The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the article include "(now Israel)" next to mentions of Mandatory Palestine, the name of the place at the time the subject was born?

• No It is not Wikipedia practice to give the current names of every country where someone was born. We don't say "(now Myanmar)" for people born in Burma ( Zienia Merton), or "(now the Czech Republic)" or "(now Slovakia)" for those born in Czechoslovakia ( David Zeman), or "(now Germany)" for people born in East Germany a.k.a. GDR ( Ingrid Auerswald), or "(now Tanzania)" for those born in Tanganyika ( Shiraz Sumar), etc., etc. The infobox here is being used as a political football to make a WP:SOAPBOXING point, which is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 01:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Tenebrae is mistaken. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Proper_names#Place_names, "If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses." The subject was born in Nazareth in 1948, which within months was geographically in Israel (incidentally, Nazareth has never formed part of any post-1948 conception of "Palestine"). Selecting four obscure biographies where the policy has not been followed is misleading, especially as the situation in those countries is not a good analogue for Mandatory Palestine/Israel. I have already suggested the Vladimir Putin infobox as being a more appropriate example, especially as the USSR/Russia comparison is a far closer geopolitical analogue. Indeed, policy suggests that if we were to mention only one country, that country would be Israel, not Mandatory Palestine. It should be noted that I have never had any wish to make a "political" point, quite the opposite, and normally do my best to avoid anything to with Israel/Palestine, and the wikidrama that such things all too often sadly entail. Edwardx ( talk) 14:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the Putin example for reasons I could get into, but I'd like to focus on the common ground User:Edwardx and I may have. There is drama at even the most innocent of articles involving Israel/Palestine: At the article for this subject's daughter, Gigi Hadid, for instance, pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian editors fought each other, and I and other editors had to fight to keep things neutral and without even the appearance of political advocacy. Aside from my feeling that anyone can click on Mandatory Palestine the way they can on GDR or other old nation-states, Edwardx and I both seem to recognize that edits adding Israel or Palestine to articles involving one or the other give the unmistakeable appearance of politically motivated edits. Aside from anything else, the simplest solution is to be as neutral as possible. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer to simply focus on the straightforward point at issue. The relevant policy would support either "Nazareth, Israel" or "Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine (now Israel)". You have not adduced any policy in support of your preferred wording of "Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine". If you cannot make a policy-based argument, could you please just withdraw this RfC, so that we can focus our time on building a better encyclopedia. Thank you. Edwardx ( talk) 21:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As the MOS section you yourself quote says, "If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context..." It is not appropriate here. Wikipedia should not be a place for political partisans to press points about Israel or the Palestinians. Giving anything other than the geographic name at the time of his birth, "Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine", needlessly and very inappropriately injects a political element into a straightforward biographical article. Leaving the raw, undisputed fact is the most neutral thing. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This now uses two accurate descriptors (one historical) to better orient the readers to time and place. This is not a political dispute. It is about giving the Wikipedia readers relevant factual information.
Rather, it is the latest in a long line of complaints that are a news foray into historic revisionism. This might be the order of the day in other times, places and regimes, but it doesn't work in Wikipedia. I agree fully with Edwardx. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 22:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Making an accusation of historical revisionism clearly makes your argument political in nature. It is not this article's place to argue Palestinian / Israeli land issues. We don't put modern countries names next to Tanganyika or GDR, so trying to do so here is clearly making the page a political football. We should stick to the plain, inarguable fact of where he was born. I know a lot of people don't like the word "Palestine," but that's no reason whatsoever to politicize a plain-vanilla fact. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You are the one who is playing the "political" card. You have put up a straw man argument. It is a fact that he was born in Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 23:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you did when you accused someone of practicing "historical revisionism". And we agree on the fact of where he was born, so I'm not sure why you're acting as if we don't. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• (Pinged from feedback request service) Support the "born in Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine (now Israel)" wording. Hadid is not Israeli-born, so we shouldn't say just Israel. But "Mandatory Palestine" is not a present-day country and the name may be less familiar to many readers, so we should quote both names so readers have a better chance to know in what country his birthplace now is without having to divert into other articles : Noyster (talk), 18:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• • And by that logic, we would have to say "now Libya" anytime we mention Carthage. That's not a sustainable argument. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 16:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• And that is not a policy-based response. Any Libya/Carthage comparison is a false analogy, as well as being factually incorrect. Edwardx ( talk) 17:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Quibbling that "Libya" should have been "Tunisia" is beside the point.

• And it is simply incorrect to call it a false analogy. Here is the other editor's comment with the name of the locale changed. How is his argument different? It is not: "But 'Carthage'" is not a present-day country and the name may be less familiar to many readers, so we should quote both names so readers have a better chance to know in what country his birthplace now is without having to divert into other articles." -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• If we're going back to the ancient world, we are told that Trajan ... was born ... in the Roman province of Hispania Baetica (in what is now Andalusia in modern Spain) and of Hadrian that ... Italica near Santiponce (in modern-day Spain) is often considered his birthplace.... Are the bracketed insertions the work of Spanish nationalists, or of writers who try to be helpful to the reader? : Noyster (talk), 19:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A reminder to all participants: Until the RfC is concluded, we do not change the wording of the disputed section. Feedback is not an RfC-consensus close. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 16:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment "Nazareth, Israel" is definitely unacceptable. His company website [1] says "He was born in 1948 in Nazareth, Palestine. His father taught English at the University of Jerusalem. When he was two months old, his mother took him to stay with her mother in Damascus. While they were there, the state of Israel was born in Palestine. When Hadid’s mother returned to Nazareth with the baby, she found an empty house. Hadid says that his father had been expelled. Hadid became a refugee."

As to whether we should say "(now Israel)" afterwards, I am ambivalent but we don't do it for Mahmoud Abbas either. See also List of Palestinians.

Oncenawhile ( talk) 17:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Where is the policy to support the contention that " 'Nazareth, Israel' is definitely unacceptable"? That quote is from the "press coverage" section of Hadid's company website, and they are the words of a journalist, not Hadid himself. Just because we don't mention that Safed is now in Israel for Abbas, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't, or that the wording there is supported by policy. And we all know how quickly "(now Israel)" would be removed from the Abbas bio by POV editors, and likely lead to wikidrama. Also, Abbas was born 13 years before Safed became part of Israel, Hadid was born in Nazareth in 1948, mere months before it became Israel. Edwardx ( talk) 18:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Edwardx, it is definitely unacceptable because it is not true. He was born in Mandatory Palestine. Not only that, but his family left before it ever became Israel.

You are correct that it is a press article ( thanks for the thorough sourcing); I didn't notice that at first. It is written in the style of a biographical interview - it is written as so suggest Hadid was directly interviewed for the purposes of the article. And the fact that it is printed on Hadid's own company website suggests he supports its veracity. So it is a reasonably strong source here.

Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I think you are being unnecessarily disparaging about your reference to wikidrama. I mean, it is true, but it is true in many areas. Imagine trying to write that Jesus was born in "Bethlehem, West Bank", or that William Wallace was born in Elderslie, United Kingdom... Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I don't see the editors arguing for "(now Israel)" attempting to do the same at other biographies involving defunct geographic regions, it is clearly an attempt to politicize the article, as editors tried to do at Gigi Hadid until admins put a stop to it. And politicizing Wikipedia is against the policy at WP:SOAPBOX. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae: No one is trying to "politicize" anything. Please assume good faith! I frankly find it inappropriate of you not to assume good faith about the other editors. Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of faith (so to speak). It's a matter of Wikipedia history. Articles involving Israel and the Palestinians are very frequently politicized. That's an indisputable fact. And editors making the "(now Israel)" argument here are not making it in biographies not involving Israel and the Palestinians. We don't throw out our analytical faculties based on good faith. We assume good faith in the absence of evidence contrary. I've given two pieces of evidence. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• On first mention only, it's appropriate to mention its modern name (Israel). I just checked some of the other articles I've worked on. Emma Goldman, a featured article, says "Kovno, Russian Empire" in the infobox and "the Lithuanian city of Kaunas (called Kovno at the time, part of the Russian Empire)" in the text. Alexander Berkman, a good article, says "Vilnius, Vilna Governorate, Russian Empire" in the infobox and "the Lithuanian city of Vilnius (then called Vilna, and part of the Vilna Governorate in the Russian Empire)" in the text. Szmul Zygielbojm says "Borowica, Russian Empire (now Poland)" in the infobox and "Borowica, Poland (then under control of the Russian Empire)" in the text. (For the record, I came here because of a notice at WT:IPCOLL.) —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 18:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• With respect to my good colleague Malik Shabazz, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We don't do this at Hannibal or a large number of other biographies. All of us can cherry-pick. And articles involving Israel and the Palestinians have proven to be historically vulnerable on WIkipedia to attempts to politicize them one way or the other. I believe stating the plain, indisputable fact without elaboration is the fairest and most neutral path. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• With all respect to you as well, Tenebrae, that essay says:

This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology. ... Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that it should be followed elsewhere. Whether a given instance of something can serve as a precedent for some other instance must be decided by way of consensus. ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#Precedent in usage) —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 03:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Malik. I think we agree that consistency is desirable. My point is that there is no consistency on this throughout Wikipedia, and either side of the issue can cherry-pick. Though I would venture to say the vast majority of references to defunct countries, from Carthage to the GDR, do not include the modern-day country. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 03:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, per MOS: "If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses." If it was just "born in Nazareth" no clarification would be necessary, but since the article makes it "Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine" then standard modern name is "(now Nazareth, Israel)" which can be shortened to just "(now Israel)". “ WarKosign ” 12:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As the MOS section you quote says, "If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context..." It is not appropriate here. Wikipedia should not be a place for political partisans to press points about Israel or the Palestinians, as was attempted at Gigi Hadid until admins put a stop to that. The same thing is happening here, and so giving anything other than the geographic name at the time of his birth needlessly and very inappropriately injects a political element into a straightforward biographical article. Leaving the raw, undisputed fact is the most neutral thing. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Tenebrae, the MOS provides a clear policy. The "different name" in this case would be "Mandatory Palestine". By your reasoning, the "raw, undisputed fact" would have to be "Nazareth, Israel". MOS only supports "Nazareth, Israel", or "Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine (now Israel)". I can't understand why you can't or won't accept the clear policy in the MOS. If you are not happy with that policy, why not discuss it in the appropriate forum, rather than here? Edwardx ( talk) 20:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• • No, you are misreading the MOS. "Mandatory Palestine" is not a "different name" since that was the name of the place when he was born. Israel did not yet exist, so it's impossible to say the MOS supports that he was born in "Nazareth, Israel". As happened at his daughter's article, this is an attempt at politicizing Wikipedia, and as per the policy WP:SOAPBOX, that is inappropriate and disallowed. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Tenebrae, no one else agrees with your bizarre interpretation of policy. I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with someone who won't listen to reason. Please go ahead and have the last word. Edwardx ( talk) 22:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not true, since User:Oncenawhile agreed with my analysis. In any event, the point is moot: If he was born in November 1948, it was after the declaration of the state of Israel. So it's Israel. Case closed. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did agree with your analysis. And I strongly disagree with Edwardx's suggestion that MOS would support "Nazareth, Israel" - that is wholly misleading as has been explained above.

Is there a reliable source for the November birth (the two in the article do not seem to qualify under WP:RS)? Either way though, he was not born in Israel. Israel was declared on the basis of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which included Nazareth in the Arab state (even today, Nazareth is known as the "Arab capital of Israel", primarily because of the efforts in 1948 of Ben Dunkelman [2]). Whilst Nazareth surrendered to Israeli forces in July, it was legally an "occupied territory" until the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

But a November birth would mean he wasn't born in Mandatory Palestine either, since the Mandate was given up in May.

Oncenawhile ( talk) 17:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't look at the cite and just presumed it was RS. And I guess the geographic designation until 1949 is disputable. I'm wondering now if perhaps simply "Nazareth" is the one indisputable, factual claim? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Break

Tenebrae, can you explain this edit?

Edwardx, could we discuss your international recognition point here instead of via edit comments. I have tried to explain the point in detail above to no response. Most recently you wrote "International recognition of Israel is clear - "the State of Israel, which was established by the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948". While your point is accurate, it is not relevant. The State of Palestine was declared in 1988 - does that mean that someone born in East Jerusalem today would be born in "Palestine"? No. So, back to 1948. As I have explained above, in November 1948 Nazareth was occupied territory in the middle of a war. Israel neither had, nor claimed, sovereignty over the city at that time - when Israel declared independence based on the 1947 partition plan, Nazareth was NOT intended to be part of Israel. So Nazareth was in legal limbo. Perhaps a better analogy is someone born in 1940 Warsaw was born in occupied Poland, not in Germany. It is 100% certain that Nazareth in November 1948 was not yet legally part of Israel. If you disagree, I suggest you find a source to support you.

As I have said, I am in favour of Nazareth (now Israel). Given the legal limbo, I don't think we should state exactly which country Nazareth was in in November 1948, unless and until we have a source. Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948 is relevant, as that date is was what was formally recognised in 1949. If and when any "State of Palestine" is formally recognised at some future date, it may also be "backdated". In a strict legalistic sense, one could argue that no part of Israel yet formally existed at the time in November 1948, and its existence from 14 May 1948 was only formally recognised in 1949. There is no policy provision for a "Nazareth (now Israel)" formulation. Wikipedia policy is quite clear, and despite some vexatiously pettifogging interpretations of policy, Nazareth, Israel is the only available solution. Edwardx ( talk) 11:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, I saw a string of edits saying "Nazareth, Israel" and thought it was settled, since I didn't think Edwardx would have posted contentious content before this RfC ended. I can see now the issue is still up in the air, given your comment above and the one below. I would ask all editors not to post contentious edits until this RfC has been concluded. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I was merely returning it to what was your most recent version at that time, which was, until you changed your mind again today, "Nazareth, Israel". I was not adding "contentious content". Edwardx ( talk) 00:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Edwardx: You are mistaken on Tenebrae changing their mind today as if you see this edit from the talk page you will see that they already regarded the location as contentious and as others including myself also did I changed it and mentioned "per talk" in the edit summary but you reverted it citing the Israeli Declaration of Independence so it was not you just "merely returning it" as you disputed international law regarding the state being recognized and you still have not elaborated on this per Oncenawhile asking above. Naue7 ( talk) 03:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Naue7, it was the article page edits by Tenebrae that I was referring to. I have replied to Oncenawhile above. Edwardx ( talk) 11:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Edwardx: I know you were referring to that but as Tenebrae mentioned above they had the issue with (now Israel) being included and that was what they last changed in regards to the location by removing (now) and thought that the location had been resolved as Israel had been added again. This was not the case as reading over the talk page there was still an issue with this so I changed it. Nazareth, Israel is not "the only available solution" as a city can be stateless like in ancient times or with indigenous people as with the page for Pocahontas. Naue7 ( talk) 15:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Firstly, my experience of biographical articles is that the infobox contains only the name of the country at the time (no "Now in Fooland") and any change of territory is mentioned instead in the text of the article. Secondly, I think the question asked in this RfC is inherently flawed – Hadid was born on 6 November 1948, but the Mandate ended on 14 May 1948, so he can't have been born in Mandatory Palestine as it no longer existed (was the exact date of his birth a relatively recent addition to the article? This is the only explanation I can think of for many of the above comments). The real question is was he born in Israel? Given the nature of the conflict at the time (there weren't any clear borders until the armistice agreements) I think it would be reasonable to say that if he was born in territory controlled by Israeli forces at that stage of the conflict and that eventually became part of the state, he was born in Israel. Number 5 7 12:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Number 57, could you clarify for other readers whether you believe Nazareth was legally in the State of Israel in November 1948, ideally with a source? Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere was "legally" in Israel in November 1948 as it had no defined or recognised borders; the declaration of independence simply stated that a state had been declared in the Mandate territory. However, Israel did exist, and so between 14 May 1948 and the armistice, I think it's fair to say that locations within the former Mandate that were under Israeli control were part of Israel at that time. Number 5 7 13:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could ask an admin who has settled disputes on Palestinian and Israel articles to mediate? They might bring a fresh perspective and be able to put facts in context. Wikipedia is well set up for editors to request third-party mediation. -- Tenebrae ( talk)

WP:3O is only used for disputes between two people. But if you're looking for an admin who has been attempting to bring an NPOV perspective to this field for many years, then look no further. I have no greater recommendation for my impartiality than the fact that I have been accused of being both anti- and pro-Israel depending on the relative bias of the contributor in question (indeed, it's a badge of pride that my RfA was almost derailed by a canvassing campaign by some pro-Israel editors who didn't like me pointing out that Israeli settlements should not be categorised as "in Israel" amongst other things). Number 5 7 20:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That would normally be good since you've been a reasonable presence with well-thought-out arguments here. As you've been a part of the discussion already, though, with at least two editors here unsure that Israel existed as a state in November 1948, it probably might be better to have someone from outside. And I want to make a joke about "help broker an accord" but I wonder if that would be too much!   : )   -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that can be cleared up easily – Israel definitely existed as a state in November 1948 – it was recognised by several other countries shortly after independence was declared. See International recognition of Israel. Number 5 7 09:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

From these passages from that article, it certainly sounds as if Israel were a recognized state as of May 1948. Judging by the recognitions given it by the U.S. and even by Iran, and de jure by Russia, it certainly doesn't seem to be in question. Is the answer really that simple?

On 14 May 1948 the State of Israel was established by the Israeli Declaration of Independence. ... On the declaration of independence, a Provisional government of Israel was established; and while military operations were still in progress, the Provisional government was promptly recognised by the United States as the de facto authority of Israel,[2][3] followed by Iran (which had voted against the UN partition plan), Guatemala, Iceland, Nicaragua, Romania, and Uruguay. The Soviet Union was the first country to recognise Israel de jure on 17 May 1948....

-- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is really that simple, but sadly there are many editors in this sphere of Wikipedia who will say the Pope isn't Catholic if it suits their agenda. Number 5 7 23:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It was not legally recognized internationally until 1949 by way of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273 and the argument of a few countries recognizing it before this is not sufficient as the UN is the factor here as it does not work that way for the International recognition of the State of Palestine. Naue7 ( talk) 03:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether it was recognised by the UN or not is not relevant; the question was whether Israel existed in November 1948. If anyone seriously tries to claim that Israel didn't exist at this point, then I think that's a good cue for the closing admin to disregard their arguments. Number 5 7 18:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is simply unbelievable. Mohamed Hadid describes himself as Palestinian, his daughther says she is "half Palestinian, and proud of it". I guess they should know better than anyone what they are or aren't. So the article should describe him as Palestian. Period. It may add that he has dual Jordanian-US citizenship, but his ethnicity has to be mentioned for the same reason WP always mentions it when the person is Armenian, Jewish or Roma: because, irrespective of whether they have that nationality officitally or it is just an ethnic or cultural allegiance, it is essential to understand who this person is. The attempt to wipe out all references to Palestine can only be understood as ill-intentioned and highly political, and therefore is not acceptable. In itself is constitutes VPs. Please, keep your political agendas outside Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.185.156 ( talk • contribs) 10:57, February 9, 2016‎

• Comment Were he a US citizen, his passport would read place of birth Nazareth, Israel. Indeed that is how it reads for all the people affected by all the European border changes. His place of birth should actually say Israel. If you want, MOS would allow (Mandatory Palestine) to be added to show that when he was born that was what is was since it is a historical event. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)