This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
User:Makeandtoss, who clearly edits with a pro-Palestine bias, has removed historically accurate information to perpetuate an inaccurate viewpoint. While the original article may have addressed the remaining territory, it's essential to note that the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza constitutes only 23% of the British Mandate for Palestine. This information holds significant importance for maintaining neutrality.
Compare:
The [[1949 Armistice Agreements]] saw Israel's borders established over most of the former remaining Mandate territory, which is not including the 77% which was previously used to establish [[Jordan]] on 11 April 1922, while the rest, the [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|West Bank]] and the [[Occupation of the Gaza Strip by the United Arab Republic|Gaza Strip]], were taken by [[Jordan]] and [[Egypt]] respectively.
He promptly archived my talk post, which called out his edits, indicating a clear intention to conceal actions that could be viewed as biased editing from initial viewers.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk)
13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Please cease your ad hominem attacks immediately before action is taken against you. Archiving talk pages is within my right, which is even optional and not mandated by Wikipedia that even
allows blanking talk pages. As for my editing is supported by reliable sources and according to WP guidelines, unlike the last recent edit you tried to insert without a source. If it is an "indisputable fact", then I am sure it would be easy for you to provide a reliable source.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
13:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. And if it exists it is a fringe viewpoint in the literature. Doesn't belong in the lede as a summary of the body anyway.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
It is a geographical fact, geography is not an opinion. The British Mandate for Palestine included both "Palestine" and "Jordan". Jordan constituted 80% of the British Mandate for Palestine. This is not an opinion, this is fact.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk)
14:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Here I have provided additional sources to support the geographical fact that Jordan comprised roughly 80% of the british mandate for palestine. Do you think this is satisfactory to update and correct the article?
it's essential to note that the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza constitutes only 23% of the British Mandate for Palestine. Rubbish, this is the propaganda nonsense that includes Jordan in the Mandate.
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
And excluded from the Zionist provisions for nearly all of it, administered totally separately, and the border was not set until later so it wasn't even Jordan, it was just the other side of the Jordan.
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The administration of the area that constitutes Jordan today does not alter the historical fact that approximately 77% of the land allocated under the British mandate was used to establish the state of Jordan. The timing of border agreements made by outside additional parties does not negate the established borders and the allocation of land. Your argument appears to rely on a strawman fallacy
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk)
16:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
You mentioned the
Mandate for Palestine -> "Whilst the Mandate for Palestine document covered both Mandatory Palestine (from 1920) and the Emirate of Transjordan (added in 1921), Transjordan was never part of Mandatory Palestine." and 4 reliable sources cited to that.
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Awesome, from strawman fallacy to now changing the goalpost. :) I provide reliable sources, now they are not good enough. We're not talking about Mandatory Palestine, my edit CLEARLY said British Mandate for Palestine.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk)
16:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
British Mandate for Palestine was a document, but your edit falsely and misleadingly makes a geographic connection with the area size. This point is irrelevant as far as the literature is concerned. And it still does not belong to the lede.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
16:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Please add English alongside Arabic in the "recognized languages" section in the infobox. The sources I already gave.
MylowattsIAm (
talk)
08:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done: English is not a de jure official language in Israel as stated in your cites. The article text appears to cover this correctly.
O3000, Ret. (
talk)
10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Then why not add it as a de facto recognized language with these citations and footnotes explaining it? It's stared that it's use comes even before Arabic so it makes no sense to leave it out of the infobox.
MylowattsIAm (
talk)
14:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
There are a very large number of languages spoken in Israel as can be seen in the article on this at:
Languages of Israel linked to in the languages section of this article. We cannot put them in an infobox. Please stop reopening this request.
O3000, Ret. (
talk)
22:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
But English has a completely different status. One of the sources literally states "after Hebrew but before Arabic". It's not just another language used by someone in Israel, it is a working language of the state, a bit less important than Hebrew but more important than Arabic. Some articles use a row titled "working language" so perhaps we could use that here. I will reopen the request again for the last time.
MylowattsIAm (
talk)
08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to support this suggestion. More sources are needed to back the claim of English as the working language.
Ahri.boy (
talk)
21:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
English is used around the world, somewhat like French centuries ago. I've been to many countries in South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific and had little problem using English. {OK, some difficulty in parts of the US.) This is partly due the prevalence of tech related documents written in English, and partly due to pop music and movies, and partly due to the annoying American tourists countries put up with. Israel is a special case. But these factors still exist.
O3000, Ret. (
talk)
22:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
References
^Spolsky, Bernard (1999).
Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. pp. 169–70.
ISBN0-87840-132-6. In 1948, the newly independent state of Israel took over the old British regulations that had set English, Arabic, and Hebrew as official languages for Mandatory Palestine but, as mentioned, dropped English from the list. In spite of this, official language use has maintained a de facto role for English, after Hebrew but before Arabic.
^Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava (2004).
"Part I: Language and Discourse". In
Diskin Ravid, Dorit; Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava (eds.). Perspectives on Language and Development: Essays in Honor of Ruth A. Berman. Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 90.
ISBN1-4020-7911-7. English is not considered official but it plays a dominant role in the educational and public life of Israeli society. [...] It is the language most widely used in commerce, business, formal papers, academia, and public interactions, public signs, road directions, names of buildings, etc. English behaves 'as if' it were the second and official language in Israel.
^Shohamy, Elana (2006).
Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Routledge. pp. 72?73.
ISBN0-415-32864-0. In terms of English, there is no connection between the declared policies and statements and de facto practices. While English is not declared anywhere as an official language, the reality is that it has a very high and unique status in Israel. It is the main language of the academy, commerce, business, and the public space.
In the
Government and politics section, there is a "see also" link for the
Criticism of Israel. I wonder if there should be a separate section altogether for that, especially considering some of the criticism for the state is not entirely about "government and politics" (examples: islamophobia, antisemitism, etc).
Josethewikier (
talk)
03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Not what we are looking for...
WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure..."
WP:CSECTION " Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. " Moxy🍁
03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
NPOV in the lede
Does anyone disagree with the content or the phrasing in this paragraph:
Can you remove the cosmopolitan part in the lead OR add the corresponding info in the body as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body? Also could you please check the article length as this article was previously tagged as being too long?
Wafflefrites (
talk)
11:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
That is a small paragraph summarising thousands of years of history, I think it is very concise, and smaller than a lot paragraphs in other ledes or even in this lede. Are citations included when discussing the article length?
Is that not a basic fact backed up by sources, therefore not needing to be in the body as per
WP:Lede? Regardless I agree it needs to be mentioned in the body of the article, I'll work on it now.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
12:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Alexanderkowal: Please revert first and seek consensus, rather than the other way around. As much as I agree with the framing of your edits, but this is really overdetailed. Lede should be as brief and factual as possible, without any analyses or the mention of multiple other things.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
12:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll shorten the final sentence to
...Arab population, a central component of what is known as the Nakba in Palestinian society.
They're small one clause sentences. The cosmopolitan part summarises the effect lots of different ruling empires had on the region and links that sentence back to the region/rounds it off. The Nakba sentence is just a few words long to add a highly relevant page link. Furthermore, the paragraph still remains quite short.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm trying to think of a couple words we could add to imply previous Jewish migrations such as after the Spanish inquisition
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I am ok with shortening the sentence and don’t mind keeping the link to Nakba, but I will admit I my reasoning is completely biased, so I cannot really provide appropriate reasoning on that. Please see
WP:LENGTH for article length guidelines.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
13:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The guidelines are quite ambiguous, there might be a way to include the information in this paragraph with less words without killing the flow but I'm not seeing it
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s under
WP:SIZERULE. I can check the length later and trim appropriately if needed. I think I am ok with keeping the link to Nakba because the link was previously in the lead and seemed important to some editors, but that is pretty much the reason. Probably need additional feedback from others.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
13:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Would it not be easier to trim the sections down a little rather than the lede?
Also would very cosmopolitan be lede worthy? The only reason I put fairly was because I only had two sources. I suppose the word assimilated alludes to this, idk, but it wasn't necessarily the various empires causing this but waves of migration
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
19:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I do really think this is key to the history of Israel/Palestine region and I'm amazed it wasn't already talked about in the article. Also, I don't understand why you referenced malaria
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
19:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not familiar with that part of the history. Is it in the Wikipedia article for Palestine (region)? I mentioned malaria because I am wondering how cosmopolitan the region was if malaria was endemic. Also I am wondering if the cosmopolitan part is not mentioned because this article is mostly focusing on the region when it was/is named Israel.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
21:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Wafflefrites how about rewriting the sentence that lists empires and replacing it with:
Located at a continental crossroad, the southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine empires, the Arab Caliphates, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks and the Ottomans, with its wide array of holy sites in various faiths attracting waves of immigration throughout history.
What I'm seeing is mass changes by 2 new editors....... let's make sure we give good edit summaries. And let's make sure if there are reverts this is not taking personally....we can discuss things. Moxy🍁
03:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Obv the premise for discussion shouldn’t be me defending changes but rather multiple people contributing to a consensus on the changes
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The list of empires wasn’t random, it was a list of empires in the order of those that ruled over the region. I really don’t think it makes sense for this period of history to be entirely ignored here.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
05:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the copyedit; naming the various empires is unnecessary detail for the lead; "many different empires" is better. Although, I think even better would be improved by mentioning (in some brief formulation) that the different empires included Jewish, Islamic, Christian, and "other" empires. The whole "crossroads of three continents" thing. It explains why the area is important to Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others.
Levivich (
talk)
06:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that, although the many different empires refers to the time period after Judah. I think that would have to be in the first sentence of the paragraph
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
06:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
^Morris, Benny (1999).
Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001 (reprint ed.). Knopf.
ISBN9780679744757. The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well). Also quoted, among many, by Mark M. Ayyash (2019). Hermeneutics of Violence: A Four-Dimensional Conception. University of Toronto Press, p.
195,
ISBN1487505868. Accessed 22 March 2024.
There is a weak consensus at the moment to include it. On such a controversial issue, a strong one is infinitely better although the merit of this RfC would depend on a good facilitator and efforts to build a consensus from both sides.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
15:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
If all we are talking about is an insertion, a removal and a reinsertion without any subsequent discussion, then there is presumed consensus.
Btw, if the removal was for a valid reason, then it would have been better, although not compulsory, to have started the discussion per
WP:BRD.
But if there is no current discussion, then this RFC is not required and you should close it (remove the RFC tags).
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
in order to make it clear that that article is written from the Palestinian perspective, and frame it. If this were done, would you support its inclusion in the lede here?
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
18:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
that article is written from the Palestinian perspective If that's true, add some other perspectives so that it isn't.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I have stated that the Israeli perspective on the Nakba, current and past, should be included in the body and the lede of the article. It's too intense a topic for me to write on it without a deeper understanding. Until then, I do think it'd be good to frame the article here. This also clearly differentiates it from the expulsion and flight article, so the reader understands why we included them both.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Nope, you can't frame the article as not being NPOV merely because it hasn't been edited to your satisfaction, that's not the way it works.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course you can, this is entirely how it works, via consensus of editors. If multiple editors question the NPOV of an article, it gets an NPOV banner until that is addressed. I think the Nakba article is very good article, and it's right that the bulk should be written from the Palestinian perspective, but there also needs to be a bit from the Israeli perspective, that isn't just apologia.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
18:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
this is entirely how it works, via consensus of editors. If multiple editors question the NPOV of an article, it gets an NPOV banner If that was the way it worked, every contentious article would have a permanent NPOV tag.
O3000, Ret. (
talk)
18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
There is no neutrality tag at the Nakba article, therefore it is NPOV and not written from the Palestinian perspective only. If you add such a tag, then go to the article and explain what needs to be fixed there and it will get fixed, either way it is not "Palestinian".
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
^Morris, Benny (1999).
Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001 (reprint ed.). Knopf.
ISBN9780679744757. The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well). Also quoted, among many, by Mark M. Ayyash (2019). Hermeneutics of Violence: A Four-Dimensional Conception. University of Toronto Press, p.
195,
ISBN1487505868. Accessed 22 March 2024.
The page states that Israel is located in the historic Canaan and “Palestine” areas. This is supposed to be “Judea” as historically “Palestine” only existed as a British Mandate from 1918-1948. Please update this language to be historically accurate as Canaan and Judea are the correct terms for this point in Israel’s history. Canaan does not exist today, and the land of Judea is where Israel currently exists. (Submitted by a Middle East historian)
98.246.173.176 (
talk)
13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you specify which edits? The sentence about migration after WW2 has a paragraph on it in the body. I admit my incentive to edit was not to summarise the body but make a good summary of the topic, and that that is problematic. There should be a paragraph about the rise of antisemitism in Europe which gives context to the climate that Zionism was born in and popularised in. Whether I can write that and do it justice, idk, although the research is easy
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Recent changes
@
Alexanderkowal: The recent edits are overdetailed and editorial, please summarize as follows:
From "Situated at a continental crossroad, the
southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as" to "The
southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as"
The point of the sentence on waves of immigration is to allude to it being historically ethnically diverse, and page link to a relevant page on social history of the region.
For the British policy one, maybe just page link to divide and rule through British colonial policy? I’m surprised the British empire page doesn’t have a section on their style of rule in comparison to other colonial empires.
The one about Arab citizens of Israel is key to clarify, although it is controversial due to the accusations of apartheid. I think it’s very open to discussion
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that sentence was key to stating the perspective, and it is predominantly and primarily known in Palestinian society
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
There are many things that an English reader might not have heard of, Aliyah for example, but both these things are explained in the text so not a problem.
Selfstudier (
talk)
13:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Its loci is in Palestinian society, just like the loci for the much wider known holocaust is in Israeli society. Any remembrance of Nakba is focused on Palestinian society
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
There also wasn’t consensus for him to remove it, but since I initially acted without consensus I’ll revert.
I have a really hard time knowing when consensus has been reached as people often don’t admit defeat in an argument when the outcome is binary
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
09:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I added it because I felt I’d totally refuted his points or argument, if I had left it a day with no response would that have been the time to change it?
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
09:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I assumed your comment decrying my persistence was admission of refutation. I know Nakba is quite widely commemorated, especially in the Muslim world, however the loci is very important, Palestinians primarily commemorate it, if they stopped everyone would stop. The link you put also emphasises Palestinian society
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
09:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
No-one disputes that Palestinians commemorate the Nakba. That was not the objection, it was the idea that Nakba is known only to Palestinians. In any case, that sort of detail is not necessary in the lead.
Selfstudier (
talk)
10:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
it introduces the perspective of the Nakba article, and page links to Palestinian which is necessary for Israel's lede. Note that it isn't linked elsewhere
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The
Nakba link is sufficient for the perspective. The reason that Palestinians are not linked anywhere is due to the practice of referring to them as Arabs "which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population" for example, that "Arab population" is Palestinian, and the vast majority of "Arab citizens of Israel" are as well Palestinian. But it is not crucial for this article, links to the conflict, the territories and the hr issues are sufficient imo.
Selfstudier (
talk)
11:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
No such thing as "defeat in an argument". On Wikipedia in particular decisions are made by consensus and consensus involves following the guidelines and making compromises. Also familiarize yourself with
WP:1RR.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Also you removed the bit on waves of migration without consensus, I do really think this
Demographic history of Palestine (region) needs to be linked to. I think putting
Sorry, but not only are you editing aggressively and without compromise, but also without regard to any WP guideline. It is you who inserted the waves of immigration bit without consensus. You have also violated -and continued to violate- 1RR multiple times despite being told to familiarize yourself with it. I won't be filing a complain at
WP:AE, but someone eventually will and AE will outright sanction you.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
13:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree I made an error in my first few edits and that this has wrongly changed the premise of discussion. However I started this discussion on the talk page and multiple editors have critiqued the edits and not stated opposition to certain inclusions, meaning there is a weak consensus, and I continue to engage in discussion. Can you please address my initial comment.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
In retrospect the ‘situated at a continental crossroad’ explains the succeeding sentence about why it came under the rule of lots of empires, but if you do still feel it’s too editorial than we can remove it
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The bit on the social history is context for the region having no real owner until the rise of ethnonationalism in the 19th century
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is that it was more cosmopolitan than other regions, and the many series of migrations it saw meant that there wasn’t really an exclusive ethnic ownership
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
14:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't follow how migration or demographics means there wasn't exclusive ownership. The migrants didn't own or control the land. New York City is a cosmopolitan city with lots of migrants; it's still owned and controlled by the USA. Exclusively.
Levivich (
talk)
22:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s just my impression, it might be wrong. If New York City had changed hands 10s of times over the course of a millennium combined with waves of immigration and emigration I can imagine how strong ownership wouldn’t be felt. I suppose the Ottomans held onto Palestine for long enough for it to change.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
07:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
In the next paragraph I think it should mention that there was immigration to Israel from people displaced by WW2 (and the holocaust)
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
[1] states "Typical of the cities of the Levant was a mixed population. ‘Levantine’ was an omnibus term used especially to refer to the Armenian, Greek, Italian and Jewish merchants...Conversions of individuals from one cultural environment to the next and back again were everyday occurrences. A new light is shed on minorities here. Neither marginalised nor treated as objects of tolerance or intolerance, in a social system based on communication and flexibility, they were the system's pillars and driving force." That's just in the abstract, I don't have access to the article
[2] states "Anyone who studies the material culture of Egypt and the Levant will agree that migration, trade, translation, and assimilation were common practice." unsure if this is talking generally or about the first millennium BC
[3] states "Migrants of various ethnic, religious and social origins made their way to Palestine, or crossed it while heading to other locations, or relocated their place of permanent residence, virtually in any given period between the mid-seventh century and the turn of the twelfth, as well as later on." I don't have access so can't see it talk about motives
[4] states "the westward migration of the Jewish merchants from Iraq [during the 10th century]...contributed greatly to the economic prosperity in Palestine and Egypt"
[5] states "This means that the peoples living here have an identity distinct from the neighboring peoples but they have nevertheless always had an ongoing exchange through trade, inter�marriage, migration, exile, and displacement with many of the other regional peoples."
It appears Arabs migrated for economic prosperity, so saying holy sites was wrong. It is a good page to link to though. I do think mention has to be made of migration from across the old world, or something referring to it being cosmopolitan and relatively diverse.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
15:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, that is not how WP works. When material is challenged, reversion first and then discussion per
WP:BRD. Even if true, it is not a unique piece of information and does not belong to the lede of Israel.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
15:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I only noticed now. I am not arguing against the factuality, but against the prominence of this to the summary of an article about Israel.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
09:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It's context for the later Zionist migrations. Palestine was fairly cosmopolitan and was effectively built on migration with no real indigenous people compared to other regions.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the connection with Zionist migrations. On the contrary genetic evidence has shown that Palestinians show a large degree of genetic continuity with Bronze era Levantines. Still not relevant to the lede of the state of Israel.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
10:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course it is relevant, it summarises the social history of the region. If you disagree with the phrasing then we can rework it, but the content is very relevant in my view.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
How would you summarise the social history of the region? I think the clause would have to refer to flow (migration) and stock (settled population), however I don't know where to place the emphasis. I think indicating ownership of the region by an ethnic group violates NPOV for this article and would also be
WP:Synth. Maybe talking indirectly about the population and stating the Islamisation of the region? I think that's a good compromise
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The social history of the region is discussed in the body and the lede and it’s incredibly relevant to the conflict. It doesn’t make sense to only start talking about social history from the 19th century when the periods before that are so relevant.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
12:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, but it’s not as clear cut as other regions, and I think it’s natural for Israel’s page to have a slight Zionist bias. I’m more trying to correct for the lack of Zionist voices on this page, which I find surprising, to impale the content on the fence
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
? The only people I’ve engaged w on this page have been very anti-Israel, as much as I disagree with Zionism, particularly this manifestation of Zionism, in order to maintain NPOV Zionist arguments need to be involved and the grains of truth in them used, if what we’re trying to do is build a neutral encyclopaedia.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
14:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The other way of looking at it is there are a lot of pro Israel (not Zionist) editors at this page (there are) but they don't agree with you.
Selfstudier (
talk)
14:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I haven't received much disagreement except from the very anti-Israel people who have engaged with you? Think you better ease off with the them and us rhetoric, tbh.
Selfstudier (
talk)
14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah you’re probably right, it’s just the topic is often very partisan. I wouldn’t say I’m an us, more an irrelevant bystander with no deep understanding
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
14:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
in order to maintain NPOV Zionist arguments need to be involved and the grains of truth in them used No, that's not
WP:NPOV. The "V" in NPOV is the viewpoints of reliable sources, not the viewpoints of the subjects of the articles.
Levivich (
talk)
22:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
because it's relevant detail and I think it's a question the reader might have. Just say for economic prosperity I think
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Makeandtoss I disagree with your reversion of my edit, the Islamisation of the region does summarise content in the body and is entirely relevant and lede worthy as it provides context for the current conflict. I don't understand your argument here, it seems a very common sense inclusion. Unless you think there's negative connotations with the term "Islamisation"?
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s included there as context for the subsequent sentences. Would you rather it referred to Arab migrations rather than Islamisation?
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
08:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I’d argue this is more lede worthy than the exodus from the Muslim world, it also page links to a relevant page on Jewish history
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Btw feel free to revert my edit about migration following WW2, I altered it so 1RR doesn't apply, but I should've discussed it first. Why don't you feel migrations should be included in the lede? It seems a central component of Israeli history
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
12:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
"It seems like..."? Respectfully, I think you should read/learn more about this before making or proposing changes to these articles. Like: how many Jews moved to Israel, when, from where, and according to what sources? There is a lot of literature on these topics, the answers are complex, and they may surprise you.
Levivich (
talk)
13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
That's valid, however my statement there is correct. The migration from Europe occurred largely from 1920 to 1953. The
Aliyah#Early statehood (1948–1960) section has a table that shows where they migrated from, and how many, from 1948-1953, with 338,000 total from Europe. Ofc there was migration to Palestine during the war and before, which I struggled to include in my edit without splitting it into two sentences in different places.
Bricha and
Aliyah Bet discuss this. My edit was based off of what I read on wikipedia, ideally I'd be more knowledgeable and accustomed with the topic.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
That's why I wrote "... and according to whom?" If you are reading things on Wikipedia articles and then changing other Wikipedia articles based on that, that's not a good approach.
WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that table, for example, is itself not very well sourced. Not terribly sourced, it's sourced to scholarship at least, but it seems to have one source, a paper, that's 20 years old. There are many entire books written about this, and history is always updated, so there are just better sources available for these numbers. And of course not all the sources agree with each other. And then there's context (which Wikipedia articles are particularly lacking in): 338k out of how many total? While there is no disputing that the Holocaust was very important to the history of Israel, IIRC it's also true that most Holocaust survivors did not move to Israel (many more went to the US, for example), and most Jewish immigrants to Israel were not Holocaust survivors.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that you're volunteering to improve these articles, but the best way to go about that is sources->body->lead, of the same article, as opposed to changing the lead (or body) of one article just based on what it says in another article. (Keeping in mind that main articles will often have better information than sub-articles, but not always, which is why one always has to check the sources.) And sources, plural, never depending on just one source. Sources from a variety of viewpoints, not just one American, Israeli, or Palestinian author. And preferably, best sources, not just "any" paper or book.
IMO, the best way to figure out what to write about immigration in the Israel article is to take a few recent books about Israel's history from the most reputable scholars from a variety of viewpoints, and see what they say about immigration, and then summarize that.
Levivich (
talk)
14:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay I'll do more research in the future, thank you. Yeah cherry picking sources isn't the best way to go about it. In the sources I gave, one was from an Israeli journal, and one was critical of Israeli exceptionalism so I thought it was a wide consensus.
Yup, and also, off the top of my head, one thing sources from the '90s may not accurately capture (as compared to sources from, say, the last 10 years) is the significance of post-Soviet Jewish migration to the current demographics of Israel. IIRC, more Russian Jews came in the '90s and 2000s than Holocaust survivors in the '40s and '50s. How much a Wikipedia article talks about one wave of migration vs another should be based on how the current best sources treat the issue. And seriously, thanks for volunteering to work on this, Wikipedia could use all the help it can get.
Levivich (
talk)
15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
My impression does seem to be accurate, and I was very confident on it despite the weasel wording
[6] is a journal article with the title: Immigration is Israel's History, So Far
[7] is a book titled: Country on the Move: Migration to and within Israel, 1948–1995
[8] is critical of Israeli exceptionalism and states: Migration has been a major social issue in Israel for well over 50 years. Indeed,its centrality in the value context of the society goes back to well before the establishment of the state in 1948 (Leshem and Shuval (Eds), 1998).Alexanderkowal (
talk)
14:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
My edits on the word 'pre-emptively' were wrong and naive, I just wanted to counter the narrative that people flee their homes willingly
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
14:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Map: add main towns, Isr. settlements outside Isr.
Maybe it's not the best place to open the discussion, but let's have it started.
Regarding maps of towns & regions:
It is important to have the main features on the map also on the other side of border or armistice lines. For the PA these are Palestinian towns & Israeli settlements, elsewhere Lebanese etc. towns, trans-border roads etc. Why? Because white surfaces aren't informative. There is peaceful and violent interaction across those lines - main roads into the West Bank, border crossings, common industrial zones, border incidents (shooting, terror attacks, IDF incursions, historical battles), ecological issues, and so forth. One comes here for inf. and gets - hic sunt leones.
Use a different colour, of course - keep the white or whatever - but border or armistice lines are porous, not the ultimate confines of
Flat Earth. We should only add important features, but those are needed. If a selection or graphic alteration is too difficult to achieve, technically or otherwise, then keep all there is, but in pale grey.
Arminden (
talk)
10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Concrete example. One reads about shooting from
Tulkarem toward
Bat Hefer. Going to B.H. page, there is no Tulkarem on the map/location plan. Current solution:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
User:Makeandtoss, who clearly edits with a pro-Palestine bias, has removed historically accurate information to perpetuate an inaccurate viewpoint. While the original article may have addressed the remaining territory, it's essential to note that the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza constitutes only 23% of the British Mandate for Palestine. This information holds significant importance for maintaining neutrality.
Compare:
The [[1949 Armistice Agreements]] saw Israel's borders established over most of the former remaining Mandate territory, which is not including the 77% which was previously used to establish [[Jordan]] on 11 April 1922, while the rest, the [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|West Bank]] and the [[Occupation of the Gaza Strip by the United Arab Republic|Gaza Strip]], were taken by [[Jordan]] and [[Egypt]] respectively.
He promptly archived my talk post, which called out his edits, indicating a clear intention to conceal actions that could be viewed as biased editing from initial viewers.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk)
13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Please cease your ad hominem attacks immediately before action is taken against you. Archiving talk pages is within my right, which is even optional and not mandated by Wikipedia that even
allows blanking talk pages. As for my editing is supported by reliable sources and according to WP guidelines, unlike the last recent edit you tried to insert without a source. If it is an "indisputable fact", then I am sure it would be easy for you to provide a reliable source.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
13:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. And if it exists it is a fringe viewpoint in the literature. Doesn't belong in the lede as a summary of the body anyway.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
It is a geographical fact, geography is not an opinion. The British Mandate for Palestine included both "Palestine" and "Jordan". Jordan constituted 80% of the British Mandate for Palestine. This is not an opinion, this is fact.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk)
14:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Here I have provided additional sources to support the geographical fact that Jordan comprised roughly 80% of the british mandate for palestine. Do you think this is satisfactory to update and correct the article?
it's essential to note that the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza constitutes only 23% of the British Mandate for Palestine. Rubbish, this is the propaganda nonsense that includes Jordan in the Mandate.
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
And excluded from the Zionist provisions for nearly all of it, administered totally separately, and the border was not set until later so it wasn't even Jordan, it was just the other side of the Jordan.
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The administration of the area that constitutes Jordan today does not alter the historical fact that approximately 77% of the land allocated under the British mandate was used to establish the state of Jordan. The timing of border agreements made by outside additional parties does not negate the established borders and the allocation of land. Your argument appears to rely on a strawman fallacy
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk)
16:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
You mentioned the
Mandate for Palestine -> "Whilst the Mandate for Palestine document covered both Mandatory Palestine (from 1920) and the Emirate of Transjordan (added in 1921), Transjordan was never part of Mandatory Palestine." and 4 reliable sources cited to that.
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Awesome, from strawman fallacy to now changing the goalpost. :) I provide reliable sources, now they are not good enough. We're not talking about Mandatory Palestine, my edit CLEARLY said British Mandate for Palestine.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk)
16:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
British Mandate for Palestine was a document, but your edit falsely and misleadingly makes a geographic connection with the area size. This point is irrelevant as far as the literature is concerned. And it still does not belong to the lede.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
16:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Please add English alongside Arabic in the "recognized languages" section in the infobox. The sources I already gave.
MylowattsIAm (
talk)
08:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done: English is not a de jure official language in Israel as stated in your cites. The article text appears to cover this correctly.
O3000, Ret. (
talk)
10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Then why not add it as a de facto recognized language with these citations and footnotes explaining it? It's stared that it's use comes even before Arabic so it makes no sense to leave it out of the infobox.
MylowattsIAm (
talk)
14:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
There are a very large number of languages spoken in Israel as can be seen in the article on this at:
Languages of Israel linked to in the languages section of this article. We cannot put them in an infobox. Please stop reopening this request.
O3000, Ret. (
talk)
22:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
But English has a completely different status. One of the sources literally states "after Hebrew but before Arabic". It's not just another language used by someone in Israel, it is a working language of the state, a bit less important than Hebrew but more important than Arabic. Some articles use a row titled "working language" so perhaps we could use that here. I will reopen the request again for the last time.
MylowattsIAm (
talk)
08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to support this suggestion. More sources are needed to back the claim of English as the working language.
Ahri.boy (
talk)
21:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
English is used around the world, somewhat like French centuries ago. I've been to many countries in South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific and had little problem using English. {OK, some difficulty in parts of the US.) This is partly due the prevalence of tech related documents written in English, and partly due to pop music and movies, and partly due to the annoying American tourists countries put up with. Israel is a special case. But these factors still exist.
O3000, Ret. (
talk)
22:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
References
^Spolsky, Bernard (1999).
Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. pp. 169–70.
ISBN0-87840-132-6. In 1948, the newly independent state of Israel took over the old British regulations that had set English, Arabic, and Hebrew as official languages for Mandatory Palestine but, as mentioned, dropped English from the list. In spite of this, official language use has maintained a de facto role for English, after Hebrew but before Arabic.
^Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava (2004).
"Part I: Language and Discourse". In
Diskin Ravid, Dorit; Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava (eds.). Perspectives on Language and Development: Essays in Honor of Ruth A. Berman. Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 90.
ISBN1-4020-7911-7. English is not considered official but it plays a dominant role in the educational and public life of Israeli society. [...] It is the language most widely used in commerce, business, formal papers, academia, and public interactions, public signs, road directions, names of buildings, etc. English behaves 'as if' it were the second and official language in Israel.
^Shohamy, Elana (2006).
Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Routledge. pp. 72?73.
ISBN0-415-32864-0. In terms of English, there is no connection between the declared policies and statements and de facto practices. While English is not declared anywhere as an official language, the reality is that it has a very high and unique status in Israel. It is the main language of the academy, commerce, business, and the public space.
In the
Government and politics section, there is a "see also" link for the
Criticism of Israel. I wonder if there should be a separate section altogether for that, especially considering some of the criticism for the state is not entirely about "government and politics" (examples: islamophobia, antisemitism, etc).
Josethewikier (
talk)
03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Not what we are looking for...
WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure..."
WP:CSECTION " Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. " Moxy🍁
03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
NPOV in the lede
Does anyone disagree with the content or the phrasing in this paragraph:
Can you remove the cosmopolitan part in the lead OR add the corresponding info in the body as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body? Also could you please check the article length as this article was previously tagged as being too long?
Wafflefrites (
talk)
11:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
That is a small paragraph summarising thousands of years of history, I think it is very concise, and smaller than a lot paragraphs in other ledes or even in this lede. Are citations included when discussing the article length?
Is that not a basic fact backed up by sources, therefore not needing to be in the body as per
WP:Lede? Regardless I agree it needs to be mentioned in the body of the article, I'll work on it now.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
12:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Alexanderkowal: Please revert first and seek consensus, rather than the other way around. As much as I agree with the framing of your edits, but this is really overdetailed. Lede should be as brief and factual as possible, without any analyses or the mention of multiple other things.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
12:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll shorten the final sentence to
...Arab population, a central component of what is known as the Nakba in Palestinian society.
They're small one clause sentences. The cosmopolitan part summarises the effect lots of different ruling empires had on the region and links that sentence back to the region/rounds it off. The Nakba sentence is just a few words long to add a highly relevant page link. Furthermore, the paragraph still remains quite short.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm trying to think of a couple words we could add to imply previous Jewish migrations such as after the Spanish inquisition
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I am ok with shortening the sentence and don’t mind keeping the link to Nakba, but I will admit I my reasoning is completely biased, so I cannot really provide appropriate reasoning on that. Please see
WP:LENGTH for article length guidelines.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
13:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The guidelines are quite ambiguous, there might be a way to include the information in this paragraph with less words without killing the flow but I'm not seeing it
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s under
WP:SIZERULE. I can check the length later and trim appropriately if needed. I think I am ok with keeping the link to Nakba because the link was previously in the lead and seemed important to some editors, but that is pretty much the reason. Probably need additional feedback from others.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
13:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Would it not be easier to trim the sections down a little rather than the lede?
Also would very cosmopolitan be lede worthy? The only reason I put fairly was because I only had two sources. I suppose the word assimilated alludes to this, idk, but it wasn't necessarily the various empires causing this but waves of migration
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
19:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I do really think this is key to the history of Israel/Palestine region and I'm amazed it wasn't already talked about in the article. Also, I don't understand why you referenced malaria
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
19:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not familiar with that part of the history. Is it in the Wikipedia article for Palestine (region)? I mentioned malaria because I am wondering how cosmopolitan the region was if malaria was endemic. Also I am wondering if the cosmopolitan part is not mentioned because this article is mostly focusing on the region when it was/is named Israel.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
21:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Wafflefrites how about rewriting the sentence that lists empires and replacing it with:
Located at a continental crossroad, the southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine empires, the Arab Caliphates, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks and the Ottomans, with its wide array of holy sites in various faiths attracting waves of immigration throughout history.
What I'm seeing is mass changes by 2 new editors....... let's make sure we give good edit summaries. And let's make sure if there are reverts this is not taking personally....we can discuss things. Moxy🍁
03:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Obv the premise for discussion shouldn’t be me defending changes but rather multiple people contributing to a consensus on the changes
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The list of empires wasn’t random, it was a list of empires in the order of those that ruled over the region. I really don’t think it makes sense for this period of history to be entirely ignored here.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
05:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the copyedit; naming the various empires is unnecessary detail for the lead; "many different empires" is better. Although, I think even better would be improved by mentioning (in some brief formulation) that the different empires included Jewish, Islamic, Christian, and "other" empires. The whole "crossroads of three continents" thing. It explains why the area is important to Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others.
Levivich (
talk)
06:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that, although the many different empires refers to the time period after Judah. I think that would have to be in the first sentence of the paragraph
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
06:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
^Morris, Benny (1999).
Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001 (reprint ed.). Knopf.
ISBN9780679744757. The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well). Also quoted, among many, by Mark M. Ayyash (2019). Hermeneutics of Violence: A Four-Dimensional Conception. University of Toronto Press, p.
195,
ISBN1487505868. Accessed 22 March 2024.
There is a weak consensus at the moment to include it. On such a controversial issue, a strong one is infinitely better although the merit of this RfC would depend on a good facilitator and efforts to build a consensus from both sides.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
15:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
If all we are talking about is an insertion, a removal and a reinsertion without any subsequent discussion, then there is presumed consensus.
Btw, if the removal was for a valid reason, then it would have been better, although not compulsory, to have started the discussion per
WP:BRD.
But if there is no current discussion, then this RFC is not required and you should close it (remove the RFC tags).
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
in order to make it clear that that article is written from the Palestinian perspective, and frame it. If this were done, would you support its inclusion in the lede here?
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
18:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
that article is written from the Palestinian perspective If that's true, add some other perspectives so that it isn't.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I have stated that the Israeli perspective on the Nakba, current and past, should be included in the body and the lede of the article. It's too intense a topic for me to write on it without a deeper understanding. Until then, I do think it'd be good to frame the article here. This also clearly differentiates it from the expulsion and flight article, so the reader understands why we included them both.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Nope, you can't frame the article as not being NPOV merely because it hasn't been edited to your satisfaction, that's not the way it works.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course you can, this is entirely how it works, via consensus of editors. If multiple editors question the NPOV of an article, it gets an NPOV banner until that is addressed. I think the Nakba article is very good article, and it's right that the bulk should be written from the Palestinian perspective, but there also needs to be a bit from the Israeli perspective, that isn't just apologia.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
18:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
this is entirely how it works, via consensus of editors. If multiple editors question the NPOV of an article, it gets an NPOV banner If that was the way it worked, every contentious article would have a permanent NPOV tag.
O3000, Ret. (
talk)
18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
There is no neutrality tag at the Nakba article, therefore it is NPOV and not written from the Palestinian perspective only. If you add such a tag, then go to the article and explain what needs to be fixed there and it will get fixed, either way it is not "Palestinian".
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
^Morris, Benny (1999).
Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001 (reprint ed.). Knopf.
ISBN9780679744757. The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well). Also quoted, among many, by Mark M. Ayyash (2019). Hermeneutics of Violence: A Four-Dimensional Conception. University of Toronto Press, p.
195,
ISBN1487505868. Accessed 22 March 2024.
The page states that Israel is located in the historic Canaan and “Palestine” areas. This is supposed to be “Judea” as historically “Palestine” only existed as a British Mandate from 1918-1948. Please update this language to be historically accurate as Canaan and Judea are the correct terms for this point in Israel’s history. Canaan does not exist today, and the land of Judea is where Israel currently exists. (Submitted by a Middle East historian)
98.246.173.176 (
talk)
13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you specify which edits? The sentence about migration after WW2 has a paragraph on it in the body. I admit my incentive to edit was not to summarise the body but make a good summary of the topic, and that that is problematic. There should be a paragraph about the rise of antisemitism in Europe which gives context to the climate that Zionism was born in and popularised in. Whether I can write that and do it justice, idk, although the research is easy
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Recent changes
@
Alexanderkowal: The recent edits are overdetailed and editorial, please summarize as follows:
From "Situated at a continental crossroad, the
southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as" to "The
southern Levant came under the rule of many different empires, such as"
The point of the sentence on waves of immigration is to allude to it being historically ethnically diverse, and page link to a relevant page on social history of the region.
For the British policy one, maybe just page link to divide and rule through British colonial policy? I’m surprised the British empire page doesn’t have a section on their style of rule in comparison to other colonial empires.
The one about Arab citizens of Israel is key to clarify, although it is controversial due to the accusations of apartheid. I think it’s very open to discussion
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that sentence was key to stating the perspective, and it is predominantly and primarily known in Palestinian society
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
There are many things that an English reader might not have heard of, Aliyah for example, but both these things are explained in the text so not a problem.
Selfstudier (
talk)
13:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Its loci is in Palestinian society, just like the loci for the much wider known holocaust is in Israeli society. Any remembrance of Nakba is focused on Palestinian society
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
There also wasn’t consensus for him to remove it, but since I initially acted without consensus I’ll revert.
I have a really hard time knowing when consensus has been reached as people often don’t admit defeat in an argument when the outcome is binary
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
09:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I added it because I felt I’d totally refuted his points or argument, if I had left it a day with no response would that have been the time to change it?
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
09:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I assumed your comment decrying my persistence was admission of refutation. I know Nakba is quite widely commemorated, especially in the Muslim world, however the loci is very important, Palestinians primarily commemorate it, if they stopped everyone would stop. The link you put also emphasises Palestinian society
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
09:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
No-one disputes that Palestinians commemorate the Nakba. That was not the objection, it was the idea that Nakba is known only to Palestinians. In any case, that sort of detail is not necessary in the lead.
Selfstudier (
talk)
10:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
it introduces the perspective of the Nakba article, and page links to Palestinian which is necessary for Israel's lede. Note that it isn't linked elsewhere
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The
Nakba link is sufficient for the perspective. The reason that Palestinians are not linked anywhere is due to the practice of referring to them as Arabs "which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population" for example, that "Arab population" is Palestinian, and the vast majority of "Arab citizens of Israel" are as well Palestinian. But it is not crucial for this article, links to the conflict, the territories and the hr issues are sufficient imo.
Selfstudier (
talk)
11:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
No such thing as "defeat in an argument". On Wikipedia in particular decisions are made by consensus and consensus involves following the guidelines and making compromises. Also familiarize yourself with
WP:1RR.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Also you removed the bit on waves of migration without consensus, I do really think this
Demographic history of Palestine (region) needs to be linked to. I think putting
Sorry, but not only are you editing aggressively and without compromise, but also without regard to any WP guideline. It is you who inserted the waves of immigration bit without consensus. You have also violated -and continued to violate- 1RR multiple times despite being told to familiarize yourself with it. I won't be filing a complain at
WP:AE, but someone eventually will and AE will outright sanction you.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
13:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree I made an error in my first few edits and that this has wrongly changed the premise of discussion. However I started this discussion on the talk page and multiple editors have critiqued the edits and not stated opposition to certain inclusions, meaning there is a weak consensus, and I continue to engage in discussion. Can you please address my initial comment.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
In retrospect the ‘situated at a continental crossroad’ explains the succeeding sentence about why it came under the rule of lots of empires, but if you do still feel it’s too editorial than we can remove it
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The bit on the social history is context for the region having no real owner until the rise of ethnonationalism in the 19th century
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is that it was more cosmopolitan than other regions, and the many series of migrations it saw meant that there wasn’t really an exclusive ethnic ownership
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
14:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't follow how migration or demographics means there wasn't exclusive ownership. The migrants didn't own or control the land. New York City is a cosmopolitan city with lots of migrants; it's still owned and controlled by the USA. Exclusively.
Levivich (
talk)
22:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s just my impression, it might be wrong. If New York City had changed hands 10s of times over the course of a millennium combined with waves of immigration and emigration I can imagine how strong ownership wouldn’t be felt. I suppose the Ottomans held onto Palestine for long enough for it to change.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
07:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
In the next paragraph I think it should mention that there was immigration to Israel from people displaced by WW2 (and the holocaust)
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
[1] states "Typical of the cities of the Levant was a mixed population. ‘Levantine’ was an omnibus term used especially to refer to the Armenian, Greek, Italian and Jewish merchants...Conversions of individuals from one cultural environment to the next and back again were everyday occurrences. A new light is shed on minorities here. Neither marginalised nor treated as objects of tolerance or intolerance, in a social system based on communication and flexibility, they were the system's pillars and driving force." That's just in the abstract, I don't have access to the article
[2] states "Anyone who studies the material culture of Egypt and the Levant will agree that migration, trade, translation, and assimilation were common practice." unsure if this is talking generally or about the first millennium BC
[3] states "Migrants of various ethnic, religious and social origins made their way to Palestine, or crossed it while heading to other locations, or relocated their place of permanent residence, virtually in any given period between the mid-seventh century and the turn of the twelfth, as well as later on." I don't have access so can't see it talk about motives
[4] states "the westward migration of the Jewish merchants from Iraq [during the 10th century]...contributed greatly to the economic prosperity in Palestine and Egypt"
[5] states "This means that the peoples living here have an identity distinct from the neighboring peoples but they have nevertheless always had an ongoing exchange through trade, inter�marriage, migration, exile, and displacement with many of the other regional peoples."
It appears Arabs migrated for economic prosperity, so saying holy sites was wrong. It is a good page to link to though. I do think mention has to be made of migration from across the old world, or something referring to it being cosmopolitan and relatively diverse.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
15:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, that is not how WP works. When material is challenged, reversion first and then discussion per
WP:BRD. Even if true, it is not a unique piece of information and does not belong to the lede of Israel.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
15:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I only noticed now. I am not arguing against the factuality, but against the prominence of this to the summary of an article about Israel.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
09:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It's context for the later Zionist migrations. Palestine was fairly cosmopolitan and was effectively built on migration with no real indigenous people compared to other regions.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the connection with Zionist migrations. On the contrary genetic evidence has shown that Palestinians show a large degree of genetic continuity with Bronze era Levantines. Still not relevant to the lede of the state of Israel.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
10:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course it is relevant, it summarises the social history of the region. If you disagree with the phrasing then we can rework it, but the content is very relevant in my view.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
How would you summarise the social history of the region? I think the clause would have to refer to flow (migration) and stock (settled population), however I don't know where to place the emphasis. I think indicating ownership of the region by an ethnic group violates NPOV for this article and would also be
WP:Synth. Maybe talking indirectly about the population and stating the Islamisation of the region? I think that's a good compromise
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The social history of the region is discussed in the body and the lede and it’s incredibly relevant to the conflict. It doesn’t make sense to only start talking about social history from the 19th century when the periods before that are so relevant.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
12:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, but it’s not as clear cut as other regions, and I think it’s natural for Israel’s page to have a slight Zionist bias. I’m more trying to correct for the lack of Zionist voices on this page, which I find surprising, to impale the content on the fence
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
? The only people I’ve engaged w on this page have been very anti-Israel, as much as I disagree with Zionism, particularly this manifestation of Zionism, in order to maintain NPOV Zionist arguments need to be involved and the grains of truth in them used, if what we’re trying to do is build a neutral encyclopaedia.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
14:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The other way of looking at it is there are a lot of pro Israel (not Zionist) editors at this page (there are) but they don't agree with you.
Selfstudier (
talk)
14:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I haven't received much disagreement except from the very anti-Israel people who have engaged with you? Think you better ease off with the them and us rhetoric, tbh.
Selfstudier (
talk)
14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah you’re probably right, it’s just the topic is often very partisan. I wouldn’t say I’m an us, more an irrelevant bystander with no deep understanding
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
14:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
in order to maintain NPOV Zionist arguments need to be involved and the grains of truth in them used No, that's not
WP:NPOV. The "V" in NPOV is the viewpoints of reliable sources, not the viewpoints of the subjects of the articles.
Levivich (
talk)
22:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
because it's relevant detail and I think it's a question the reader might have. Just say for economic prosperity I think
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@
Makeandtoss I disagree with your reversion of my edit, the Islamisation of the region does summarise content in the body and is entirely relevant and lede worthy as it provides context for the current conflict. I don't understand your argument here, it seems a very common sense inclusion. Unless you think there's negative connotations with the term "Islamisation"?
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s included there as context for the subsequent sentences. Would you rather it referred to Arab migrations rather than Islamisation?
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
08:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I’d argue this is more lede worthy than the exodus from the Muslim world, it also page links to a relevant page on Jewish history
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Btw feel free to revert my edit about migration following WW2, I altered it so 1RR doesn't apply, but I should've discussed it first. Why don't you feel migrations should be included in the lede? It seems a central component of Israeli history
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
12:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
"It seems like..."? Respectfully, I think you should read/learn more about this before making or proposing changes to these articles. Like: how many Jews moved to Israel, when, from where, and according to what sources? There is a lot of literature on these topics, the answers are complex, and they may surprise you.
Levivich (
talk)
13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
That's valid, however my statement there is correct. The migration from Europe occurred largely from 1920 to 1953. The
Aliyah#Early statehood (1948–1960) section has a table that shows where they migrated from, and how many, from 1948-1953, with 338,000 total from Europe. Ofc there was migration to Palestine during the war and before, which I struggled to include in my edit without splitting it into two sentences in different places.
Bricha and
Aliyah Bet discuss this. My edit was based off of what I read on wikipedia, ideally I'd be more knowledgeable and accustomed with the topic.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
13:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
That's why I wrote "... and according to whom?" If you are reading things on Wikipedia articles and then changing other Wikipedia articles based on that, that's not a good approach.
WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that table, for example, is itself not very well sourced. Not terribly sourced, it's sourced to scholarship at least, but it seems to have one source, a paper, that's 20 years old. There are many entire books written about this, and history is always updated, so there are just better sources available for these numbers. And of course not all the sources agree with each other. And then there's context (which Wikipedia articles are particularly lacking in): 338k out of how many total? While there is no disputing that the Holocaust was very important to the history of Israel, IIRC it's also true that most Holocaust survivors did not move to Israel (many more went to the US, for example), and most Jewish immigrants to Israel were not Holocaust survivors.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that you're volunteering to improve these articles, but the best way to go about that is sources->body->lead, of the same article, as opposed to changing the lead (or body) of one article just based on what it says in another article. (Keeping in mind that main articles will often have better information than sub-articles, but not always, which is why one always has to check the sources.) And sources, plural, never depending on just one source. Sources from a variety of viewpoints, not just one American, Israeli, or Palestinian author. And preferably, best sources, not just "any" paper or book.
IMO, the best way to figure out what to write about immigration in the Israel article is to take a few recent books about Israel's history from the most reputable scholars from a variety of viewpoints, and see what they say about immigration, and then summarize that.
Levivich (
talk)
14:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay I'll do more research in the future, thank you. Yeah cherry picking sources isn't the best way to go about it. In the sources I gave, one was from an Israeli journal, and one was critical of Israeli exceptionalism so I thought it was a wide consensus.
Yup, and also, off the top of my head, one thing sources from the '90s may not accurately capture (as compared to sources from, say, the last 10 years) is the significance of post-Soviet Jewish migration to the current demographics of Israel. IIRC, more Russian Jews came in the '90s and 2000s than Holocaust survivors in the '40s and '50s. How much a Wikipedia article talks about one wave of migration vs another should be based on how the current best sources treat the issue. And seriously, thanks for volunteering to work on this, Wikipedia could use all the help it can get.
Levivich (
talk)
15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
My impression does seem to be accurate, and I was very confident on it despite the weasel wording
[6] is a journal article with the title: Immigration is Israel's History, So Far
[7] is a book titled: Country on the Move: Migration to and within Israel, 1948–1995
[8] is critical of Israeli exceptionalism and states: Migration has been a major social issue in Israel for well over 50 years. Indeed,its centrality in the value context of the society goes back to well before the establishment of the state in 1948 (Leshem and Shuval (Eds), 1998).Alexanderkowal (
talk)
14:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
My edits on the word 'pre-emptively' were wrong and naive, I just wanted to counter the narrative that people flee their homes willingly
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
14:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Map: add main towns, Isr. settlements outside Isr.
Maybe it's not the best place to open the discussion, but let's have it started.
Regarding maps of towns & regions:
It is important to have the main features on the map also on the other side of border or armistice lines. For the PA these are Palestinian towns & Israeli settlements, elsewhere Lebanese etc. towns, trans-border roads etc. Why? Because white surfaces aren't informative. There is peaceful and violent interaction across those lines - main roads into the West Bank, border crossings, common industrial zones, border incidents (shooting, terror attacks, IDF incursions, historical battles), ecological issues, and so forth. One comes here for inf. and gets - hic sunt leones.
Use a different colour, of course - keep the white or whatever - but border or armistice lines are porous, not the ultimate confines of
Flat Earth. We should only add important features, but those are needed. If a selection or graphic alteration is too difficult to achieve, technically or otherwise, then keep all there is, but in pale grey.
Arminden (
talk)
10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Concrete example. One reads about shooting from
Tulkarem toward
Bat Hefer. Going to B.H. page, there is no Tulkarem on the map/location plan. Current solution: