Talk:Israel/Archive 81

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

The introduction article should address human rights criticism

Similar to how Saudi Arabia article addresses the criticism it received from many human rights organizations, this article should address that Israel has been accused of being an apartheid regime or of committing a cultural genocide of Palestinians by a number of experts including the UNHRC, B'Tselem, Amnesty International, among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajwadsabano (talk • contribs)

Fringe, antisemitic-tinged criticism should not be in the lead, no. Zaathras (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Israel being castigated for human rights violations is not fringe nor is it antisemitic-tinged, and absolutely belongs in the lead. The lead skips past that bit of the occupation, and I may try to correct that. nableezy - 03:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Alleged occupation is already featured too heavily in the article. It certainy has to be described with due weight, but it is by far not the main defining feature of Israel. It's an article about State of Israel, not "everything we hate about Israel" or "all the awful things Israel did to poor palestinians". “WarKosign” 09:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Think we are about due for another RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Alleged occupation? Nonsense. Article leads are supposed to include criticism where present. Israel's occupation is something it has been criticized for routinely, and it merits inclusion. I will be adding to it. nableezy - 13:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Any new updates regarding this request?

I added a bit to the lead on the accusations of apartheid and the settlements. nableezy - 15:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This revert of properly sourced material is the latest bit of the denial typical at this page "This one-sided paragraph doesn't present the issue with due weight." Is that some kind of a joke? Properly sourced material is deleted because an editor doesn't like it?Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

A little bit of context and counter-argumentation is too much to ask? - Daveout(talk) 15:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Add whatever you think is missing. Is that too much to ask instead of deleting well sourced material cus you dont like it? nableezy - 15:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Note that the Washington Post saw no need for any "context" or "counter-argumentation", it simply stated these matters as fact. It is true that both hr orgs reported as stated and the results of the surveys are what they are, which part of these facts do you intend to argue with, exactly? Of course you are free to bring sources of your own disputing that these orgs said what they said or that the surveys are wrong or biased or any such thing that you can locate. Simply deleting the material says it all, really.Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The monkey cage is separate site published by WP seems to me like group blog. Hence clearly should be attributed and WP:UNDUE without opposing views Shrike (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Click on the link in order to see how wrong you are.Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

On what link? Shrike (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The link to Monkey cage in the WP article, I would have thought you would have done that rather than just giving your personal opinion of what you think it is.Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I looked it and says clearly "TMC is an independent site" does there is any editorial board or peer review?I Shrike (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is a direct link if that helps you https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/10/about-monkey-cage/. Any more after fact reasons for the material having been deleted? Oh wait, you didn't delete it, someone else did. I'm sure they will be grateful that you are trying to help them out.Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Now we have this gem "the lede should follow the body. this is not covered in the article." Well no, because you just deleted it. Also, since this edit undoes the action of another editor, I think this counts a 1R breach so please be good enough to revert yourself or risk a report to AE.Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the policy basis for removing this well sourced material. Tendentious editing may be reported to arbitration enforcement. nableezy - 16:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ive tagged the article due to the repeated baseless reverts of any material that is critical of Israel, despite our policies demanding their inclusion in the lead and the body. nableezy - 16:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier's addition to the body had been removed and was under discussion when Nableezy thought it was a good idea to add it to the LEDE??? I'm sorry, but this has bad faith written all over it; and AE should take that into account. Considering Nableezy's past AE cases, I don't think they should be that confrontational in issues like this. (and no, i didn't removed anything. I merely modified it for the time being) - Daveout(talk) 16:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

My addition was about settlements and the accusations that Israel is guilty of apartheid. The removal of this material is based on exactly no policy or guideline, only an effort to suppress material an editor dislikes. And yes, hiding the addition is a revert, as it reverse my action of including it. If you do not self revert we can see how AE feels about this. nableezy - 16:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed so, I expect to see a self revert momentarily..Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, looks like a refusal and we did ask so politely.Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I tell a lie, did the decent thing after all.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment Also recent Talk:Israel/Archive_77#RFC had a clear consensus that we don't add anything of that kind to the lead . --Shrike (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

See no such consensus, I see a line of users offering zero policy basis for their lockstep voting. nableezy - 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Its you opinion but it doesn't mean you correct Anyhow WP:ONUS was not met for such material not then and not now --Shrike (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is the policy basis for removing the material from the body? What exactly is the policy basis for not including the material in the lead? ONUS requires reasons, and so far there have been none given. Just lockstep reverting on the basis of not liking it. nableezy - 16:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The reason is WP:UNDUE those issues are sufficiently covered in the lead already as per previous discussions --Shrike (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, also WP:CCC, I think the evidence on the apartheid front has mounted up sufficiently to justify another look at the whole question and indeed another RFC if editors continue to block well sourced material from being added to the article (with bs excuses one after the other when one doesn't work try some other).Selfstudier (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE????? UNDUE requires that material that has weight in sources be included. Are you seriously arguing that criticism of Israel's settlement policies does not have weight in reliable sources? Where wass the settlements covered in the lead? nableezy - 16:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The settlements are mentioned already, we rehash the previous discussion argument again. You may not agree with it but arguments that presented there are valid --Shrike (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The previous RFC was not closed and it is easy enough to see why. I think we have enough material by now for several RFCs about different aspects insufficiently addressed in this article (apartheid, settlement activity, hr abuse, illegal evictions, forced displacement and demolitions of property) for it to be considered as meeting the requirements of NPOV and the neutrality tag should certainly stay until these concerns being expressed here are dealt with.Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

In view of the uh...voting issues, any new RFC should be advertised at WP:CENT in order to try and achieve a real consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The only thing about the settlements is the application of Israeli law, which is among the most trivial of things related to the settlements. Israel's settlement program has been explicitly condemned as illegal by the UNSC and by the International Court of Justice. That is a significant criticism and per WP:LEAD should be included. What is your response to that? nableezy - 18:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted Nableezy's POV tag as I fail to see how it is helpful. Let's be clear: a user not getting their way is not a reason to add a tag, and any user who thinks it does should read WP:OWN. If we started a practice of every user adding a POV tag the moment their bold edits are reverted, we'd have tags absolutely everywhere. Given how much discussion there has been over the lede, the fact that a bold edit is reverted is not a POV issue at all. Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact that there is a dispute about the neutrality is evident here. Read the tag, it should not be removed while the discussion is ongoing. This continued censorship is disruptive and tendentious, and it is in fact a blatant example of WP:OWN on your part. And oh by the way, you didnt even attempt to address the issue here. Just attempted to enforce your preferred position and on top of that remove any notice that there is a dispute. OWN indeed. nableezy - 21:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the tag. There are good-faith NPOV concerns raised above, and they are sufficiently clear that anyone looking to remove the tag can edit the article to include the missing content. To frame it solely in terms of policy and guideline:

• NPOV: the body of the article should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
• per MOS:LEADREL: "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy"
• currently, the lead does not mention at all any of the myriad human rights violations or allegations thereof
• therefore, we should seek to resolve the discrepancy.

This could alternatively be done by removing all mention of human rights violations from the body, if the proportion of prominence given to that topic by RS is none at all. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If we look at ledes for similar countries such as Morocco (also occupies another nation since many decades, several human rights issues), the lede here at Israel is already much more critical of the subject. If we'd try to be a bit consistent, it's hard to see what POV issues exist here when compared to similar cases. Jeppiz (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The don't look here, look over there argument. Right.Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we make an up to date list of sources and see what they say, that's one way to proceed.Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, consistency is actually a relevant policy. And my comment was meant for users actually here to improve the article, not single-purpose accounts just (ab)using Wikipedia to push their own agenda all day long. Jeppiz (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consistency, which?. I did find WP:NPOV which seems the most relevant to the applied tag. Which SPA accounts are you referring to?Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

No reply forthcoming so let's see about some sources: "Global rights group accuses Israel of apartheid, persecution". 27 April 2021.

In a sweeping, 213-page report, the New York-based Human Rights Watch joins a growing number of commentators and rights groups who view the conflict not primarily as a land dispute but as a single regime in which Palestinians — who make up roughly half the population of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza — are systematically denied basic rights granted to Jews.

Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, thanks for the quote. Personally, I think this criticism belongs in the article. Not that my personal opinion matters, but it is a criticism I share, so I'd have no problem with it being added. Having said that, whether it belongs in the lede is a matter for discussion. We don't usually add HRW reports to the lede of country articles. Jeppiz (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we should include the report in the lead, that is a secondary source discussing it and pointing to other sources that have that opinion. What we need is to somehow encapsulate in summary form the most relevant/important hr aspects, not merely the apartheid question (I think significant others might be the settlement project and displacement of Palestinians in general but that is by no means exhaustive).Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

DUE weight is determined by sources, not by comparing to other articles with bogus analogies. Has Morocco established illegal settlements in occupied territory? Have they been castigated for war crimes by both the UNSC and the ICJ? Is there worldwide coverage of the accusations that Morocco's actions constitute apartheid? No, there isnt. Any other bogus comparison you want to make? The settlement enterprise has been repeatedly and consistently and widely criticized by a huge number of international actors and that criticism has been widely covered in reliable sources. It is a defining feature of Israel in the international arena, and there are literally thousands of sources that discuss it in great depth, and any overview of Israel would cover it. For example, the BBC country overview of Israel discusses the settlements, noting The Palestinians in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem have lived under Israeli occupation since 1967. The settlements that Israel has built in the West Bank are home to nearly 500,000 people and are deemed to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this. Notable controversies belong in the lead, per WP:LEAD. That Israel has been repeatedly accused of war crimes, by no less the UNSC and the ICJ, is a notable controversy, widely covered in reliable sources. Does anybody dispute that? Does anybody dispute that Israel's settlement enterprise has been widely covered as being a violation of international law? nableezy - 23:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/twilight-zone/MAGAZINE-the-settler-outpost-has-water-its-palestinian-neighbors-don-t-this-is-apartheid-1.10237053 Head "The Illegal Settler Outpost Has Running Water. Its Palestinian Neighbors Don't. This Is Apartheid at Its Starkest" Subhead "The activists who were attacked by Israeli soldiers in the South Hebron Hills were bringing water to the Hamamdi family – who are denied that resource by Israel. Opposite them are the water pipes and electric cables of an outlaw settler outpost." Apartheid linked to illegal settlement activity (including by Israeli law, typically not enforced versus settlers only against Palestinians).Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Not having access to resources (in this case, tap water) is not what apartheid is, it's just grasping at straws to prove a point. That is actually just a common social-economic disparity. In US big cities, you'll certainly find fancy house not very far from homeless gathering spots. Arabs have more rights and freedoms in Israel than in any arab county. You'll find arabs in the parliament and supreme court. The way jews, women, gays, shias, apostates are treated in the arab world, including Palestine, more closely resembles apartheid (or even genocide) actually. - Daveout(talk) 13:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, your opinion of what constitutes apartheid is irrelevant. Find a source to back you up and I might take you more seriously.Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:NOTFORUM, if youd like to discuss [t]he way jews, women, gays, shias, apostates are treated in the arab world, including Palestine, more closely resembles apartheid (or even genocide) actually you can find sources for that and discuss that in those articles or you can start a blog. We have sources here, not personal opinions. nableezy - 18:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, but this is clearly UNDUE (needless to say for lede!). The Monkey Cage is a forum for political scientists, and MESA is a somewhat biased crowd - mostly Arab studies - that has discussed academic boycott of Israel in the past and has issued statements in support of Palestinians - e.g. https://mesana.org/advocacy/letters-from-the-board/2021/05/21/mesa-board-statement-in-support-of-palestinians Also lede is POV enough against Israel, specially with that crappy sentence "Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is internationally considered to be the world's longest military occupation in modern times." (which is not even true, China for examples occupies Tibet since 1950, although it annexed the territory, but that wouldn't stop the anti-Israel crowd from calling the Golan Heights "occupied", despite the fact that Israel annexed that territory too). And the "partial annexation" of the West Bank in lede is disputed too. Israel never annexed parts of that territory, despite previous promises by Netanyahu and others. Regarding the apartheid controversy, it's a loose definition that is discussed elsewhere in article, including links to articles that talk about it extensively. It's not for lede in a million years.--Margie - remasked (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

While y'all thrashing about to find excuses for Israel (backed up by no sources), here's another source linking all three of the areas I mentioned above, apartheid, settlements and illegal displacement of Palestinians. https://theintercept.com/2021/05/15/israel-apartheid-palestine-jerusalem/ Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I should also give congrats on reaching 500 edits, first of many such that will appear here no doubt.Selfstudier (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That isnt helping. nableezy - 17:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, forget apartheid here. Let's focus on the settlements. I repeat my question to anybody challenging the inclusion of a line on the criticism of Israel for its settlement enterprise in the occupied territories. WP:LEAD requires significant controversies to be included in the lead of articles. Does anybody dispute that Israel's settlement program being widely and routinely castigated as a war crime by the UN Security Council, General Assembly, Secretary General, countless human rights organizations is widely covered in reliable sources? Does anybody dispute that this is a significant controversy, significance as determined by reliable sources? nableezy - 17:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

A quick look and I find just one reference to settlements in the lead, a wikilink to Israeli law in the West Bank settlements described as "pipelining", that's it unless I missed something. Settlements? What settlements? Probably right to forget about apartheid, can't see that anywhere in the article at all, obviously doesn't exist.Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Work on adding it to the body. Would like somebody who opposes inclusion of the regular castigation of Israel for violating international law with its settlement enterprise to answer my questions. nableezy - 18:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus here that this topic is not fully covered in the body of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus the past discussion has included many editors if you want to show that something changed there should be similar discussion --Shrike (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Can we bring the unclosed RFC that Shrike keeps referring to out here together with this convo as a kind of RFCbefore so we can get on with a new one, since it is clear that objecting to the obvious is still a thing here? Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy. How about: "Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is internationally considered to be the world's longest military occupation in modern times^{[fn 5][55]} and has drawn criticism." (underlined text being the addition to the current lede text) - Daveout(talk) 14:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

What has that to do with the settlement project? Do pay attention.Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You pay attention. The occupation and the settlements are intrinsically related. And the link I added leads to a detailed criticism of the settlements (among other Israeli political takes). Anyway, this was just a "starting point" suggestion trying to engage in a compromise. Constructive feedback and suggestions are welcome. - Daveout(talk) 14:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Your 'starting point' isn't a compromise, it's blatantly posting a personal and controversial opinion. "Internationally agreed" by who, iran and syria?

A better sentence would be "Israel has received international criticism from organizations such as the United Nations Human Rights Council, for alleged occupation of the West Bank".

The word alleged allows the statement to maintain neutrality, because lets face it, just as there are international recognitions that it's an occupied territory, there is also international recognition that it's not. Saying any such sentence without the word is simply forcing down your personal opinion down people's throats, by omission. Xland44 (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue at hand right now is the settlement project, there is not really any serious argument about the occupation as such, it is covered more or less sufficiently (ie to the satisfaction of no-one).Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Xland44, You should pay attention as well. The part you are criticizing is not the change that I'm hypothesizing, that is what the lede currently states. The change I put forward for consideration is solely the underlined text. - Daveout(talk) 12:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Another possibility: How about changing this:

• "Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is internationally considered to be the world's longest military occupation in modern times[fn 5][55]"

for this

• "Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories and the construction of settlements have drawn criticism."

? - Daveout(talk) 12:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Daveout, we can't use collapsible boxes without offending mobile users eyeballs so we have to make do with a link to the previous unclosed RFC as below, the main point being that there was a partial consensus reached to include details re settlements in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Related 2020 unclosed RFC

The relevant part of reverted Nableezy edit reads "Israel's settlement policies have also drawn condemnation internationally, with the United Nations Security Council declaring the settlements a flagrant violation of international law." Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I dont think "drawn criticism" is remotely neutral, it downplays the issue so much as to be entirely meaningless. Israel's settlement program has been repeatedly condemned as a war crime, that is not "drawn criticism". Will work on a phrasing, real life is kinda in the way for me rn though. But it should include that the settlements have been condemned internationally, including by the UNSC and the ICJ and UNGA, and human rights groups, as flagrant violations of international law. nableezy - 15:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The tag is ridiculous and it should be removed. Look at the history of this talk page, every few months the same users opens a discussion or RfC on the same topics: remove democracy from the lead cause "Israel is not a democracy" and to put this neutarlity tag, again and again. It seems like there are users who wish to delegitimize Israel via Wikipedia. Sokuya (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

At the moment we are simply debating whether a statement similar to Nableezy's above should be included in the lead, should we take your comment to mean no? Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for discussing the tag, the reason for its inclusion being this discussion. Is there a reason why something about the international condemnation of the settlement program should not go in the lead? Do you disagree that this is a significant criticism of Israel? Do you disagree that significant criticisms belong in the lead? nableezy - 00:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy, this edit should be restored. The introduction implies that Israel is some sort of thriving democratic country lacking controversy, and it does not examine or add in counterpoints on whether the country truly meets that definition. It de facto rules the Palestinian territories in an apartheid manner, and that's not my own view - there's hundreds of sources out there saying so, including the UN Security Council itself. Ecpiandy (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• This was already discussed and rejected. The lead, if at all, has too much criticism and Arab-Israeli conflict.08:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrisonerB (talk • contribs)

There was literally zero argument against including the settlements and the criticism the settlements have generated in that RFC. Which oh by the way was never closed. This not being a place where the number of votes count when they are not grounded in policy. Speaking of policy, do you dispute that the settlements and the sustained condemnation of the settlements is a significant controversy? nableezy - 15:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to create a new section about the settlements specifically. nableezy - 15:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

I'd like to edit to improve on the amount and depth of the information included. I'd like to include what news reporters and the media/internet do not. ILikeToEditlol (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2021

Article should mention that Israel is occupying what was previously Palestinian land. 67.184.247.69 (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. There is also already a section titled #Israeli-occupied territories. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 05:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

The calender in Israel has 182.239.239.14 (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Questionable removal of content

In this edit, a bunch of material was removed from the lead under the claim that it was from a primary source.

I don't see any evidence [1] this book is a primary source.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Largest city of Israel

In the sidebar where it states that Jerusalem is the largest city, I think a note or something should be added that if East Jerusalem was excluded, Tel Aviv would be the largest city. This is mentioned in the Major urban areas that East Jerusalem has 573,330 inhabitants and Jerusalem (altogether) has 936,425 inhabitants. If East Jerusalem would be excluded then Jerusalem would have 363,095 inhabitants thus making Tel Aviv the largest city (460,613 inhabitants). Chxeese (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chxeese: In 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law, which declared that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel". Israeli claims the entire land of Jerusalem maybe thats why its included.[of Jerusalem] I think the previous editor considered only Israels Point of view forgetting, theres citizens of Palestine also living there. --LostCitrationHunter (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to take a neutral point of view. Jerusalem, both east and west, is de facto an Israeli city, and we are dealing here with facts on the ground, not with theoretical situations. There is a Palestinian claim to parts of the city, and it is explained here and in other articles, but at the end of the day, we have to consider the reality. By the way, all residents of Jerusalem are 'permanent residents' of Israel, i.e. they can live and work wherever they want in Israel. Many Palestinian Arabs who live in Jerusalem do not have Israeli passports, but they still have the 'permanent resident' status. Perhaps some of them had the right to vote in the Palestinian elections, but this fact does not make Jerusalem a Palestinian city. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

De facto is not de jure, that's the reality. Not only is East Jerusalem occupied territory, all unilateral attempts to change the Status of Jerusalem are void, per UNSC vote.Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@79.183.205.72: Even if you are right in saying Israel de facto controls Jerusalem, but as Chxeese implied, the population of Jerusalem is higher than Tel Aviv only if you also consider the Palestinian population who do have neither Israeli citizenship nor residency.--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this an article about Israel or a lecture about international politics? People who land on this article want to learn about Israel as it is. If they wish to learn about the role of the UN in the Arab-Israeli conflict or about political views regarding Jerusalem, they will obviously search different articles or different websites altogether. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

And if they want a lesson in propaganda they can go visit the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, much better quality of propaganda there than here.Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So basically, your view of the matter is the truth, and anything else is a propaganda? I thought our goal was to be neutral, or was I wrong? 79.183.205.72 (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutral = per reliable sources, not what you think it means.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A UNSC resolution is a reliable source about the UNSC's opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't need a UNSC resolution to know whether the sky is blue, and I don't need such a resolution to know who runs Jerusalem. And besides, the US administration pubished a different view about Jerusalem. Why is it less important? When you look for reliable sources, you have to consider ALL available sources, not just those who state your favoured opinion. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Grandmother, eggs, etc.Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@79.183.205.72: I am not trying to say that Jerusalem is a Palestinian City nor am I trying to promote propaganda. The UNSC resolution represents the opinion of the international community, even if the USA does vote against it, it still shows that most do not support Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. From your previous comments and the fact that all your contributions are to things related to Israel, you are trying to discourage comments made in a pro-Israeli point of view without evidence. There is proof (that we just showed) as well that (despite its de facto status) Jerusalem is not the capital city of Israel. Merriam Webster literally defines "propaganda" as "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause" -- Chxeese (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe since no agreement can be reached I will start a vote to see if a change should occur. -- Chxeese (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Chxeese, but the discussion is not about whether Jerusalem is the capital city, but whether Jerusalem is the largest city. Jerusalem, despite its contentious status, is a city with a single municipal government. It is not two cities. And that city is the largest city in Israel. Or partially in Israel, from some points of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is if excluding the population of what is widely regarded as not "in Israel", that population is smaller than Tel Aviv. Think it needs a note that it includes East Jerusalem which is considered occupied territory. nableezy - 03:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Voting: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chxeese (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Jerusalem is frequently described as a divided and disputed city, the single municipality was created via a disputed and unrecognized annexation. De facto reality is only that and says nothing about legality (de jure status). I agree it needs a note at the very least.Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I dont think we have to get in to anything besides clarifying that it is the largest city if including East Jerusalem, can be in a note. Thats how it was solved at List of cities in Israel. Ill try that now. nableezy - 16:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

added a note. nableezy - 17:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy I think thats a perfect choice, you deserve another Barnstar of diplomacy lol, but i suggest changing "Jerusalem is Israel's largest city if including East Jerusalem, which is widely recognized as occupied territory." to "Jerusalem is Israel's largest city if East Jerusalem, which is widely recognized as occupied territory, is included. Excluding East Jerusalem, Tel Aviv is the largest city." and maybe include the fact that East Jerusalem includes Palestinean citizens too--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think its enough as is but feel free to be bold if you dont. nableezy - 15:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy Sorry I am a little late to reply, but I do feel that LostCitrationHunter's statement is correct as it does provide context on Israel and its population. -- Chxeese (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

If anybody else wants to make an edit they can, I just dont feel anything else is needed beyond what I did. nableezy - 23:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Rfleisher.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

Can you edit the page about this country plz? ImChessFan21 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please provide specific edits with sources that justify them. nableezy - 15:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I will edit about Israel and Egypt and others. ImChessFan21 (talk)

Can you be more specific? What kind of information about those countries are you planning to edit into the article?$chnauzer 15:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine, Israel, Honduras, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImChessFan21 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request question on Israel?

"I believe I made significant improvements in terms of grammar and trimmed unnecessary text of a lede that is already too long compared to most countries."

You were already asked once here, to "Please stop adding edit request templates to talk pages as you did at Talk:Caracas. It makes no sense to add them if you aren't making any request, and it makes no sense to add them with the "answered" parameter already set to "yes"" Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I said "Please stop adding edit request templates to talk pages as you did at Talk:Caracas. It makes no sense to add them if you aren't making any request, and it makes no sense to add them with the "answered" parameter already set to "yes"" so please stop right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImChessFan21 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

In the "native name" section of the infobox, please change ([[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]) to ([[Modern Hebrew|Hebrew]]) because that is the type of Hebrew that is reflected in the "Official languages" section of the box. Alternatively, [[Modern Hebrew]] does not need a link here because it is already linked in the "Official languages" section, and duplicate and repeat links are discouraged. Joesom333 (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. “WarKosign” 17:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request on January 16, 2022

Could someone please restore these changes? I believe I made significant improvements in terms of grammar and trimmed unnecessary text of a lede that is already too long compared to most countries. For the record, I only added my imput after multiple editors made changes without apparent discussion. Thanks.--Eastern Geek (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done, several of the changes are POV issues, such as removing and continues to occupy and making Israel "retain" control of territory it nearly acquired. nableezy - 16:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

So why don't you change those two things according to your desired version and leave the rest of the changes? It wasn't my intention to insert a specific POV. I wanted to improve the redaction and trim the excessive, unnecessary and over-detailed content. The supposed POV you mentioned is a minor and insignificant part of the overall changes that can be easily fixed or ignored. What about the excessive information on the revolts against the Romans for example? Or the unnecessary repetition about the Zionist movement? Or the inappropriate undue link on Jewish history in the land of Israel? Apparently you didn't pay attention to my changes.--Eastern Geek (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I was enforcing an arbitration decision, if somebody else who is permitted wants to make any edit they are free to do so. Please dont remove the ans flag, this request has been answered, you just dont like the answer. nableezy - 15:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the effort to reduce the lede. Actually, I think even then it would still be too long. There must be a way to make it more concise. If there's no objections or further suggestions I'll implement Easter geek's changes. - Daveout(talk) 20:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I object to the changes in the conflict paragraph. Besides that dont really care much. nableezy - 20:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The information about getting independence from Britain is misinformation. Israel as state or country or nation was never a British subject or colony. The country was artificially created by UK.

The information about getting independence from Britain is misinformation. Israel as state or country or nation was never a British subject or colony. The country was created by UK. The demographic were artificially changed 67.225.41.59 (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed "independence from the British Empire" from the infobox since neither Palestine nor Israel were ever in the British Empire. Is there any other place in the article of concern? Zero^talk 05:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

News update

90% for 'overwhelming majority' according to Philip Cross is unacceptable because according to this latest piece of poor editing, the equation could lend itself to misinterpretation! So PC, why is that 'misleading'? Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

'overwhelming majority' must have been taken out of context :)Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It is to be expected that the discussion above will suffer from the usual I/P malady

Apropos this revert- It may be pure coincidence but from my list of the usual suspects, I see the following:-

• Tom Bahar registration 19 June 2021 09:01 728 edits (at 6 Feb 22)
• Tombah registration 19 June 2021 09:57 767 edits (at 10 Feb 22)

Why is it that 99% of the socks or suspected socks in the I/P area only edit for one of the two parties to the conflict, and why do they turn up invariably at critical moments in a conflicted discussion, unless a lack of argument or evidence can only be faced down by the usual numbers game? Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I now see it is the same person but the data indicates a double registration an hour apart.Odd. Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary for the recent revert is interesting (as well as false), must be a new WP policy I missed "The Amnesty claims are not only rejected by Israel, but by most of the Western world". Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Rejection of a claim is of no value unless you reply on point. Israel hasn't. The New York Times has, for example remained silent on this 'breaking news' for 10 days. That shows how difficult it is to counter analytically, as opposed to scream 'anti-Semitism!' which has been the standard response in Israeli official quarters. The news was marginalized in Europe. So the second part of the assertion is untrue. Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Surveys designed to achieve a result

Tritomex added newspaper references to a survey conducted by the Jewish People Policy Institute. Why a body founded by the Jewish Agency for the purpose of "promoting and securing the Jewish people and Israel" should be a trusted source on the political attitudes of non-Jews in Israel is the first question. The second question is what the survey actually found. Non-Jews were required to select exactly one of these as their "primary identity": Arab, Israeli, Palestinian, Arab Israeli. Note what is missing: Palestinian Israeli. In order to select Palestinian, they had to not select Israeli. This omission served two purposes: (1) it reduced the number of respondents who reported a Palestinian identification, (2) it promoted the canard that "Palestinian" implies a rejection of "Israeli". If you think this was accidental I have a bridge to sell you. That both of the newspaper reports are aware of the issue can be seen by the fact they wrote "primary identity", but neither saw fit to take JPPI to task for this polling stunt. Tritomex's text does not match either the newspaper reports or the original survey. Zero^talk 02:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have RS confirming your research that there were methodological bias in this study or you just miss attribution to the survey, conducted by Prof. Camille Fuchs of Tel Aviv University on behalf of JPPI?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs)

Any reason you picked that particular survey, Tritomex? And not one of the others, including the one via the acknowledged expert in the field? Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

How about this survey?:

In a 2017 telephone poll, 40% of Arab citizens of Israel identified as "Arab in Israel / Arab citizen of Israel", 15% identified as "Palestinian", 8.9% as "Palestinian in Israel / Palestinian citizen of Israel", and 8.7% as "Arab"; 60% of Israeli Arabs have a positive view of the state.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.136.91 (talk • contribs)

An IP has been moved to edit after a 4 year gap. Well, same question, why this particular survey? Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Which survey would you like to reflect the current sentiment among Israeli Arabs towards the Israeli state? Also now the section on demographics looks like a public bathroom where everybody adds something different. For example, at the end it says "Israeli Arabs comprise 21.1% of the population or 1,995 000 people(with the Arab population of East Jerusalem and Golan heights included).[336".... despite it's repeated almost the same thing at the beginning ("Arabs accounted for 20.9% of the population, while non-Arab Christians and people who have no religion listed in the civil registry made up 4.8%.[15]"). Why the same information twice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.173.176 (talk • contribs)

And another. Is that an edit request? Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of surveys, giving results that are all over the place. Cherry-picking which surveys to feature is the last thing we should do and the opposite of NPOV editing. It is definitely not ok to choose one survey and demand an RS for excluding it. And, Tritomex, debating the reliability of sources is something that editors are supposed to do on talk pages, where original argument is not only allowed but welcome. Zero^talk 12:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Not cherry-picking but picking a source of highest quality and without statistical or methodological errors and flaws that reflects correctly the self identification of Israeli Arabs. Original arguments are off course ok for talk page but reliable sources should back up reverts. As far as I see we got a source that fits all requirement's from an IP and which tackle all concerns raised above. Therefore I will add it to demography section, respecting 1RR. Also, why not going to RFC, (if there are no concensus) there is noting wrong about that. The source is reliable, gives all the options you lacked in previous sourcing, comes from unbias centar and tackles very important issue regarding 1/5 of Israels population. Tritomex (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

2021 - Long overlooked, Israel’s Arab citizens are increasingly asserting their Palestinian identity

2019 Palestinian in Israel: The population the government refers to as "Arab-Israeli" is increasingly embracing the term "Palestinian."

Both these are dated after the 2018 Nation State Law. There are others too, would you like to see them? I assume you won't be objecting if I add such to the polling material for balance and NPOV? Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course not, just be careful please to add the results of studies itself, not media and public figures interpretation.Tritomex (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact we prefer secondary source interpretations to polls, which are primary for their results. If we are going down this road we need to add all relevant polls.Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not an issue with much cogency for the broad article, and inflating it with 'stuff' like that, adding Tritomex's defective poll datum (Zero has zeroed in on that, and your reply misses the point), and several corrections its use would render necessary, would constitute bloat. Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Daveout added the above telephone poll to the article therefore I have added a rather different view from Smooha as counterpoint.Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2022

There is a redundant sentence at the end of the introduction of section on demography about the percentage of the Israeli Arab population which is already repeated at the beginning. Could someone please remove the text "Israeli Arabs comprise 21.1% of the population or 1,995 000 people(with the Arab population of East Jerusalem and Golan heights included)".... and simply add a footnote at the beginning to clarify this includes the Arab population of East Jerusalem and the Golan? There is no point in repeating the same information twice. It would look like this:

Arabs accounted for 20.9% of the population,

ThanksDalaufer (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

If we are doing something there it would seem appropriate to include at some point the information that these population figures include East Jerusalemites that are not in fact citizens of Israel. All the 2020 info is available in detail here so maybe could update all the figures? The first sentence of demographics says 2022, an error.Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's make it simple. How about this footnote?:

Arabs accounted for 20.9% of the population,

(perhaps adding a neutral source to back it up?)Dalaufer (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not simple.Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking for anything that can be fixed quickly, I see that the global population figure is an estimate as of currentday derived by extrapolation via Template:Data_Israel while the "2022" comes from using "currentyear". Then all the refs are historical rather than current with any other figure derived from a source rather than programmatically. Would it not be better to just use sources for everything? Then all the figures would be consistent. Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I rewrote the sentence from:

Israeli Arabs comprise 21.1% of the population or 1,995,000 people (with the Arab population of East Jerusalem and Golan heights included)

to:

Israeli Arabs (including the Arab population of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) comprise 21.1% of the population or 1,995,000 people

Would this be acceptable? Dunutubble (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The business about 350k East Jerusalemites not actually being citizens needs to be covered somewhere. As well as the duplication/methodology mentioned above.Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)