This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Israel is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 74 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2023, when it received 13,344,140 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report13 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Why is Jerusalem listed as Israel's capital in the infobox?
Israel declares Jerusalem to be its capital, and has its seat of government there. However, the lack of international recognition is notable, hence the subtext was added "(limited recognition)" as the result of this RfC. For further information see Status of Jerusalem.
It's possible that this discussion will be seen by non-Wikipedians, so I've tried to explain what we've decided, and why, in enough detail that a non-Wikipedian would be able to follow it.This is a Request for Comment ("RfC"), which is a method we Wikipedians use to make tricky content decisions. Interested people who have accounts in good standing are invited to express a view. After a time, and when discussion has died down, another editor summarizes the discussion and communicates the decision the community has made. This process of writing a summary is called "closing".A sacred cow of Wikipedia is that the closer has to be neutral and uninvolved. The closer isn't the decider -- rather, the closer writes a closing summary that documents what the community has collectively decided. The closer is expected to apply relevant rules called policies and guidelines. This is my role, and the principle of uninvolvement is why I -- a man who knows nothing about this and has never even set foot in the Middle East -- am writing this. If I seem to be the decision maker, then that's an illusion.In the discussion below, the community decides if, and if so how, to "link" our article on Gaza genocide from our article on Israel. In this case "link" means "Wikilink", which is where we use computer code to make the article text blue so a reader can click it and find another Wikipedia article. A decision about a link does not mean that any wording in the article has to be changed, because we can make a link without changing any text at all. But when editors are deciding how to implement the decision that we've made, they could decide to change the text, if that's the best way to do it.We make decisions by "rough consensus", which is a Wikipedian term meaning more than a majority. It does not have to mean unanimity. In this case editors are not of one mind, but we would have to say that the "rough consensus" -- a supermajority of responsible Wikipedians -- is that yes, we should link the article on Gaza genocidein two places: once in the "lead", which is the top few paragraphs above the table of contents, and once in the body, which is the main part of the article below the table of contents.The decision to link our article on Gaza genocide does not mean that Wikipedia is saying that Israel has committed genocide. We do not make that allegation in Wikipedia's voice, anywhere in this article or that one. "Gaza genocide" is the short title of an article in which Wikipedia explains about the allegations of genocide that other people (notably lawyers representing South Africa) have made, the findings of the International Court of Justice, and the commentary of reliable news sources and international experts. Wikipedia's article reflects what the sources we deem most reliable say about this, and we try to give appropriate prominence to Israel's denials. In this discussion we merely decide to include a pointer.Huldra's question also asks in which paragraph we should include these links, but the community has not given me sufficient guidance to answer that. I can only say that the links should be introduced.I hope this is clear and suffices to resolve the dispute. Queries, quibbles, comments, criticism, or complaints about this close are welcome, and should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S MarshallT/C18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article Gaza genocide be linked from this article, and if yes, where?
Possible answers:
No, it should not be linked
Yes, it should be linked in the lead.
Yes, it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Yes, it should be linked in the lead and the body of the article, attached to content similar to that Selfstudier developed above, and content similar to that Huldra developed in [1] would serve well in the lede. It's obviously something readers are going to be coming to this page to learn more about, and the information exists on the encyclopedia, the conversations about whether it belongs here or not have laready been had, so there's no reason this page should not serve reader needs. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs)21:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why it would be necessary to add it as a completely separate paragraph (if we were to add it) instead of just putting at the end of the third paragraph, which is far more related, and less abrupt. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,adding content as Selfstudier's above, preferably at the end of the 21st century paragraph and add a single sentence to the end of lead per Huldra, but I would modify their suggested text ("In 2024, Israel was accused of committing the Gaza genocide)" to "In 2024, Israel was accused of committing genocide in Gaza" or similar. My logic for the change is that the accusation/dispute centres on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide (or are legitimate self-defence/similar), rather than whether the 'Gaza genocide' is being committed by Israel (as opposed to some other State or body) which Huldra's text otherwise implies.Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to Selfstudier's suggestion in the body per the weight of reliable sources given (I'll leave to others to determine where), with a summary in the lead. Only suggestion is to add the arrest warrants on. TarnishedPathtalk09:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No The article "Gaza genocide" presents claims that lack broad consensus within the international community and are subject to significant dispute. Linking to such an article may mislead readers into perceiving these claims as established facts rather than contested allegations, thereby compromising the integrity of the host article. Eladkarmel (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per MaskedSinger, Allthemilescombined1 and Eladkarmel; feels like including this would unduly shoehorn something in that doesn't belong in the general overview article. Andre🚐21:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There's a relevant section where it can be mentioned: Israel#Israeli-occupied_territories. Right now, this article doesn't mention two important things: That the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a fugitive wanted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, and that Israel is being charged with genocide by South Africa in the International Court of Justice. I think there can be a new subsection in the "Israeli occupied territories" section, that mentions both facts. I see Selfstudier has given a sample text. I support that paragraph being added to the relevant section, but I think a mention of the ICC's arrest warrant of the Prime Minister of Israel (and Yoav Gallant's warrant too) could also be added, since it's also international litigation for crimes against humanity in Gaza. Mohammed Deif's arrest warrant doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. I think we can have a new subsection titled "Gaza Strip" that moves text that already exists in the section. So in addition to Selfstudier's text, I would add the first sentence of the arrest warrant article to the end of it, and make it look like THIS (A link to a sandbox page that would show what the article would look like).--JasonMacker (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as adding it to the lead, the already existing sentence in the lead, "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." seems to be a good enough summary, but I guess I would modify it to "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations, the International Criminal Court, and United Nations officials." The ICC is technically not a UN body, so it should be mentioned separately. But other than that, I think such a sentence would be fine. I'm open to suggestions on this though. JasonMacker (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*No. The genocide allegation appears to be, at the moment, primarily a tool of propaganda. Unless substantial new evidence emerges, analyzed by impartial, non-politicized sources and supported by more than two vague statements and casualty figures (which include a significant number of Hamas militants but the Hamas-run Health Ministry prefers not to differentiate militants from civilians), such claims lack the rigor required for inclusion in serious, encyclopedic coverage. ABHammad (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This article is about the State of Israel. Not news. Should the articles about the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and many others feature the various proven genocides that actually took place, or even in the lead? Might as well say "also known as the Z.E.", in the lead or anywhere, with some extra brackets for good measure? This is a matter of an ongoing armed conflict, with fog of war and disinformation throughout. Not only would it be "commenting on an ongoing investigation" as they say, but entirely inappropriate and irresponsible. Skullers (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Per WP:LEDE, required mention of significant criticism or controversies, clearly true and which several of the No !votes have acknowledged as being the case. A mention should be added via inclusion within the sentence "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity [and genocide ] against the Palestinian people—from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the lede - a good chunk of the lede is already criticism, so adding additional accusations would seem like POV shoehorning. Not necessarily against inclusion in the body, but there isn't a specific proposal to comment on. — xDanielxT/C\R23:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:XDanielx there is a question about whether it should be in the body. ("Yes, it should be linked from the body of the article (please specify which paragraph") So, if you agree: which paragraph? Huldra (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: Relevant material is currently in the body, unless it is reverted. The original dispute was about a sentence being added to the lead not material being added to the body, something which is not usually a source of dispute unless the amount of such material is undue. Option 2 already assumes material present in the body, no?. And option 1 just says no, so the third option is not really necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: When I started this RfC on the 22 nov, it wasn't in the body (that was first added the 27th) so the the third option is useful (necessary?) for keeping it there, Huldra (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just think the two things should not be mixed up, this RFC should not attempt to rubber stamp the addition that I made to the body, that should just be subject to the normal editing process. Imagine that I had not added it and people voted option 2? Then there would have had to have been another discussion about what should be in the body, so yes I have attempted to remedy a deficiency in the way the RFC was drafted and hopefully it meets with approval. Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in the body and the lede: There are prominent RS (UN Special Committee, Israeli holocaust scholar Omer Bartov to cite two examples) supporting the charachterization that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza, so there is no reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the body. Accordingly, lede summarizes the body, so it should include that, given that it is one of the most prominent controversies Israel is facing second to the crime of apartheid in the West Bank (I am in favor of including both in the lede), though admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed, that's why for now it can be described as an accusation. The perfect short phrasing in my opinion for the lede can be:
“
Israel's practices in the occupied territories has drawn sustained international criticism for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including for maintaining an apartheid regime in the West Bank, as well as being accused of committing a genocide in Gaza.
Update to my "admittedly genocide hasn't reached the threshold of being confirmed," that is beginning to change as Amnesty International launched a report today charachterizing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. While this does not yet mean the threshold has been reached, but it gives a whole new significance to the inclusion of the "accusation" to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both in the lead and body: Per sources and my understanding of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Some of these policies and guidelines are:
1) Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. WP:Tertiary sources can be used to assess WP:DUE. My understanding is that once DUEness is established, Wikipedia articles can be kept up to date. This is actually a strength of Wikipedia. For example, no one would argue mentioning something about the economy in this article is WP:UNDUE. WP:Tertiary and overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel would include something about the economy. It could be too much or too little, but something about the economy would be DUE in this article. However, economic stats in this article would probably be much more up to date than many published overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel such as Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Israel.
Similarly, WP:Tertiary sources mention Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict at length. As such, Gaza genocide would be DUE. If in several years, newly published WP:Tertiary sources do not mention this, it can be taken out of the lead. If in several years, both newly published WP:Tertiary and overview WP:Secondary sources about Israel do not mention this, it can also be taken out of the body. But for now, to keep the article up to date, this is DUE. (Update: quote from intro chapter in overview secondary source provided belowBogazicili (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
...That conflict, which became known as the Arab-Israeli conflict, has heavily influenced Israel's development, as security issues have dominated Israeli politics and society since 1948...
World Encyclopedia, Israel entry (accessible through Wikipedia library). There's nothing similar to the Wikipedia lead. The "lead" in encyclopedia entry is just few sentences about geography. But the history section mentions these issues.
A Guide to Countries of the World (4 ed.) Israel entry (accessible through Wikipedia library). There's no history section, but large coverage, especially under Contemporary politics section.
3) MOS:LEADLENGTH. The above proposal would trim the lead word count by something like 26 words. It'd still be more than 400 words, but even many featured articles are longer than 400 words. Bogazicili (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You linked to four tertiary sources, but I don't see the word "genocide" in any of them? (Britannica links to recent news about it, but that seems temporary.) Maybe this is a sign that our lede's focus should somehow be different, but in terms of accusations of genocide, if anything it seems like a sign that we should omit them.
I don't think there's any dispute that something like accusations that it has committed genocide would pass WP:V, but that isn't really an argument for highlighting material in a lede. That comes down mainly to WP:DUE and to MOS:LEDE, which tell us to briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. — xDanielxT/C\R01:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my reasoning for this.
This is a recent and ongoing event. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, published in 2008, would not have mentioned 2024 events. It's a reliable source, but they are not clairvoyant.
My DUE argument was due to heavy coverage of Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict in Israel entries in tertiary sources.
If sources published in the next few years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, it can be taken out of the body or the lead.
But for now, we can keep the article up to date. I believe this is the precedent in Wikipedia. Otherwise Wikipedia would be several years or longer behind everything if we had to wait for overview WP:Secondary or WP:Tertiary sources for everything. Once those type of sources covering recent events are available however, those sources would determine how we proceed. Bogazicili (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be linked in the lead, at the end of the third paragraph where it discusses war crimes and crimes against humanity. This text has been through various iterations, but would benefit from greater precision by means of specificity. A great many countries have been accused of war crimes, making that a rather generic, not outstanding observation. While it is probably more notable that Israel has been accused of a particularly voluminous number of different war crimes in the post-WWII period, sitting above that are the very specific crimes against humanity in which it has been implicated –namely apartheid and genocide. Now apartheid has already been through the RFC process and denied a mention (based on rationales that grow poorer by the day) but to the question here, yes, it is extremely pertinent to mention the particularly nation-defining crime against humanity of genocide – the so-called crime of crimes. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not in the lead. There's some discussion of genocide in the 21st century section of the article and this link could be put there, but it's not clear why this should be added to the lead. I am strongly opposed to adding it to the lead and most of the arguments for inclusion into the lead can be discounted on WP:10YT/WP:NOTTHENEWS/WP:RECENTISM grounds. Nemov (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for the body, no for the lead It is certainly notable enough to mention in a relevant part of the article, but I think it is too recent to mention in the lead, since we cannot assess long-term historical importance yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for something being included in the lead is pretty high, much higher than inclusion in the body. According to MOS:LEADNO, emphasis on material, such as the Gaza genocide, should reflect its relative importance to the topic as described by reliable sources. I think the current state of the lead is fine, although I would also be fine with adding a sentence or two about how Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal. I don't think the Gaza genocide by itself has enough weight to warrant inclusion in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly warrants inclusion in the lead. However, is the Gaza genocide itself heavily covered in those entries? It is the level of coverage for the specific topic that matters, not the level of coverage of the wider subject it is part of. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says summarize the most important points. I am simply contending that this is not one of them. Israel is a sizable country with a lot of history, and I don't believe that this has enough DUE weight in reliable sources about Israel as a whole to warrant including prominently in the lead, although I think it is important enough to mention in the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict definitely warrants inclusion in the lead, and we could probably add a sentence about the legality of Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, but I think including the Gaza genocide specifically in the lead would be recentist and UNDUE, especially since the Israel-Hamas war is only covered by "several wars" in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the wording suggestion above. This could be added into the lead while trimming the lead. For WP:DUE, we can look at coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict. If newer tertiary sources in the upcoming years do not explicitly mention Gaza genocide, Gaza genocide can be taken out. Do we have any tertiary sources published in the past few months?
If the only sources were newspaper articles, recentist arguments would succeed. However, we have so many secondary sources on Gaza genocide now. Bogazicili (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have many secondary sources on the Gaza genocide. We also have many secondary sources on a variety of other things, like the 7 October attacks or the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes. Those aren't included in the lead either. My question is whether secondary or tertiary sources on the topic of Israel as a whole mention the genocide. If not, it shouldn't be in the lead yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing that we should rush this into the lead because we can't assess long-term importance yet is pure recentism. I'm not saying we can't update the body to add this information, but we should wait on adding it to the lead until the long-term impact is more clear. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies I can assure you this is a prominent controversy. Well, unless you can convince me it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a decently prominent controversy, but the State of Israel has had a lot of prominent controversies in its short history, and we can't stuff them all in the lead. I think mentioning that their occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal would cover the most important controversy, being their illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The Gaza genocide is arguably a subtopic of that. For an applicable example from another article, the featured article Japan does not mention the atrocities they committed against China in World War II in the lead, even though it was, and still is, a very prominent controversy. Similarly, the lead of Germany only gives the Holocaust two words in a sentence about the Nazi government. Similar considerations apply here. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only one I have been able to find is Brittanica, which has been updated recently and makes no mention of the genocide. Very few overview sources have been published in that timeframe, and you are asking me to prove a negative. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only in the body while it’s a non-insignificant criticism, it’s not sufficiently significant to be included in the lead. Both based on the uncertain status and the recency of the accusation, the lead should instead continue referring to other, certain misconduct, per the relevant policies cited above, instead of referring to a disputed interpretation of some of the very recent actions. FortunateSons (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would defer to the cited Britannica here; more importantly, the fact that we’re discussing less than a handful of sources and a timeframe of 6 Months (or a year) is a strong indication that this is in fact recency bias. FortunateSons (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since 1955, the population of Palestine has steadily increased. The life expectancy has increased, the infant mortality and child death rate has decreased.[4] So I don’t understand how Israel has been genociding the Palestinians if all these numbers are improving for them. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this context we should not overlook the latest turning point in the history of Palestine – the attack by Hamas on 7th October 2023 on Israeli settlements adjacent to Gaza and the subsequent genocidal war that the state of Israel has carried out in the Gaza strip
Given no recent (second half of 2024 for example) overview secondary or tertiary sources about Israel have been provided in this RfC, and given the lengthy coverage of Arab-Israel conflict in older tertiary sources about Israel, and given the above sources, I now think that three things are due both in the lead and in the body:
The lack of recent overviews (I don't think many have been published) does not mean that we should include these things in the lead. I support adding the Israel-Hamas war, I think the other two would be both be giving UNDUE weight to recent events. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of recent overviews means we have to use what we have (above), while keeping in mind the heavy coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict in older sources. I just pinged you to ask for newer sources though, no need to discuss what we already discussed above. Bogazicili (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the available sourcing here and on the related article indicates that it's a major part of the coverage and history of Israel. The arguments against inclusion don't make any sense, either; whether individual editors agree with it, or whether it's disputed, are reasons to be cautious about the precise wording for how we cover it, but they're not what we use to determine if we cover it at all - that question comes down to how broad and high-quality the sourcing is and how significant they treat it as. And the extensive academic sourcing clearly justifies treating it as a high-profile aspect of the topic worth discussing prominently here. A lead is supposed to contain mention of significant criticism or controversies; we don't exclude high-profile stuff just because it's controversial. The sourcing disputing it above doesn't help; while it's not terribly high-quality, I'm sure higher-quality sourcing for that perspective exists... but it's written from the perspective of "this is an important and central argument over Israel", ie. a controversy worth covering even if they have a clear perspective on it. The sort of coverage that would be necessary to exclude it isn't just academics who disagree, but sourcing that establishes that it is broadly fringe, which doesn't seem to be the case. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in body (end of 21st century para) and lead per Selfstudier and Iskandar323, as well as WP:10YT - while I've seen several comments opposing the change on 10YT grounds, I actually think that as increasing amounts of information - backed by RS, of course - comes out on this topic, it will look increasingly strange in 10 years time for us to not have included this. Regardless of how one personally feels about the matter, this is a significant charge to be levied against a state, and it will be significantly more confusing to omit or downplay this information than to just include it. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn’t seem that actionable an RfC, or that productive a question. The content of the article is what is discussed, and links serve as navigational aids for delving into the content. Considering a link alone in the aether rather misses its purpose. CMD (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem very neutral to cover statements from sources like Albanese without also covering accusations of bias on their part. — xDanielxT/C\R23:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t make sense to cover things that aren’t relevant to the topic, like accusations of bias instead of addressing the substance of the statement. nableezy - 00:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense to me. We dont include accusations of bias against the Times of Israel anytime we use them as a source, or the NYTimes, or Benny Morris, or whatever other reliable sources we cite. The ad hominem of "she's biased" is not relevant to the argument she makes or the qualifications she has to make them. At most, such accusations belong in the biography of Albanese, or Morris, or whatever other article that covers the sources themselves, not whenever they are cited. nableezy - 17:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all comparable. NYT and Morris are occasionally criticized by both sides for various perceived biases. Accusations of bias against Albanese are far more significant, e.g. with officials from several different governments openly calling her antisemitic or unfit for her role. — xDanielxT/C\R18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are directly comparable, and governments arent reliable sources for anything other than the views of the politicians heading those governments. It is a basic ad hominem, and it has nothing to do with the actual content of her comments. nableezy - 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really make sense to call this an ad hominem, when source selection inherently involves evaluating sources rather than the content of their statements. Surely the WP:BESTSOURCES here would be uninvolved ones with some semblance of objectivity.
Covering Albanese's claim here is like covering Biden's claim that there isn't a genocide. Clearly neither is among the BESTSOURCES, and neither claim is noteworthy enough that it would need to be covered anyway. — xDanielxT/C\R19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biden is a politician speaking as a politician. Albanese is an expert in international law, speaking as an expert in international law. nableezy - 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Jews and others praising her, no? She must be doing something right. Afaics, she has tended to be ahead of the curve on most matters. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^ ab"Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people". OHCHR. 16 November 2023. Archived from the original on 24 December 2023. Retrieved 22 December 2023. Grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians in the aftermath of 7 October, particularly in Gaza, point to a genocide in the making, UN experts said today. They illustrated evidence of increasing genocidal incitement, overt intent to "destroy the Palestinian people under occupation", loud calls for a 'second Nakba' in Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the use of powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts, resulting in a colossal death toll and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Terrainman: Are these your first edits to articles on WP that relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If so, please familiarize yourself with WP:ARBPIA and WP:ONUS which states that adding contested content requires achieving consensus on the talk page, not reverting. This responsibility is known as onus lying with the inserter of the material. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank-you. The information I added was to improve the context of the paragraph, in a much needed way. From what I can see, nothing contested was added. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Terrainman: Your additions to the lede/lead were reverted so the material is by definition is now contested, meaning you will have to gain consensus for them in the talk page, not revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but your edit reason was to keep the brevity of the lead when my edit was rather brief in my view. It has been further edited by another user to make the additions more concise. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand since that para is already very long, however unfortunately the topic is extremely complicated; hence why it was the longest para in the lead long before my edit. My addition provided essential context in my view, I also received thanks for it and it has been refined since by another editor. In my view if this para is to be made more concise we need to explore other options for that. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Terrainman: Receiving thanks is not a measure of consensus, but discussion on the talk page. Your addition still duplicates mention of the UN partition plan in the second and third lede paragraphs, as well as non-summarizing elaborations on the Oslo Accords, which is also a duplicate mention in the third lede paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph explains that the partition plan failed, which is crucial context!
Furthermore, if we are setting this low a threshold in what is essential to the lead, there are multiple parts of the third paragraph which elaborate to a significant extend, rather than merely state the existence of key historical events which are in-fact needed to provide context for the rest of the paragraph. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lede and Lead are legitimate alternative spellings; both refer to the intro material which, in Wikipedia, should summarize the major points of rest of the article. A major issue for many Wikipedia articles is putting too much stuff in the lede. Erp (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The borders of ancient Canaan don't line up with modern day Israel.
2. No real reason to mention ancient Canaan just like we don't mention that it's synonymous with British Mandatory Palestine or the Judea province of the Roman Empire.
Comment Not currently a subject of dispute? Maybe just create one and see what happens first? I wouldn't object personally but do we need an RFC for this right now? Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might have been just the into the sea thing? @Remsense:. I would have thought a hr top level section would have involved moving stuff from elsewhere in the article into it? Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of Israel in RS is very often centered around human rights. That's not the case for most other countries. We should follow RS and similarly give top level attention to coverage of human rights. DMH223344 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that Israeli-occupied territories should be a top level section. There could be a Human rights subsection under Government and politics section Bogazicili (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Information should be integrated into the article where it would be relevant rather than standing out on its own... WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS = "Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections. " This poor article really needs some work..... most of the articles is focused on military actions and one point in time.Moxy🍁00:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Original sentence: 'The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state and to "sweep them [Jews] into the sea".'
Proposed change: 'The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state.'
The quote that allegedly supports the inclusion of the the statement 'and to "sweep them [Jews] into the sea"' is:
A week before the armies marched, Azzam told Kirkbride: "It does not matter how many [Jews] there are. We will sweep them into the sea.
This quote is of course not consistent with the claim that the purpose of the invasion was to sweep the Jews into the sea. The other citations for this sentence include:
Morris 2008, p. 396: "The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal."
David Tal (2004). War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy. Routledge. p. 469. ISBN 978-1-135-77513-1. Archived from the original on 19 December 2023. Retrieved 1 December 2018. "some of the Arab armies invaded Palestine in order to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, Transjordan..."
Morris 2008, p. 187: Ahmed Shukeiry, one of Haj Amin al-Husseini's aides (and, later, the founding chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization), simply described the aim as "the elimination of the Jewish state." ... al-Quwwatli told his people: "Our army has entered ... we shall win and we shall eradicate Zionism""
None of these support the claim about sweeping Jews into the sea.
Additionally:
Ben-Ami: The Arab states were driven to war in great measure by theperception that prevailed in their societies as to the Jewish state andthe threat it posed to the Arabs.
Rouhanna: One goal of some of these armies was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; the Jordanian army, however, also sought to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state by conquering and annexing (after achieving the tacit understanding of the Zionist leadership) parts of Palestine for the Hashemite Kingdom.
Shapira: As the sheer magnitude of the Palestinian Arabs’ defeat emerged, and as the horror stories of the Jews’ alleged brutality spread throughout the Arab world, the pressure exerted by public opinion on the Arab states to come to the aid of their Palestinian brethren intensified. Despite difficulties arranging a unified military command, as well as mutual suspicion regarding each other’s objectives in Palestine, on April 30 the Arab states decided to invade.
Change the new "Human Rights violations" section, no other country the I checked (including those with serious human rights violation claims like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Myanmar) have any kind of section named anywhere near as negatively. Those claims are usually found in the Government and Politics tab. The way it is now is a violation of WP:NPOVFyukfy5 (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was confused by a comment Remsense left. I think it's an extremely controversial addition. Is there some WP rule reason that I have to revert, or is there consensus I'm not seeing? Bitspectator⛩️02:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely an open discussion.... Best leave it out till the process is done. Thinking about adding undue tags in relation to three or four sections... there's more to this country than it's relationship with with Palestine. Will gather some thoughts together and bring it up at the project page see if we can help. Moxy🍁02:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there's more to this country than it's relationship with with Palestine, right, and its relationship with Palestine and Palestinians is a core part of the coverage of Israel in RS. I'm curious where you think the undue tags should go. DMH223344 (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is to big ingeneral and suffers from in the new style - 21st century should be summarized much better. Israeli-occupied territories, International opinion and Accusations of Apartheid should be integrated into history and/ or foreign relations with just a few sentences for each topic leading our readers to main articles. See Germany for how its done.,see also Wikipedia:Summary style and WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS. Moxy🍁03:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a strange suggestion, of course the occupation is relevant to the history, but it is also a crucial aspect of Israeli politics today. DMH223344 (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to express concern about the recent changes to the map. The current map includes territories marked in green, representing areas such as Palestinian territories and even the Golan Heights. This change departs from the previous map, which accurately reflected the internationally recognized borders as endorsed by the United Nations. Marking these territories in green introduces a controversial interpretation that is not widely accepted by major international organizations.
1. Lack of Consensus: Major international bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union, and other globally recognized entities do not depict these territories in a distinct color that implies sovereignty or control by specific nations. The new map’s coloration could mislead readers into assuming a level of recognition or legitimacy that does not exist.
2. Neutrality Concerns: Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral perspective, especially on contentious geopolitical issues. By adopting a map with disputed territories marked differently, the page risks appearing to take a stance, which could alienate users and detract from Wikipedia’s reputation as an impartial source.
3. Consistency with Historical Usage: The previous map, in use for over 20 years, was widely accepted as a neutral representation of the region. It respected international consensus and did not introduce contentious visual elements. Returning to this map would preserve the neutrality and credibility of the content.
4. Precedent for Reliable Sources: Most authoritative atlases and online mapping tools, including those maintained by major international organizations, avoid marking these territories in distinct colors to sidestep misinterpretation. Aligning with these standards would bolster Wikipedia's reliability.
I respectfully request that the map be reverted to its previous version, which better reflects the official and internationally recognized borders. This change would ensure that Wikipedia adheres to its guiding principles of neutrality and accuracy. AIexperts (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have the needed qualifications to edit about this topic(you don't yet have 500 edits), please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The map reflects Israel's international recognized borders and the territories it claims (East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) and occupies militarily (West Bank excl. East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). This is mostly consistent with other country articles, such as Syria (map depicts unrecognized claim over the former Sanjak of Alexandretta) and Russia (map depicts claims over the Ukrainian territories it occupied since 2014). However, there is an argument to removing the West Bank (excl. East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip from the map and using File:Israel (orthographic projection) with disputed territories.svg instead, since Israel does not de jure claim the territory and it is internationally recognized as being part of the State of Palestine. 2018rebel22:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis for Israeli claims to either EJ or the Golan, they are unrecognized annexes and along with the West Bank and Gaza are considered as occupied territories. Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, for consistency reasons, it would be justifiable to exclude territories not annexed by Israel, as locator maps don't typically include territories under military occupation, but do include territories unilaterally annexed. For example, the map of Russia does not include Abkhazia and South Ossetia in light green, despite them being internationally recognized as Russian-occupied territories, but does include Crimea, as it was illegally annexed in 2014. Similarly, the map of the United States does not include Al-Tanf. as it is not annexed territory of the US. 2018rebel23:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone that wants to can see Green Line Israel by clicking on a radio button, the initial question really is what we want the default view to be, that or with occupied territories shown. If it were up to me I would show Green Line Israel, excluding Golan, as default.
If all territories under military occupation are to be included on the map, why are Southern Lebanon and parts of Southern Syria, newly occupied since 2024, excluded? There is also a significant difference in the legal status of East Jerusalem versus the rest of the West Bank. Israeli civil law is applied in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, whereas it is extended to Israeli settlers in the rest of the West Bank only via emergency regulations. Gaza remains militarily occupied due to control over its airspace, territorial waters, and borders, but Israeli civil law is not extended and Israel does not formally claim the territory as its own. Meanwhile, if militarily-occupied territories are to be included, Southern Lebanon nor the newly occupied parts of Syria are shown in light green.
The map of Russia excludes Ukrainian territories that are occupied but not annexed, and the Ukraine map omits its military occupation of parts of Kursk Oblast. The Russian article map did not include the four annexed oblasts until after they were annexed, despite Russia beginning settlement activities before then [9]. Other Wikipedia articles consistently differentiate between annexed and occupied territories, marking only annexed areas.
The map should either show all territories under Israeli military presence or limit itself to lands Israel formally claims as its own. Unrecognized or illegal claims should be marked in light green, in contrast to the West Bank (beyond East Jerusalem) and Gaza, which are solely claimed by the State of Palestine. This distinction is already visible on the map for the State of Palestine, where annexed territories like East Jerusalem and Latrun are marked differently from areas claimed exclusively by Palestine. 2018rebel19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to repeat that what we do here on this page for the map here does not depend on what is done at any other page.
Southern Lebanon and parts of Southern Syria have not as yet been declared as occupied territory by any competent authority afaik.
Lands that Israel formally claims (EJ/Golan) are also illegal claims, so designated by the UNSC (reaffirmed recently by the ICJ in respect of EJ), so this distinction is of no import.
As things stand, I simply want to note the OP request as not done (no consensus of EC editors). Presumably you do not want to do that. So I suggest we wait and see if any other editors have a view. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2025
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I request an edit change of the GDP (Nominal), GDP (PPP), GDP Per Capita (Nominal), and GDP Per Capita (PPP) of Israel to 2025 in Accordance to IMF's October 2024 Database. The source will remain the same as the source currently shown, but the access date will be changed to "2 January 2025". Please Change Before (X) to After (Y).
Before (X): 2024 Estimate
GDP (PPP)
• Total
Increase $541.343 billion[18] (47th)
• Per capita
Increase $54,446[18] (29th)
GDP (nominal)
• Total
Increase $528.067 billion[18] (29th)
• Per capita
Increase $53,110[18] (18th)
After (Y): 2025 Estimate
GDP (PPP)
• Total
Increase $565.878 billion[18] (47th)
• Per capita
Increase $55,847[18] (29th)
At the end of the History section there are a few sentences about accusations if genocide against Israel. Since there's an ongoing RfC about its very inclusion shouldn't it be removed until the RfC is concluded? Fyukfy5 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was discussed at #Tag, EC editors are aware of the addition, in the RFC the majority is not really objecting to due inclusion of material in the article body, the principal debate is as to whether a link is due in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article assessment and I was surprised to see this article is only at a C. Are there any shortcomings that are causing that to happen? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)20:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
The redirect "Israel" has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 7 § "Israel" until a consensus is reached. Ca talk to me! 15:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Done QuicoleJR (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
_with_disputed_territories.svg)
