the specific organizations should be listed with the phrasing ...including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations, including X, Y, and Z, as well as United Nations officials. A Socialist   Trans Girl  08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay actually maybe different phrasing: I think it's better to use the more definitive phrasing suggested in discussion of what Israel is doing amounting to apartheid, as supported by the ICJ and Amnesty. A Socialist   Trans Girl  08:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A per Makeandtoss and Iskandar. Even if you remove from consideration activist groups like HRW, just plain old scholarship and journalism now mention apartheid often enough that it's WP:DUE for the lead. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC. The previous RfC ended only a few months ago in December 2023, the initiator has not indicated what has changed to warrant a new RfC. Also, the RfC's wording is not neutral ("This is an incredibly well-sourced allegation") and so a new RfC should be opened, per one of the options suggested in the summary of the closure review. Alaexis¿question? 09:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment: as a compromise, I would support the wording proposed by DMH223344 on 02:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC):
 * “most human rights organizations consider Israel to enforce an apartheid system in the occupied territories."
 * This wording had received consensus from ~5 editors. I would oppose the wording suggested in this RfC. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ‘’’Support this’’’ as well as Makeandtoss’ reasoning. In order to employ more explicit wording there needs to either be a monopoly of sources or a high court judgement imo and we don’t have that at the moment Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment There is an upcoming ICJ ruling on Israeli practices in the OPT. As per The Implications of An ICJ Finding that Israel is Committing the Crime Against Humanity of Apartheid during the recent public hearings, "24 States and three international organizations made the further claim that Israel’s policies and practices amount to a system of institutionalized racial discrimination and domination breaching the prohibition of apartheid under international law and/or amount to prohibited acts of racial discrimination.". Personally, I would like to wait for the ICJ deliberations on this matter to conclude before addressing what should be in the lead (although it being in the body is straightforward). Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, from my perspective, apartheid is already a fact since Amnesty and HRW are reliable sources, without regard to what western governments are claiming. Given this contradiction we have chosen to treat these conclusions as allegations. But in either case, whether conclusions or allegations, apartheid as a fact or as a claim should be in the lede as a summary of the body. Currently, the least we could do is have it described as a claim. After the ICJ deliberations, if affirmative, I think we would all be inclined to treat it as fact. So I would view it more of how to describe apartheid in the lede for now and later as two separate discussions. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * When saying lede are you talking about the first paragraph or the third? The allegation of apartheid should be in the third if there are many reliable sources for it, it fits with what's already there in the same vein. If the ICJ concluded it was apartheid then it could be included as a fact imo Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:LEDE is the summary of the body that is present before the article's contents; i.e. the four paragraphs. The first lede paragraph is under MOS:OPEN. Here I am referring to the third lede paragraph indeed. and I agree with your reasoning. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually like the ICJ wording. The ICJ was careful in how they worded it, and the wording is more accurate. Apartheid is linked to race, and "Palestinian" is not a race, so the apartheid accusation is not really accurate. The ICJ wording doesn't say "there is apartheid" but that the system amounts to apartheid. Human Rights Watch also used "amounts to" up in DMH223344's comment on 00:21, 22 March 2024.
 * The ICJ wording:
 * "Israel’s policies and practices amount to a system of institutionalized racial discrimination and domination breaching the prohibition of apartheid under international law and/or amount to prohibited acts of racial discrimination."
 * I would also prefer to wait for the ICJ deliberations. The current info in the Wikipedia Israel article about apartheid is not very good because it is basically "here is are bunch of organizations accusing Israel of apartheid.. a quote from a 2021 survey... these accusations were criticized by governments...here is a opinion by a Canadian law professor." Written like this, the content is not very lead-worthy, but content supported by more well-rounded/balanced ICJ deliberations and findings would make the apartheid accusations more lead-worthy. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Definition of race: a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t know. I use duck.com as a default browser on this device and when I typed in Is Palestinian a race it said “ Palestinian is not considered a distinct race. Palestinians are an ethnonational group residing in the Southern Levant, sharing broad religious, linguistic, and cultural practices with other Arabs, with variations unique to Palestine. They are part of the broader Arab world and encompass Muslims and a minority of Christians.”
 * Also ethnicity and race are not the same. Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity but not race. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes but no one in this discussion has talked about whether Palestinians are a race except yourself. It is imo not germane to the discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apartheid is a system of racial segregation. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But according to the second definition in the American Heritage dictionary race is, “ A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.” So it could work if we go by that dictionary picking the second definition. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apartheid (South Africa version) and the Crime of Apartheid are not the same thing. In addition, the definition of racial group nowadays is more fluid. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I may have gotten confused from looking at the US census race categories. Middle Easterners are supposed to fill in White as their race . The census definitions for race and ethnicity are different and more strict. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apartheid has never been that cut and dry, by that argument, Rhodesia wasn't an apartheid regime because it was largely wealth based voting, the apartheid comes from its treatment of the west bank, which it treats like a Bantustan, infact a nickname for the west bank is "bantustan" it is Segregation... Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not just a bunch, a lot of weighty opinions on the matter and over a long period of time, this is not going to go away. Btw, that's not the ICJ wording, that is the wording used by the JustSecurity source, you would need to look at the individual country submissions to see what wording they actually used.
 * Amnesty view is the most authoritative finding so far "The comprehensive report, Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime against Humanity, sets out how massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forcible transfer, drastic movement restrictions, and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law. This system is maintained by violations which Amnesty International found to constitute apartheid as a crime against humanity, as defined in the Rome Statute and Apartheid Convention."
 * I don't think the "amounts to" is significant, is there a source for that? Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See, Amnesty is also using “amounts to “
 * “ and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law.”
 * JustSecurity used “amounts to “ twice, Amnesty used it, and Human Rights Watch used it. I was trying to figure out why they used “amounts to” instead of is. One definition of “amounts to” is adding up. So maybe that is why they are using it instead of the race thing. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * International law is named after the most famous example, separation of European/non-European peoples. So I suppose sources on Israel use ‘amounts to’ instead of ‘is’ for language reasons. I think they are saying it fits international law because the actions taken in South Africa and Israel are materially the same, even if it isn’t the identical groups undergoing separation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We should get an uninvolved Editor to close this..... As of now it doesn't hold up to basic integrity to have it closed by the initiator..... That being said I don't disagree with the outcome.... Just doesn't look proper.....looks sneaky if you will. Moxy 🍁 21:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * True. Then again, it appears to be unanimous and was open for five weeks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Editors should do their best to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia..... this isn't it. Moxy 🍁 21:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

On WP:RFCEND, it is stated that "if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor may summarize the discussion" and "[if] the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable". I decided to close in light of this. JDiala (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've reopened this RFC per the challenge at AN. I suggest that this be retried with a neutral RFC statement and widely advertised at Wikiprojects that may be interested in order to address the concerns of uninvolved parties at AN that this RFC did not gather enough participation and was not widely advertised. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Might I also suggest using, which would summon a selection of (hopefully) uninvolved editors and add it to RfC categories and lists. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)