Talk:Israel/Archive 52

Religion in the Infobox
Before I discuss the change that I am proposing, let me introduce myself. I am Guy Macon, editor for nine years and DRN volunteer mediator. Recently I have been working on correcting problems that occur on multiple pages. You can look at my edit history to see the sort of things I typically work on.

A while back I posted an RfC (you can see it here) concerning pages that have "atheism" in the religion entry of the infobox. Of course atheism is not a religion, for the same reason that bald is not a hair color, off is not a TV channel, barefoot is not a shoe, silence is not a sound, never is not a date, clear is not a color, and not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

As a result of the Request for Comments, I removed the religion parameter from the infobox on over 600 articles. This is the last one that needs to be changed. Note that the closing administrator made it clear in his closing comments that the RfC applies to all articles, not just articles about individuals.

I saved this one for last for two reasons, first, this page is an obvious vandalism target, and someone working through a list fixing problems like I am doing can look a lot like an editor who has never edited a page before and is here to edit disruptively. Second, the information and the sources in this particular infobox seem like something the reader should know -- I know that it surprised me to find out that Judaism is not the official religion of Israel. It gives me hope that maybe, just maybe someday the world will grow up and stop fighting over religion. But I digress.

So we have a clear community consensus that Wikipedia is no longer going to put atheism in the religion entry of the infobox in any article, but instead of simply deleting it in this case I would like one of the editors who has been working on improving this page to move the information into the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The RfC concluded that there is no justification to write in the infobox that a person or another entity is not associated with a religion, and "religion=none" should be removed everywhere. In case of Israel, it's not a simple "religion=none", but "none officially" and 3 long citation over 4000 bytes in length since non-officially Israel is strongly associated with Judaism, and is an important place for Christianity and Islam as well. There is a whole article dedicated to Religion in Israel, so I think that with all due respect to the RfC it should be discussed here before being applied blindly.


 * I think it was bad procedure to run such an important (and welcome) RfC at template:Infobox person, defined as related to infobox person, only to change its result at the last moment to include nearly all the templates on wikipedia. While I personally support the result, more people should have had a chance to participate. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 03:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We are discussing it here, as specified in WP:BRD. The closing admin did say that [A] it applies to all articles, and [B] anyone is free to post another RfC concerning just countries or even just Israel if they think that it should not apply to all articles (more specific RfCs trump more general RfCs). He also said that the arguments would be the same, which is true. There are good arguments for not having any variation of "none" or "atheism" in any infobox religion entry. "None" is not a religion, and in no other infobox entry do we specify "none" -- no "spouse = none", no "children = none", no "degree = none", no "birth date = none" (applicable to the pages of certain fictional characters, gods, etc.).


 * As for importance, we also have articles about Religion in Afghanistan and Religion in China, but despite this the editors of China and Afghanistan accepted the clear consensus that "it is clear that they [secularism and atheism] are not religions and it is both confusing and technically incorrect to label them as such" and allowed the entry to be removed.


 * Keep in mind that nobody is suggesting removing the information or the citations, just moving them to a prominent place in the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with your (and the RfC's) reasoning that religion=none should be removed everywhere. You did not reply to my main point - that Israel is not a simple case of "religion=none", but rather "religion=none officially", which in my understanding means that there is an unofficial state religion, which means it's not covered perfectly by the RfC. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * One of the points that have been made repeatedly (and supported by overwhelming consensus) in various infobox discussions is that the more subtle, nuanced, and complicated something is, the less suitable for inclusion in an infobox. This one is subtle, nuanced, and complicated indeed and, in my opinion, deserves an entire sentence or paragraph, and possibly an entire section. Not a two-word summary that really doesn't convey the actual situation unless you check the citations.


 * That being said, if the sources support an unofficial religion, then "Religion = Judaism (unofficial)" would be acceptable, and would avoid the problem that there is no religion called "none official" and thus "none official" should not follow "Religion =" in an infobox entry. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources do support an unofficial, but recognized national religion. There is no separation of religion and state government - the religious parties are active in government, and write laws openly based on religion. Even non-Jews in Israel recognize that Israel is the Jewish State. Is "Religion = Judaism (unofficial)" accepted by the wikipedia community as a whole? If so, I suggest we use that. However, if not, I also suggest we remove the religion=none. Goalie1998 (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to find good sources saying that Israel has an unofficial state religion. Many sources like this or this discuss separation between the religion and the state and thus implicitly say that today they are not seaprate. This one for example says it explicitly, but perhaps there are better sources.
 * Note that there is a big dispute whether the label Jewish State refers to Judaism or to Jewish ethnicity. In my opinion it must be the latter since Law of Return criteria differs from Halakha, but many people think otherwise. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will leave those questions to you folks; I am just someone who is removing the religion parameter on hundreds of Wikipedia pages as required by the recent RfC on the topic. So can we move the information as it is now into the body of the article so I can move on and continue working on the 1,800 pages with "a the" errors ("Yoichi Hiruma is a the member of a the Deimon Devil Bats")? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Would people be opposed to changing it to "Judaism (unofficial)," leaving the current citations, instead of removing it completely? Goalie1998 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion doesn't matter as much as that of those who have been working on improving the page, but for what it is worth, no objections from me. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to agree that it's pointless to try and have such a complicated concept explained in 2-3 words in the infobox. "Judaism (unofficially)" or "None officially" is meaningless without the context, and the context can only be provided in the prose of the article itself. At the moment the situation (no official religion, but no separation between the religion and the state either) is not mentioned at all in this article. One possibility is having infobox contain "Religion: complicated", but I don't think many people would accept it. Status quo (Israel) is dedicated to this subject, I think a mention and a link should be added under Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Currently the "demographics" section has got a POV tag - the infobox should not change until the POV issue is sorted out in that section. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you look at Template talk:Infobox country there is already a clear consensus for removing the parameter, and according to WP:CONLOCAL, consensus on this talk page cannot override the community consensus from the RfC. Unless the consensus at the RfC changes soon (unlikely), the infobox entry will be removed from this article. Your only choice is whether to move it into the body of the article or just let it be deleted without being moved into the body. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Start an actual RFC based on the actual issue first. Your narrow -- and, ironically, uttery dogmatic -- application of a not-widely held RFC in a different area as if it were a ruling handed down by God isn't going to fly. There is no "requirement", no matter how much you like to use the term. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that we won't have an actual consensus until the RfC is closed after 30 days and an uninvolved administrator evaluates the consensus and posts a determination in the closing comments, you should be aware that if at that time you refuse to accept the consensus you will be warned, and then blocked from editing Wikipedia (not by me -- that will come from an administrator). See WP:OWNERSHIP. The RfC is still open, so you might want to make your best argument there and see if your argument is compelling enough to turn the developing consensus around.
 * To the other editors who maintain this page; unless the consensus at the RfC changes soon (unlikely), the infobox entry will be removed from this article, possibly after Carlton is blocked. Your only choice is whether to move it into the body of the article or just let it be deleted without being moved into the body.
 * If I wanted to be a jerk about it, I could invoke the rule that everything in the infobox has to be covered in the body and delete it on that basis alone, but my goal here is not to start a fight, but simply to implement the community consensus. I have a lot of respect for the editors who look over this page despite a bunch of disruptive vandals wanting to mess with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Both RfCs are not applicable here since they refer to "religion: none" which is not the case here. The state has an official and legal association with a religion, I linked above to some sources that prove this. While I tend to agree that it's better to explain this complex relation between the religion and the state in the body of the article, we should complete a civil discussion first and make sure that this is the best way to represent verifiable and unbiased information. There is no need to delete the whole infobox to make a WP:POINT, nor to threaten people who disagree with you.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The first RfC has been determined not to apply, so discussing it is a waste of time. The entry with the most support so far in the second Rfc clearly states "In infoboxes on articles about non-religious (as opposed to anti-religious) nations, religion should not be listed in the infobox, and the religion parameter should be removed." nobody thinks Israel is an anti-religious nation. If Israel is a religious nation, then no variation of "none" is allowed in the religion entry of the infobox because it would be factually incorrect. If Israel is a non-religious nation, then the RfC applies and the parameter must be removed. If you want to retain the "religion =" parameter, pick an actual religion. Nobody is threatening anyone. I am merely explaining how RfCs work and what happens to editors who refuse to follow the consensus as defined in the administrator's closing comments of the RfC. Would you prefer to end up blocked without anyone warning you about the sort of behavior that will get you blocked? Again, if you really think you have a valid argument, the RfC is still open, and you have every opportunity to post your argument on the RfC page and see if the Wikipedia community agrees with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like I need to explain you how RfCs work. A community is asked a question, and if it is a specific question then the answer can be applied imediately. If it is a policy question (like in our case), then in each case it's a judgement call whether or not the policy applies. Anybody can voice an opinion, and nobody ever gets blocked for voicing an opinion in a civil manner.
 * This is not a case of WP:CONLOCAL - we are not discussing whether we should ignore a community consensus that clearly applies to this article, but whether or not this community consensus applies to this article at all. Both RfCs are applicable if and only if Israel's religion is "none", which in my opinion is not the case. You're saying that Israel is a non-religious nation, I disagree and have sources that prove it. Nonetheless, in my opinion it is better to remove "religion=none officially" from the infobox, because it can be explained better in the body of the article. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to participate in the RFC? If it is a special/important issue, you might want to raise it there. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks quite obvious that the RfC will pass, so I won't bother supporting it. It takes care of non-religious nations, so it's not applicable to Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * De facto religion is not meaningful to the argument. Only de jure faith is. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have access to jstor, try reading Law and Religion in Israel, Izhak Englard, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter, 1987), pp. 185-208. If not, here's a quote from its conclusion: "The centrality and intensity of the conflicts about law, state and religion in Israel are grounded in the very idea of establishing a Jewish state. ... The noncomitant emergence of factual and legal symbols concerning the nature of the Jewish state constitutes a decisive factor both in the configuration of the system and in the course of the conflicts. ... In view of the fact that the topic of law and religion goes to the very foundations of Israel's statehood, one can hardly expect in the near future any lessening in the conflicts' acuteness or a decline in their frequency." Basically it says that the situation is more complicated than a simple binary "Israel does/doesn't have an official religion"&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that as long as there is good reason to present the "None official" statement in the Religion entry then this presents greatly notable content.
 * In regard to atheism I thought it was inappropriate to comment that "bald is not a hair color, off is not a TV channel, barefoot is not a shoe, silence is not a sound, never is not a date, clear is not a color, ..." Head shaving is an option in hair styling; off is a setting; going barefoot is a potential radical choice dependant on conditions; silence, a state in which no sound is heard, can also be of great note; A fact that something has been reported not to have happened will in some cases, be similarly notable; clear is an appearance.
 * Your final mention that "not collecting stamps is not a hobby" seems to me to offer nothing but argumentum ad absurdum. Religious choice is an issue that effects a great number of people at a potentially deep psychological level.  A choice as to whether or not to adopt a stamp collecting as a hobby/investment based activity is not something likely to have anything like a similar level of personal affect.  GregKaye 07:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are arguing that atheism is a religion? If so, the overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community is that it is not. We have multiple RfCs an discussions that clearly show that the consensus of the Wikipedia community is that "religion = none" and "religion = atheist" (and close synonyms like "none (atheist)", "state atheism" "irreligious", "NA", and "none official") should be removed from the religion field of all infoboxes on all articles.
 * You (Greg) appear to have not participated in the discussion at Template talk:Infobox country. Please join the discussion there. If your arguments are sound, you may end up swaying the consensus your way. That's what happened during the previous RfC about individuals; the final result went against my initial choice and I ended up removing the entry on 600 articles that I had previously (based on the consensus at that time) changed to "religion = None". --Guy Macon (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon If a government makes a decision for the country to have no official religion then this has relevance to views on the religion of the country. If a government was to do something such as to actively promote atheism or if the country has a culture that otherwise was to actively promote atheism then this has relevance to religion.  Bald is not a hair colour and the not having an official religion is not a ritualistic practice within a religion.  However, it is a stance relevant to religious practice in a country.    GregKaye 14:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to try once more and then give up on you. After your response implying that bald is a hair color, off is a TV channel, and barefoot is a shoe, I asked you if you arguing that atheism is a religion. It is a simple question: is atheism a religion? I also asked you if you were going to join the RfC discussion. Are you or aren't you? You can, of course, choose not to answer, but I am equally free to choose not to have a discussion with you as long as you exhibit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Finally, I would strongly advise you against editing the article against the consensus in the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WarKosign in that this is not case of a country having no religion, but of one not having a legally defined official religion. What you have to remember, is that the law here is so intertwined with Judaism, that if you were to separate the two - religion and law - this country would no longer be the same. There are many aspects of daily life that are subject to the rabbinic courts here, and as such under Jewish Law, not Israeli Law. I still think this page requires Judaism to be in the infobox as the religion. Goalie1998 (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as a procedural note, the RfC only forbids variations of "none" and "atheist"; "Judaism" would be allowed. I have no opinion on whether it is a good choice. I will leave that to those of you who are interested in this topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC doesn't seem to be addressing articles like this, and this issue is important, appears in many RS and as Guy notes is apparently not common knowledge, so I think readers will benefit from it being in a prominent place like the infobox. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote the RfC specifically to address articles like this. I don't see any way I could possibly have made that more clear when I wrote the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken it was held on a page relating to personal pages, not country pages? That is not the forum for making decisions on this kind of page. How could it be? You can't extrapolate from people to countries. That's ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wrong RfC. You want to look at Template talk:Infobox country. Of course it isn't final until it closes after 30 days and an admin writes up a closing statement, but you can see the way it is going. When it closes (unless the consensus changes, which is unlikely) I will remove the religion parameter from this page and then we will see who wants to be blocked from editing Wikipedia for reverting against consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that saying that Israel's religion is Judaism (unofficial) may be considered POV, but it is well supported by sources. should have linked to sources, but failing to link does not make a statement unsourced.

I do not think we had a consensus to actually make this change - while I consider it correct, I think having this statement in the infobox serves no purpose, it's better to have it in a section under Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's put in the article without citing a source, it's unsourced. I believe the balance of the sources will tell you that Israel has no official religion, not that Judaism is it's "unofficial" religion (what does that even mean?). If there's such a thing as an unofficial religion every European country would have Christianity in the infobox since they draw many of their laws from what they think that religion says, often invoking god and whatnot. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought we had enough of a consensus (lack of disagreement to previous requests to change it as such), and also thought I left the sources in. Goalie1998 (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a draft of the section I intent to add under politics, after Legal System:

Religion
Israel has no official religion , however the definition of the state as Jewish creates a strong connection and well as a conflict between state law and religious law. Political interaction of different parties keeps the balance between state and religion largely as it existed during the British mandate.

End draft
Given the content of the paragraph and it's sources, I think it would be more correct for the infobox to say religion: Judaism (unofficial), however it would be more useful for the infobox to omit the religion parameter entirely and explain the complex situation in the body of the article, as the paragraph above (after comments and corrections here) &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless the religion parameter on the infobox is changed to name an actual religion in the next few weeks, the RfC will close ant the religion parameter will be removed from this article, as it has already been removed from 600 other articles that did not name an actual religion in the infobox. This is not optional, and you don't have a choice on this. Someone here could post an RfC at Template talk:Infobox country asking whether this page is an exception, but the consensus will almost certainly be that it is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are so sure of it, why do you bother following me around pasting this assertion ? In case you haven't noticed, I support removal of religion field from Israel's infobox, so I really don't know what you are trying to achieve. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing will be lost by removing the religion parameter. The "none official" is absurd and non-informative because it opens a whole bunch of questions and is unclear and I do not think that this is the purpose of an infobox. So yes remove it. Benjil (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Since nobody objected, I implemented the change. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did read this entire thing before adding "religion= Judaism(unofficially)". What is the objection? It concurrs with the article and the discussion.Scientus (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no agreement to include this statement in the infobox. While I believe it is correct, I also think it is useless. Infobox should contain simple and unambiguous facts; if something requires a longer explanation it belongs in the body of the article and not in the infobox. If there are more editors who believe we should add it to infobox I won't object. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Gaza
It is a NPOV violation to say the occupation of Gaza ended in 2005. That is the view of Israel, however much of the international community disputes this as Israel continues to exercise effective military control over the territory. Saying in Wikipedia's voice that the occupation ended in 2005 is a violation of NPOV.  nableezy  - 19:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed eg by MSF. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Israeli government
I have published this subtopic on the page but it has been reverted if you could kindly tell me exactly what else do I have to modify in order to have it published. I have provided MANY references and citations. Along with pictures and have kept neutrality in mentioning these criticisms by talking about how some criticisms cross the line into semitism. Also I have no idea how to use the Talk thing for sending a message to users or discussing on talk pages. so if you could kindly provide me with very basic relevant codes or whatever. (unsigned comment by Makeandtoss)
 * you can ping users to your posts as I just did with you here.
 * There are quote a few issues with the section:
 * The name - per WP:POVNAMING, the section should've been called something like "views on Israel".
 * The very first statement - "Israel is consistently criticized by the international community" is original research. The sources that you provided do not support this statement, some of them even contradict it.
 * "Israel is accused", "Israel is also criticized" - these are weasel words. You don't bother to write who accuses or criticizes, nor do you provide any sources.
 * Main problem with the whole section is WP:POV - you WP:CHERRYPICK statements that support a single view, with very little balancing statements representing a different POV. Why did you bother to add this section, but not a similarly sized "Praise of Israel" ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * we could have easily edited parts that are considered inappropriate without total removal of the subtopic
 * I think that most of the section was inappropriate. You can paste here a draft of the reworked version of the section and we can discuss it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft


You add your 'praise of Israel', while I add this. Nevertheless this whole wikipedia article is praising Israel. This is a different perspective. Please help me edit this into a 'appropriate' form, almost 80% is from the main article Criticism of Israeli Government. Why was this accepted there but not here?

Criticism of Israel
Israel has faced some criticism by the international community since its declaration of independence in 1948 relating to a variety of topics,. Israel was criticized of not complying or fulfilling as a member of United Nations and other international organisations. Both Obama and the UN have occasionally criticized Israeli government policies with relation to issues with ongoing consequences such as the refusal to allow post-war Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and the invasion, occupation and annexation of neighbouring territories and the construction of settlements therein. However, World Bank agrees with Israel saying that the Palestinians are not ready for a state yet. Although Israel is considered one of the only democracies in the Middle East, Israel's status as a representative democracy has been questioned as Jewish residents of the occupied territories are allowed to vote in Israel’s elections while Arab residents are not. Another source of criticism is the friction generated by the conversion issue between Israel's orthodox rabbinate and non-orthodox segments of the Jewish diaspora. At one end of the spectrum, these criticisms support attempts to delegitimize Israel's right to exist. This has led to an ongoing debate regarding at what point criticism of Israel crosses the line to antisemitism.

Israel is also criticized for the failure to control Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the West Bank.

Olive farming is a major industry and employer in the Palestinian West Bank and olive trees are a common target of settler violence. According to OCHA roughly 10,000 Palestinian West Bank olive trees and saplings have suffered either uprooting or damage from Israeli attacks in 2013, a rise from about 8,500 trees damaged in 2012. B'Tselem alleges that "olive pickers in areas near certain settlements and outposts in the West Bank have been a target of attacks by settlers, who have cut down and burned olive trees and stolen the crops" and that "security forces have not taken suitable action to prevent the violence."

In 2015, a one-and-a-half year-old Palestinian infant was burned to death and three of his family members were seriously wounded late Thursday night after a house was set on fire in the village of Douma, near Nablus by Israeli settlers. But both the IDF and Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned the attack calling it 'a barbaric attack of terrorism'.


 * This paragraph section makes roughly 10 statements against Israel. Only one of them attempts to present both POV, and even it does it only half-hartedly ("This has led to an ongoing debate regarding at what point criticism of Israel crosses the line to antisemitism").
 * The first paragraph could be enhanced to represent the same points in a more neutral manner, but the following paragraphs are simply WP:UNDUE - the paragraph on the Palestinian olive farming is longer than the existing paragraphs on many other far more relevant subjects, such as tourism or languages in Israel.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but this section should not exist on this article. Open a new article if you want, but even then I am not sure wikipedia is the place for that. This is a general article about the State of Israel, not a political forum. Thank you. Benjil (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored this statement by that  removed for no apparent reason. Even if you disagree with someone, per WP:TPO you should not remove or modify another editor's comments without a very good reason.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not tolerable. And once again, this section will not be in this article. There is already an article on this issue. Countries article do not deal with "criticism" of the policies of the government. So all this discussion here is irrelevant. Benjil (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed unnecessary extra paragraphs about olive trees, however Im not sure where to find statements that might balance with the criticism. What are some examples? User:Makeandtoss
 * Per WP:POV, for each of the ~8 accusations left in the section there has to be a balancing comment. It would make the whole section far too large for the general article on Israel. There is already a "See also:" link to Criticism of the Israeli government under Israel, perhaps it should be moved to under Israel.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have balanced the statements in main paragraph. Also, did you mean I should put this as a subtopic to Israeli occupied territories? Thank you very much for cooperating. User:makeandtoss
 * I agree. WarKosign, the rest of the article contains dozens of "balancing statements" on this. This section is describing the criticism. It is not about who is right or wrong. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * - Why it is so common to tailor a criteria to fit Israel, which is not applied toward other countries? There is no "Criticism" section in the articles of any of Israel's neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq. What is the justification for such a section in the Israel article only?
 * - The proposed "Criticism" section, deals heavily with attacks on Palestinian farmers plantations etc, which of course should be condemned. Is this article the correct location for this type of criticism? . Looking at Dying for Christianity : "Pope Francis said he was dismayed “to see how in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world many of our brothers and sisters are persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith in Jesus”. He went on: “In this third world war, waged piecemeal, which we are now experiencing, a form of genocide is taking place, and it must end.”... From Syria, Iraq, Iran and Egypt to North Korea... Christians face serious violations of religious freedom,” Alton said.   ...   The rise of Islamic extremism is driving much of the increase in Christian persecution, said campaigners and church leaders who point to militant groups such as Isis, Boko Haram and al-Shabaab. ...   Sacks ... said:... Muslims who stand on the wrong side of the Sunni-Shia divide are being killed in great numbers" Are any of those more severe accusations mentioned in an Country article? Ykantor (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I do not say this section belongs under Israel, in fact it belongs on some anti-Israel propaganda site and not an encyclopedia. It is poorly written, suffers from original research or synthesis, represents a very biased point of view via choosing very specific claims. Even its title contradicts the naming policy. If by some miracle all these problems were fixed, it would still be far too detailed for this article.
 * Each section of an article has to be NPOV, or there has to be a corresponding section balancing it. What is the specific section balancing this exercise in POV pushing ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Boko Haram, ISIS and al-Shabaab are terrorist organizations that are not recognized by any of the world countries. However, Israel is a state that has signed on international treaties and Geneva conventions and are recognized by many countries across the globe. Are you comparing terrorist organizations to Israel? ISIS is a 'country' and it has a criticism section in its article, unless you are stating that Israel doesn't do anything that brings up criticism which is in fact false because I have provided tens of references and citations. If you feel that Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq have done endless false actions that have received tons of criticism, go ahead make your own criticism section. User:makeandtoss


 * Could you help me forming the draft? Thank you very much
 * I have edited the section with balancing statements.
 * You added several neutral statements which did nothing to balance previous biased POV:
 * You added a mention of the recent settler terror attack with a mention of Israeli officials condemning it. This item is relatively balanced, but does nothing to balance anything else, and it is way too specific for an overview article on Israel: Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
 * You wrote that the World Bank considers Palestinians not ready for a state. There is no mention of this subject elsewhere, what is it supposed to balance ?
 * You added that "Israel is considered one of the only democracies in the Middle East", yet it only serves to expand the claim that it is incorrect. If you want to balance, you'd need to describe the position of those who consider Israel a democracy.
 * Please read WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * - Yours:" Are you comparing terrorist organizations to Israel?" Every country is responsible for crimes within its territory. e.g. Israel is responsible for the horrible crime at the Palestinian village Duma. On the same token, Egypt is responsible for killing Christians, and Iraq is responsible  for the killing of Shia by Sunnah  and vice versa. The same criteria should apply for all countries articles, i.e If there is no criticism section in other countries articles (E.g. Egypt, Iraq and probably all the other states), it should not exist in the "Israel" article as well.
 * - Yours"If you feel that Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq have done endless false actions that have received tons of criticism, go ahead make your own criticism section." You mean to modify the articles of (probably) all countries so it should include a "Criticism" section? because you insist in adding it to the "Israel" article? This is an absurd. Ykantor (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * - That's not our case here, our case is that Israel undeniably receives a considerable amount of criticism. This is all based on references and citations not some science fiction stories or what some people like to call 'Pallywood'. I do not mean to modify all those countries articles to include a criticism section, all I intend to do MYSELF is to put one on the Israeli article because there are waay too much criticisms on the state of Israel. Its not absurd, its absurd that I am having a conversation where I cannot add a legit subtopic to an article because it is against your views. (talk)
 * -. If you want to add content concerning criticism, this is your right, provided you find a consensus. However, entering a section titled "criticism" is not in accordance with featured articles (wp:fa) like: Australia,Cameroon,Canada,Germany,India,Indonesia, Japan and probably not used in any country article. You try to force a format issue, and not a content issue. Ykantor (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no denying that UN is obsessed with Israel. Mentioning the criticism without mentioning the complete lack of proportion compared with alleged violations of international law in other places is completely biased and only serves to promote an anti-Israel POV. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)