Talk:Herrenvolk democracy

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Herrenvolk democracy be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

South Africa

Is the definition of this the rule of a majority over a minority? If so, the example of South Africa must be removed. If this concept is appropriate in apartheid South Africa, then the definition in the opening sentences must be changed. --Michael (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how i understand is that: its a democracy but only for a specific ethnic group, doesnt have to be a minority Braganza (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Majority rule?

If I take the example of (modern-day) Namibia: In 1913, the territory German Southwest Africa had a population of roughly 200.000 pople; about13.000 of those were German. I would expect the situation in South Africa to be similar. If youmake up 1/20th of the population, and you want to rule, it certainly isnt the biggest ethnic group ruling. Wouldn't it be: Using a mix of Social Darwinism, and (possibly changing) alliances with local tribes, you can rule, without giving the local tribes too much influence?Eptalon (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesia

I really must question Rhodesia being added to the list. Compared to South Africa with extreme aparteid laws and the Confederate States of America with literal Slavery, Rhodesia was extremely mild. Rhodesia had race issues, but not comparable to these other countries. Use the flags of quite the few European colonies, as well as Nigeria as they too have had opression between peoples similar to Rhodesia. Why not the Third Reich as well? 94.234.111.142 (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Socialism would be an example for a totalitarian herrenvolk democracy, since there were sham elections, but, after 1935, exluding Jews and others from voting 88.64.206.156 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So not a democracy. A totalitarian state with sham elections. The difference is that under South African apartheid the elections were legitimately competitive between the National Party and their white opposition. Flavius717 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Rhodesia had wealth-based suffrage, which because almost every wealthy person was a white settler from Britain, ended up being a herrenvolk democracy. Ellenor2000 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India

Does the term necessary have to be limited to societies that marginalize ethnic groups, or can other forms of political exclusion (specifically, those based on religion) qualify as well? India, in recent years, has been widely criticized for rolling back the freedoms of Muslims and other religious minorities, but these are not ethnic groups per se. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think so, there aren't expelled from politics "only" surpressed Braganza (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Americo-Liberian people and Liberia

After gaining independence in 1847 (and even before), former American slaves migrated to Liberia (resulting in the Americo-Liberian population). Many United States institutions were copied, and two major parties were established: the True Whig Party and the Republican Party. Following the dissolution of the Republican Party in 1876, the True Whig Party dominated Liberian government until the 1980 coup. During this period, Liberia effectively functioned as a stable one-party state, with little politics in the usual sense. However, from 1847 to 1876, Liberian politics closely resembled that of the United States. There were two major parties, and Americo-Liberians controlled both of them and eventually the governement. Americo-Liberians were the only ethnic group with voting rights and indigenous peoples of Liberia were treated as second-class citizens. Consequently, I think Liberia during this time (1847-1871) could be considered a form of Herrenvolk democracy, with Americo-Liberians as the master class participating in democratic elections and the government, while indigenous people held second-class status. Sultán Sahak (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberia was fraudulent and afaik no didnt exclude natives from voting Braganza (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did – indigenous Liberians were only granted the right to vote in 1946 and the 1951 Liberian general election was the first in which they could vote. Number 5 7 20:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok then Braganza (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slight edit war over Israel's inclusion or lack thereof?

So I noticed that changes adding and removing Israel from the flag box (why do we even have a flag box?) have been made like five or six times in all. Some of the editors on both sides have been IPs. No single person (assuming good faith by assuming all IPs are separate people) has busted the 3RR. I will note that a different IP from the same ISP as one of the IP reverters (DOL Ankara, AS#12,978) has also, a fairly long time ago in internet time, removed sourced information about Israel possibly being a herrenvolk democracy in the body text of the article (which was since re-added). That also never rose to an edit war.

If any of you are cruising the talk page, I'm not going to ping you because the dispute seems to be over, but... is this an edit war, and is it wrong to point this out? Please advise. Ellenor2000 (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Israel in imagebox

Opening the discussion to establish an explicit consensus moving forward. The body text currently states Some scholars and commentators, including Ilan Pappé, Baruch Kimmerling, and Meron Benvenisti, have characterized Israel as a Herrenvolk democracy due to Israel's de facto control of the occupied territories whose native inhabitants may not vote in Israeli elections, with full adherence to verification and neutral point of view, which was then used as the basis for including Israel in the lead image box alongside the other examples of Herrenvolk democracy in order for the lead image to accurately reflect the body of the article. The question now is whether or not Israel should be included in the image box from now on. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Untamed1910: @Garsh2: @Votbek: @Braganza: and @Brusquedandelion: as relevant contributors. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a pretty obvious decision to keep, as the RS do not portray the use of the term in the context of Israel to be any less significant that any other use, no one attempting to remove the item has made any argument apart from saying the sourced information is untrue or accusing the article of antisemitism. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBECR IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you an argument: we're talking about Palestine, not Iraqi Kurdistan. This isn't an autonomous zone granted to a minority offering special status but still legally part of a bigger country, it's a fully independent state with its own governing, legal and juridical body that is recognised by 145 UN member states. As such, Palestinians should not vote in Israeli elections without Israeli citizenship since they're Palestinian citizens, not Israeli ones. Not to mention that if Israel actually got any government officials in Palestine to organise elections, everybody would be rightfully complaining about them infringing on Palestinian independence, but I guess you can't win with antisemites like you. Organising Palestinian elections are the Palestinian Authority's job, not Israel's. 82.76.159.190 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with the core policies of Wikipedia. WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability require that all articles are written according to published, reliable sources with an absence of original research. The reliable sources cited in this article clearly outline the original authors' reasoning as to the presence of Israeli settlers in occupied territories, any further arguments based on personal opinion rather than verifiable research and reliable sources will likely be ignored.

Wikipedia also has a very strict policy against personal attacks, which may lead to a block or ban if continued. Thank you. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palestinian-Authority

https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/palestinian-authority-prime-minister-resigns-explainer

https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/who-governs-palestinians

'The Palestinian Authority Basic Law provides for an elected president and legislative council.'

'Palestinian Authority (PA), governing body of the Palestinian autonomous regions of the West Bank and Gaza Strip established in 1994 as part of the Oslo Accords peace agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)'

'Officially, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) represents Palestinians worldwide at international fora, while the Palestinian Authority (PA), a newer institution led by a PLO faction known as Fatah, is supposed to govern most of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.' 82.76.159.190 (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research includes drawing original conclusions from sources, none of your sources explicitly state "Israel is not a Herrenvolk democracy". Orchastrattor (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You argument, the only argument for classifying Israel as a Herrenvolk democracy is that Palestinians inside the West Bank and the Gaza Strip cannot vote in Israeli elections. They do not need to, because they have their own government to vote at: the Palestinian Authority. I do not know if you've ever voted or been to a vote, but you need to have a citizenship of the country you wish to vote in before going to the ballots. Palestinians with Israeli citizenship can vote in Israeli elections, Palestinians without Israeli citizenship vote in PA elections, since the PA, not the Israeli government, is their government. It's really quite simple. 82.76.159.190 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm not arguing anything, I am just restating what the sources say. The reliable sources clearly explain how Israel is pushing for citizens to settle occupied areas without granting the civilians there citizenship, if it is enough for the sources to make the claim then it is enough for Wikipedia to make the claim. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough for one source or another to make a claim. The claim has to be verifiable and ACCURATE. The media is full of claims, from plausible to complete aberrations, and frankly, putting Israel in the same group as the likes of the Confederate States, apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia is amongst them. The Israeli settlers are Israeli citizens and as such get to vote in Israeli elections. The locals are still Palestinian citizens and as such vote in PA elections, not Israeli ones. Should they change their citizenship to Israeli, they would get voting rights, but we both know that one side is as stubborn as the other. Now, the matter of the settlements themselves, while deplorable, is another issue altogether and is unrelated as to whether or not Israel can be classified as a Herrevonfolk democracy. A Herrevonfolk democracy is one where CITIZENS of the country are discriminated on based on their ethnicity, often to the advantage of a certain other ethnicity. Neither of those conditions can be seen in Israel. 82.76.159.190 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a claim is published in a reliable source then it is accurate, any opinion to the contrary is original research. See above under "claiming [...] sourced information is incorrect". Orchastrattor (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.jpost.com/international/article-760350

https://medium.com/@LiatBenZur/no-israel-is-not-an-apartheid-state-heres-why-feebb22f9b55

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41575857

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4343950

As per the 1948 declaration of independence: 82.76.159.190 (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My copied excerpt doesn't appear. I'll have to type it manually. Just great... 82.76.159.190 (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. 82.76.159.190 (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://static.timesofisrael.com/blogs/uploads/2023/09/Constitution-for-Israel.pdf

See Article 8 Section 3 and Article 9 Paragraphs A and C 82.76.159.190 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, none of these make any direct claim on the subject of the article, this is more synthesizing of separate materials and not an actually admissible claim. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any claim more direct that the 'Israel is not an apartheid sate' plastered on the head of every one of those articles. Apartheid and Herrenvolk democracies share the exact same principle. I also find it extremely laughable that one of the three sources in the wiki article is Al Jazeera, the Qatari news outlet. The same Qatar that houses Hamas leaders and provides material support to Hamas. So much for 'neutral point of view'. Rules for me but not for thee, as they say. 82.76.159.190 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for thee but not for me* Dammit, how did I mess this up?

82.76.159.190 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources do not directly mention Herrenvolk democracy then they are not directly relevant to an article on Herrenvolk democracy, it's a very straightforward concept. "Apartheid and Herrenvolk democracies share the exact same principle" is just more synthesis. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a state allows voting from all ethnic groups, it is by definition not a Herrenvolk democracy. Israel allows ethnically Palestinian citizens of Israel to vote. Ergo it is not a Herrenvolk democracy. Most Palestinians within Israeli-controlled land are not Israeli citizens and so are disenfranchised. That is a different issue, and it's just not Herrenvolk democracy. Strongly disagree with the infobox. If nothing else, best to keep countries that clearly are examples of the term instead of stretching it to make a political point. Bruhpedia (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Brusquedandelion said, the four countries in question are the four given by the reliable sources, whether or not you personally feel something is politically motivated or not has no bearing on what is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Orchastrattor (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from what @Orchastrattor has said, I'd add that the three states that are uncontroversially in the infobox plus Israel are, canonically, the four herrenvolk democracies that invariably come up in association with the scholarly usage of the term. It would be against WP:NPOV, in particular, WP:DUE, to include the other three and not Israel. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing new to add but I concur with the reasoning above. Garsh (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally triggered the edit war by adding the image back in May. I honestly don't think it's that useful have the imagebox at all, but if it is in the article, Israel should be included per the included sources. मल्ल (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the inclusion of Israel in the imagebox specifically could be argued against since it's only included in the article in one sentence, which is about some scholars' opinions. The opinions from known scholars in an article is good of course, but it's just that the imagebox seems very provocative to some people for this very reason.

Also, the article specifically uses the occupied territories as an argument, and not Israel proper. Which is why it's controversial to keep the country's flag in the imagebox.

Peace. MeManBlaze (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Herrenvolk democracies use some sort of legal fiction to maintain the pretense of democracy. Israel is somewhat unique in its choice of that legal fiction being the nominally separate status of the so-called occupied territories, which de facto are under Israeli sovereigty. But I say "somewhat unique" because even that is not wholly unprecedented, see: Bantustans. So it really isn't demonstrating anything of relevance to point to the existence of such a specious ruse; in fact, the very existence of such an artifice is evidence in favor of Israel's status as a Herrenvolk democracy. Normal democracies do not have "occupied territories" for 57 years (57 is an entirely generous lower bound). Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a unique situation. I'm just talking about the pure definition of the term. I'm not speaking of any opinions.

But I'm neutral whether it should be in the imagebox or not. MeManBlaze (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat closer analogy would be if South Africa had disenfranchised Bantustans but allowed coloured voting in South Africa proper, which, while not good, would by definition, not be an example of a herrenvolk democracy, because the franchise is not restricted to a certain ethnicity. Israel's inclusion seems like more of a political statement than an objective one, and I don't see a reason for Wikipedia to take a subjective stand on such a controversial, no-win issue. Bruhpedia (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesia permitted black people to vote, in principle, provided they met the various property, literacy, etc. qualifications. Surely you do not think Rhodesia + Bantustans is somehow less of a Herrenvolk democracy. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orchastrattor problem with Theirs interpretation is that officaly this regions are part Palestine so is logical there is not Herrvolk democracy in Israel becouse there is no israel.it was part of it in 1993 after after Oslo I but sadly nothing change 178.79.74.212 (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you personally believe a statement to be true has no impact on its inclusion on Wikipedia, if the reliable sources find Kimmerling's inobjectionable enough to publish without correction then it is fit to include on Wikipedia. Orchastrattor (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including Israel in this article essentially makes it redundant with ethnocracy. Herrenvolk democracies were much more open about discrimination, and their laws explicitly categorized certain groups as second-class citizens and/or completely denaturalized former citizens. If users insist on mentioning Israel here, we might as well merge the two articles. 98.21.199.197 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources characterize Israel as a Herrenvolk democracy. If the sources treat Herrenvolk democracy as a distinct sub-type of ethnocracy then it is only reasonable to treat the article as a distinct sub-topic of ethnocracy. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also sources that label Israel as an ethnic democracy, which has two implications: 1) we should probably add that caveat afterwards as other articles typically do on contested topics, and 2) remove the flag (or all them, not sure why we need a flagbox), as the status of the other three as Herrenvolk democracies is less contested.

Offhandedly, someone should also probably mention Syria and Algeria in this article since they adopted Herrenvolk nationality laws in the early 1960s. 98.21.199.197 (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a source doesn't directly mention herrenvolk democracy then it isn't directly relevant to an article on herrenvolk democracy, the mere existence of alternate viewpoints does not necessitate a view be marked as controversial. Orchastrattor (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Braganza @Hannsg.logitech @Lupinthethird93 @Bruhpedia @Brusquedandelion @Garsh2 @MeManBlaze @Orchastrattor @मल्ल

I have serious doubts that the cited sources represent a consensus among mainstream scholars that Israel is a Herrenvolk democracy. Mindful of WP:REDFLAG when making extraordinary claims of fact, especially of a highly negative nature, there needs to be a very broad consensus among reliable secondary sources. The sources cited, strictly speaking do not appear to be secondary. Although scholarly in their nature, they are essentially op-ed pieces. Are there any reliable secondary sources that quote or cite these works in asserting Israel is a Herrenvolk democracy? I would point out the huge controversy following the death of Fidel Castro over whether or not he could be labeled a dictator in wiki-voice. Despite the fact that he was widely described as such in reliable sources, the community declined to so label him in wiki-voice because sources would have to be unanimous or very close to it. I don't object to mentioning the opinions, or the sources. However I do think that putting Israel's flag up constitutes a formal endorsement of those claims by the community. That's a bridge too far for me unless there are a lot more sources, including mainstream secondary ones. For now, I think the flag should come down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

remove it Braganza (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your comment is not constructive. Please provide reasoning for your position. WP:CONSENSUS is reached via discussion, and simple +/- votes like your comment do not help establish consensus. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then:

Israeli-Arabs have voting rights so it only really applies to the West Bank to begin with so its less race based than the other three examples Braganza (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the arguments/accusations should be rather in the main text than in the image description Braganza (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do Jewish settlers in the West Bank and their Palestinian neighbors have equal political rights? Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you got me wrong Braganza (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel inside the Green line is not

West Bank maybe, calling Israel itself a Herrenvolk democracy and presenting the Israeli flag is misleading imo Braganza (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really up to you, or me. Factually scholars have classified Israel as a Herrenvolk democracy; perhaps they feel that the distinction your are making is one without a difference. If you can find a reliable source saying something along the lines of what you're saying, there may be a discussion to be had about including that in the article as well. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the cited sources [do not] represent a consensus among mainstream scholars that Israel is a Herrenvolk democracy. Fortunately, the caption under the flags makes no assertion to the contrary, stating only that the flags are of nations which have been proposed as examples of Herrenvolk democracy. Factually, Israel is commonly and frequently cited by many reputable sources as a Herrenvolk democracy. That is not just grounds enough for the page to mention it, but in fact actually requires that the page do so, in line with WP:DUE; it does not need to rise to the level of unanimity or consensus. Remember, Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. And remember that per MOS:LEAD, leads should summarize the body: if Israel is commonly cited as an example of a Herrenvolk democracy, it follows that the article itself must note this fact in the body, from which it follows the same point must be mentioned in the lead. A set of flags indicating the four nations which most commonly receive the Herrenvolk democracy label is a succinct way to do this, and at any rate it doesn't sound like you have some stylistic objection to flags in general—you specifically want to censor mentions of Israel from the lead. As a for your attempt to invoke WP:REDFLAG, this is laughable on its face; that policy is meant to be directed against Holocaust denialism and chemtrails, not against a mainstream scholarly position held by numerous respected and reputable academics, such as the view that Israel is a Herrenvolk democracy. That not all scholars agree on this does not mean it is exceptional. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's no need to have an infobox of countries that have been proposed as examples of Herrenvolk democracy if such countries definitionally aren't, then. I, or anyone else, could propose that America is a monarchy, but that doesn't mean it should be in an infobox on the article for monarchy.

Additionally, someone just recently added mention of Israel to the article, and the infobox far predates that. It's a case of modifying the body to meet the incredibly controversial lead rather than vice versa, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Wikipedia does not exist to push a viewpoint, and the existence of academics willing to criticize Israel does not make those criticisms valid or worth summarizing, especially when, again, Israel is by definition not a Herrenvolk democracy, because Arabs can vote.

If you have another definition of the term, in which some residents are disenfranchised by region but not by race, please make it, but that is not what this page is about.

Bruhpedia (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's no need to have an infobox of countries that have been proposed as examples of Herrenvolk democracy if such countries definitionally aren't, then.

Your opinion that these countries are "definitionally" not Herrenvolk democracies is just that: your opinion. Reliable sources discuss them as such.

I, or anyone else, could propose that America is a monarchy,

Just as you are currently proposing that Israel, and possibly the other states mentioned in the article, are not Herrenvolk democracies. Fortunately, your proposal has no bearing on Wikipedia content in and of itself.

Additionally, someone just recently added mention of Israel to the article, and the infobox far predates that. It's a case of modifying the body to meet the incredibly controversial lead rather than vice versa, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Israel has been mentioned in the body of the article as far back as 2014, and it is tremendously disingenuous for you to claim otherwise, as if Wikipedia article histories were not a matter of public record. The recent edit warring on this, in which people tried to remove all references to Israel, is a deviation from ten years of consensus to include Israel in the body of this page.

Wikipedia does not exist to push a viewpoint, and the existence of academics willing to criticize Israel does not make those criticisms valid or worth summarizing,

Sorry, but again, Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. If reputable sources are criticizing Israel, then, in fact, Wikipedia must mention those criticisms on the appropriate pages, per WP:DUE. You do not get to personally decided whether reputable sources are "valid or worth summarizing". This comment suggests you are grossly unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy on WP:BIAS and WP:RS. I suggest reviewing those pages before discussing this matter further here.

especially when, again, Israel is by definition not a Herrenvolk democracy, because Arabs can vote.

This is just your own opinion. I could go into why reputable sources disagree with your assessment—for example, the view that Israel has de facto imposed a single state solution between the river and the sea, and thus any estimation of Israel's "democratic" character must take into account the political status of the Palestinians in the Bantustans of the West Bank and Gaza. There are yet other arguments; instead of me telling you, though, it might be more helpful for you yourself to read the reliable sources yourselves. When you do, please provide a brief summary of their points so we know you have honestly engaged with the scholarship rather than dismissing any criticism of Israel out of hand. And remember, Herrenvolk democracies are not wholly undemocratic. That's the whole point! Black Rhodesians could also, in principle, vote. In practice, the white minority's hold on power was ensured via a variety of means, without ever passing a law that explicitly forbade black Africans from voting. That some Arabs under the hegemonic power of Israel can vote is, then, not at all inherently at odds with the Herrenvolk classification, or even exceptional.

If you have another definition of the term, in which some residents are disenfranchised by region but not by race,

It is nakedly obvious that that is not the situation in Israel, given that, at this very moment, in towns throughout the West Bank, there are neighboring Jewish settlers and Palestinians, the former of which have complete rights to participate in all the avenues of political life in the Israeli state, while the latter have none. But again, that's not me saying this; it's what the reliable sources say, and it is the reliable sources we must report. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd absolutely agree. It's so politically charged that this has become intractable, but per the article's description of the term, Israel is definitionally not a Herrenvolk democracy unless you ignore the existence of Arab citizens of Israel. All politics aside, it just doesn't appear to be one, and, if it is described as such by subjective sources, this appears to be false. Bruhpedia (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per the article's description of the term, Israel is definitionally not a Herrenvolk democracy

Sorry, but reliable sources disagree with you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To what @Orchastrattor has written, I would like to add, since there has been some apparent confusion on this, that the article has mentioned that some scholars classify Israel as a Herrenvolk democracy since at least as far back as 2014. We have 10 years of consensus to keep this in the article; really the only thing being disputed here, for some reason, is whether the lead should mention it too. But MOS:LEAD is clear the lead should summarize the body.

Now removing this from body should be—and anyone familiar with Wikipedia policy and the relevant facts should find this obvious—a complete non-starter, since that is tantamount to WP:CENSORSHIP. But if someone wanted to go down that road, since WP:BOLD editing removing mentions to Israel have been challenged, such a person would need to build consensus for the removal, and in the meantime, the page should continue to mention Israel, per the WP:BRD cycle. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may be close to the point where this should be handled with an RfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Should the Israeli Flag be displayed in the article?

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.

There is a consensus to remove the flag of Israel from the imagebox.

Supporters of inclusion argued that Israel is commonly proposed as an example of herrenvolk democracy, as discussed in the article, and that because the lead ought to summarize the contents of the body, the flag of Israel is appropriate to include and the article would be incomplete without it. Opposers of inclusion cited a variety of policies, many of them the wrong ones, but made a couple of arguments. The first is that there is significant controversy among scholars over whether Israel is a herrenvolk democracy (sources were provided to demonstrate this in the twenty-third hour), and in the absence of scholarly consensus, the flag ought to be excluded to avoid giving an appearance of consensus where none exists. The second is that the use of flags in this manner contravenes the guidance in MOS:FLAG.

The supporters' arguments were hampered by their somewhat weak salience. Stipulations in MOS:LEAD that the lead should be comprehensive are written with the text of the lead in mind, rather than supporting materials like images; indeed, the paragraph on images in the lead mandates only that images should be relevant and high-quality, and does not specify criteria under which they should be included. Meanwhile, opposers' arguments gain traction with its note, which they alluded to, that images are likely to be seen by readers as representative of the topic; opposers successfully demonstrated that there is not a scholarly consensus that Israel is representative of herrenvolk democracy, even if it is prominent in discussion of it, and justifiably argued that it would not be NPOV to imply with an image that it is. Opposers of inclusion also argued that including the flag would violate MOS guidance on flags: it's hard to point to a specific detail that clearly shows this, but the guidance to be sensitive to politically charged situations is, at minimum, relevant.

Overall, the arguments of the opposers were more compelling than those of supporters. There is also a significant numerical preference to exclude the flag, for whatever that's worth.

There was also a section where it was proposed that the imagebox be removed entirely from the lead. There was nearly universal support for this position, but not so much discussion of its policy merits, which makes it difficult as a closer to weigh the merits of that position against the more extensively debated one focusing only on the Israeli flag. I won't involve myself by removing the entire imagebox myself, but if somebody else wants, they should feel encouraged to do so; it may be very well be the correct outcome, and perhaps not even a controversial one. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Should the Israeli flag be displayed in the article? Please refer to the various discussions and comments above. When commenting please remember that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and to cite applicable policy and guidelines where possible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes:

Yes Per MOS:LEAD. Israel has been proposed as an example of a Herrenvolk democracy by scholars, as stated in the cited sources, which are reliable and scholarly. While I am iffy on the need for an imagebox at all, as most articles on types of government do not, that's another conversation. So long as there is an imagebox, it is WP:DUE to include Israel. मल्ल (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per original discussion. The subject is already a relatively obscure term so the amount of specific mentions or lack thereof do not have any actual bearing on how notable Kimmerling's use of the term is compared to previous usage. Kimmerling's views are corroborated between multiple geopolitically diverse reliable sources, it passes any standard any other application of the term does. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per MOS:LEAD: "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" and WP:NOTFALSE's true to presentation requirement. We want the images at the top to reflect what people are talking about when they talk about Herrenvolk democracy. I find most compelling Brusquedandelion's comment above that "the three states that are uncontroversially in the infobox plus Israel are, canonically, the four herrenvolk democracies that invariably come up in association with the scholarly usage of the term. It would be against WP:NPOV, in particular, WP:DUE, to include the other three and not Israel." I have a hard time imagining a scholarly work discuss this concept since 2010 without discussing Israel. It doesn't matter if the situation in Israel is best characterized as a Herrenvolk democracy or not, it matters what people are talking about when they talk about Herrenvolk democracy. Daask (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time imagining a scholarly work discuss this concept since 2010 without discussing Israel: here are examples of recent publications that analyse Israel's political region and reach the conclusion that the term does not apply: 1, 2, 3. No such debate exists in regards to the other three states currently listed. In fact, those authors that have described Israel as a herrenvolk democracy, such as Pappé, had to adopt a different definition from the one currently stated in the lede. Amayorov (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (Summoned by bot) per JasonMacker below The arguments I'm seeing here are: (1)Scholars in reliable sources saying that Israel is a herrenvolk democracy, versus (2) Wikipedia users engaging in WP:OR & WP:SYNTH trying to argue that the scholars are wrong or at least some scholars saying that, matched by a relatively tentative entry in the article, with editors saying that the term is at least partially wrong becuse of non-Jews having voting rights within Israel proper. It doesn't matter if the situation in Israel is best characterized as a Herrenvolk democracy or not, it matters what people are talking about when they talk about Herrenvolk democracy per Daask.Pincrete (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per what I've written below. To reiterate, editors should be advised to avoid arguing with scholars. That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:TRUTH. Even if you personally believe that Israel is not a herrenvolk democracy, that does not change what scholars have written in reliable sources. --JasonMacker (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are examples of recent publications that analyse Israel's political region and reach the conclusion that the term does not apply: 1, 2, 3. In fact, those authors that have described Israel as a herrenvolk democracy, such as Pappé, had to adopt a different definition from the one currently listed in the lede.

No such debate exists in regards to the other three states currently listed, and uncritically listing Israel among them is stating an opinion and a contested assertion as fact (WP:YESPOV), especially in the infobox (WP:STRUCTURE) Amayorov (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No:

No Per WP:REDFLAG. The cited sources do not represent a mainstream consensus on the subject. Including the flag is WP:UNDUE, and arguably gives the impression that this is a generally accepted position which creates serious WP:NPOV issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Israel extends its citizenship (and voting rights) to around 2 million Israeli Arabs, thus it does not meet the definition of a Herrenvolk democracy. The sources provided are largely not neutral, seemingly do not use the term correctly. Melmann 16:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are from scholars published in reliable sources. Your claim that they are not neutral and not using the term correctly is pure original research. If there are reliable sources stating what you're saying, please add it to the article, otherwise this comment is pointless. मल्ल (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reasonable claim, and it is not being made in the article. It could be debated at WP:RSN if you think it is important enough. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Verifiability not truth. Kimmerling already addresses that line of thinking in his writing, if RS do not see it as a logical inconsistency then it isn't a logical inconsistency. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera is not a reliable source when it comes to Arab — Israeli conflict, so I will not consider it. The NYTimes source can't even define Herrenvolk correctly, saying a regime in which citizens enjoy full rights and non-citizens have none, which is incorrect, and besides, it is an opinion piece, thus not representative of the NYTimes editorial standard, and the last one is barely a trivial mention and also very old, which weaken it substantially.

Clearly, this position is weakly supported, if not downright fringe, especially given how controversial it is, and until better sources are available, I cannot support it. Melmann 16:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera, though slightly biased, is reliable for the Arab-Israeli conflict. See: WP:ALJAZEERA.मल्ल (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not reliable, and the consensus is wrong, or rather, strong canvassing skews it. Al Jazeera has clearly shown itself to be a partisan source when it comes to this conflict. While I would not remove it in an article since that would be going against policy and be borderline vandalism, in a discussion like this where the objective is challenging or changing my opinion, I will personally disregard any argument (or part of an argument) based on an Al Jazeera source. Melmann 08:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good to know that you value your own original research over the WP:SNOW consensus. And coming up with your own conspiracy too, cool. मल्ल (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to continue participating in good faith and refrain from casting aspersions. Thank you. Melmann 07:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should really take your own advice. Your baseless accusations of a canvassing campaign to skew a RS discussion is the definition of casting aspersions. मल्ल (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel simply doesn't disenfranchise based on ethnicity, so it is definitionally not a Herrenvolk democracy. Q.E.D.

Just because scholars argue something does not make that thing objective. Scholars are famously rarely in agreement. Reliable sources have robust opinion sections, and it's our job to not accept anything in such an outlet unquestioningly.

It also seems silly to have an infobox of countries that "have been described as Herrenvolk democracies", rather than countries that objectively fit such a definition. There are enough out there to have a full infobox without wading into controversy.

Bruhpedia (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument could be made for Rhodesia: "Southern Rhodesia and later Rhodesia restricted voting rights by qualifications like income and literacy, thus effectively restricting the franchise to the white population." Rhodesia is included in the foundational works on this subject. The scholars who defined and developed this concept seem to be content with using analysis of the effective de facto regime rather than the de jure one when determining applicability of the concept, and we shouldn't take it upon ourselves as editors to redefine the concept to suite what seems logical to us. Daask (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No This is highly misleading. There are equal voting rights in Israel, including the unilaterally annexed parts, where voting rights were extended to the Druze/Arab inhabitants who take up citizenship. The occupation of the West Bank and what happens there is not the same issue. Number 5 7 20:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, see the The state of the debate about Israeli democracy chapter in Handbook of Israel: Major Debates (2016). The "Herrenvolk democracy" is described as an extreme position there so it's clearly not a consensus one. Alaexis_¿question? 10:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis: I can't find that chapter in the TOC. Do you have a page number? Daask (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found it: Alain Dieckhoff in the chapter What kind of democracy is Israel?. Dieckhoff presents a spectrum of views on Israel from liberal democracy to Herrenvolk democracy, thus these are "extreme" in both the sense that they are the ends of the spectrum and, in Dieckhoff's view, wrong. His explanation of why the Herrenvolk democracy view is wrong is because he rejects the concept of Herrenvolk democracy as self-contradictory. It's not clear to me that he says anything about how mainstream or marginal any of these views are. Daask (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree that he "rejects the concept of Herrenvolk democracy as self-contradictory", why do you think so?

My point was that if these two positions are two ends of the spectrum in the scholarly literature, then none of them is a consensus one. Alaexis_¿question? 06:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, or remove the image entirely - per Ad Orientem and Rich Farmbrough. The sourcing is simply too weak to support this as of now. Perhaps we can revisit the topic when the war is over and (if) more sources discuss this. Jdcomix (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per WP:BLUESKY, WP:Verifiable but not false. Israel doesn't fit the definition presented in the lead of the article, so it doesn't make sense to effectively claim that it does like the article seems to. casualdejekyll 00:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUESKY is irrelevant, as it merely says that unchallenged content doesn't need to be cited, and this is certainly challenged. Daask (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per MOS:FLAG, and the other flags should be removed as well. This is clearly a nuanced topic and giant flags serve no purpose. I T B F 💬 16:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per the first sentence of Melmann's justification (which says Israel doesn't fit the definition, and is independent of the case for the acceptability of the sources.) — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per the arguments above, as the claim is at best highly disputed and at worst close to fringe. Including it here makes a highly contentious claim in wikivoice and creates an unnecessarily heated talk page, both of which should be avoided. No opposition to removing all flags, they add very little IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Here are examples of recent publications that analyse Israel's political region and reach the conclusion that the term does not apply: 1, 2, 3. In fact, those authors that have described Israel as a herrenvolk democracy, such as Pappé, had to adopt a different definition from the one currently listed in the lede. No such debate exists in regards to the other three states currently listed, and uncritically listing Israel among them is stating an opinion and a contested assertion as fact (WP:YESPOV), especially in the infobox (WP:STRUCTURE) Amayorov (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current definition given in the article is Herrenvolk democracy is a nominally democratic form of government in which only a specific ethnic group has voting rights and the right to run for office. According to it, the characterisation is patently false. 21% of Israel's citizens are Arabs, who have their own political parties, sit in the Israeli Parliament, serve on the Supreme Court, and are appointed as Foreign Ambassadors. Even the Office of the President of Israel was once occupied by a non-Jew.

By contrast, those academics that have described Israel as a Herrenvolk, such as Pappé, used a different definition: democracy only for the masters. This is a much broader, more subjective statement. In any case, the characterisation of Israel as such doesn't enjoy anything close to a consensus. Amayorov (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an edit to the article, further outlining the scholarship that challenges Israel's characterization as a Herrenvolk regime. For the sake of completeness, I include it below (w/o references).
Others, such as Sammy Smooha, Ilan Peleg, Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Adi Ophir, have asserted that this characterization is invalid, variously describing the Israeli regime as a liberal democracy, ethnic democracy, illiberal democracy or a "hybrid regime".

Amayorov (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Israel does allow arabs to run for office, and to vote. It may oppress/marginalize arabs, yes, but it doesn't disenfranchise them (to my knowledge at least) A Socialist Trans Girl 10:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Other Options

Thoughts: I think there is a reasonable suggestion that for a specialized topic like this, the image should probably be the archetypical examples. I wonder if flags make much sense as a photograph for this article? I also think that reasoning that suggests that Israel is/is not a Herrenvolk Democracy above probably is not useful for this RFC (I don't think closer will adjudicate Israeli apartheid). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the box: The fact that it does not include the archetype flag suggests it is there to push a position. There are many flags that could be included, it's better though to have nuanced discussion (or if we can't manage that, discussion) in the article about claims rather than flag waving in the box. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Support the removal of the box: an alternate image rather than merely flags should be used. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ballot paper in Apartheid South Africa

An illustrative example could be a ballot paper during Apartheid South Africa. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the removal of the box. casualdejekyll 00:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent on the box itself. Simple English Wikipedia skips the controversy by just stacking the three non-Israeli flags and omitting the fourth. (Despite the efforts of a quickly-reverted editor.) It looks good and gives a nice example of the topic at hand. Something else (and consequently less liable to have someone inevitably splice in Israel once people's focus turns elsewhere) could look just as good or better, but I don't think the box itself is a bad illustration for the page. Bruhpedia (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the removal of the box: I voted Yes but would also support replacing it with another image such as the one suggested by Howardcorn33. मल्ल (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support if the Israel flag is removed, no point in having it there if it isn't exhaustive. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the removal of the box All the flags should go per MOS:Flag. The Israeli flag also violates WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any reliable sources that explicitly argue against the label of "herrenvolk democracy" as applied to Israel? The arguments I'm seeing here are: (1)Scholars in reliable sources saying that Israel is a herrenvolk democracy, versus (2) Wikipedia users engaging in WP:OR & WP:SYNTH trying to argue that the scholars are wrong. Why is this even a !vote? Especially since, even if it was the case that some reliable sources explicitly argued against labeling Israel as a herrenvolk democracy, at best, Wikipedia would simply provide readers with both points of view (again, assuming there is a difference of agreement among reliable sources, when such evidence has not been provided). Excluding relevant information stated by reliable sources shouldn't be an option here.--JasonMacker (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've included several in response Amayorov (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change text in infobox: The consensus seems to be to remove Israel from the infobox. Following @JasonMacker's comment in Talk:Herrenvolk_democracy#Close?, I additionally propose amending the text in the infobox to "...are widely regarded as examples of Herrenvolk democracy." There are many states that have been called Herrenvolk by a minority of authors. For example, this paper describes modern-day USA as a Herrenvolk-democracy "reimagined". Changing the text would make it clearer that we exclude such cases.

General Discussion:

I think we should rather focus on expanding #Characteristics and there should be elaboration about each of the 4/5 cases (Apartheid, Rhodesia, CSA, post-Reconstruction South and West Bank). I don't think showing the Israeli flag is representative since (unlike the other 3/4 cases) the Arabs within the Green Line have full voting rights and it only applies to the West Bank if so we should show the West Bank flag – which doesn't exist. Braganza (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have its own flag because its de jure under the State of Palestine, the sources bring up the term "herrenvolk" because Israel is attempting to establish de facto control by having Jewish-Israeli citizens move in and keep their citizenship while denying citizenship to the Arab locals. The accusation wouldn't be getting made if there wasn't an Israeli political presence in WB, hence the use of the Israeli flag to represent the situation. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thats the thing, the "herrenvolk democracy" if it exists, exists only in the West Bank, Arabs within the Green Line can vote Braganza (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the West Bank isn't in the state of Israel, it might be a more correct compromise to put a Palestinian flag up, then, but I don't think that would make anyone happy. Bruhpedia (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying we should put the Palestinian flag up, im saying that its not a state which has a Herrenvolk democracy but a region Braganza (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we should remove the israel flag wikipedia is too biased

and the ¨gaza genocide¨ is fake Pip69420 (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza has nothing to do with it? Braganza (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not trying to make people happy, we are trying to follow the principles of Wikipedia.

If we are talking about the West Bank, and consider it occupied territory, then it is not Herrenvolk democracy. If we consider it annexed to Israel, (or remaining part of Israel) then it is Herrenvolk democracy. Generally I think Wikipedia, as the world at large, treats the West Bank as occupied territory.

[Explanation: It is not generally the case that inhabitants of occupied territory get to vote in the country that is occupying them. For example, after World War II, occupied Germans did not vote in British, French, American or Russian elections. Nor, during the war, did the Poles, Dutch, French etc get to vote in German elections. They may have continued to vote for their civil governments, as indeed do the West Bank Palestinians when these elections are allowed to take place by the Palestinian Authority.]

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

All of this is entirely irrelevant as to whether WP:RS call Israel a herrenvolk democracy or not. They do, so I'm not sure what your WP:OR is supposed to establish here. Why does your personal opinion matter here? JasonMacker (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handbook of Israel: Major Debates (2016) summarises the debate about Israel's democracy on p. 692. Basically it says that the two extreme positions are "purely and simply a liberal democracy" and "Herrenvolk democracy" and comes to the conclusion that neither is correct. You can read their arguments, they are similar to what has been argued on this talk page. So it's clear that this is not the scholarly consensus and we cannot say in Wikivoice that Israel is a Herrenvolk democracy. For the avoidance of doubt, we can and should mention scholars who hold this opinion in line with WP:DUE. Alaexis_¿question? 09:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that currently, the article does not say it in Wikivoice. In addition, a source from 2016 should be used with caution, as there have been significant develops within the past 8 years. For example, the 2018 Nation-state law, as well as major human rights organizations agreeing with the Israeli apartheid description. Overall, the issue is that the term "herrenvolk democracy" is not widely used in popular discourse, nor does it have any legal definition. In contrast, apartheid has had a legal definition since 2002, which is what human rights organizations can assess. For that reason, any mention of Israel (or any state) here is going to have to be couched in "These scholars say x". As I mentioned above, if there are any examples of scholars arguing against the notion that Israel is a herrenvolk democracy, that can be added to the article. However, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR aren't going to cut it. JasonMacker (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close?

A request for close has been filed at WP:RFCL. Pending closure, further discussion concerning the issue of the flag(s) should be conducted above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion has now been open for about a month and IMO there is a clear and solid consensus against keeping the flag. However, if anyone disagrees and wants to request a formal close by an uninvolved admin/experienced editor, I'm fine with that. If there are no objections in the next couple of days, I am going to remove the flag unless someone else does it first. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern right now is that the users calling for removal of the flag are engaging in WP:OR. Look at the reasonings presented:

No Israel extends its citizenship (and voting rights) to around 2 million Israeli Arabs, thus it does not meet the definition of a Herrenvolk democracy. The sources provided are largely not neutral, seemingly do not use the term correctly. Melmann 16:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No This is highly misleading. There are equal voting rights in Israel, including the unilaterally annexed parts, where voting rights were extended to the Druze/Arab inhabitants who take up citizenship. The occupation of the West Bank and what happens there is not the same issue. Number 57 20:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Israel does allow arabs to run for office, and to vote. It may oppress/marginalize arabs, yes, but it doesn't disenfranchise them (to my knowledge at least) A Socialist Trans Girl 10:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Remember, the threshold for inclusion should not be user's original research. The threshold is reliable sources. Yes, there are reliable sources that disagree on the classification of Israel as a herrenvolk democracy. Great! We can include that in the article. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are reliable scholars that ARE making the claim. Notice what the infobox currently says: "...have been proposed as examples of Herrenvolk democracy." Israel also satisfies this. The fact that there are detractors, or even that the detractors are the majority, doesn't change the fact that Israel has been proposed as an example of a Herrenvolk democracy. For that reason, I'm going to restore it. JasonMacker (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is pretty clearly against keeping that image. But if you feel that the RfC should be closed by an uninvolved editor or admin that's certainly your right. I will post the request at RFCL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the "consensus" is formed through violations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, it doesn't mean anything. If those users were citing actual relevant policy, it would make sense to talk about consensus. JasonMacker (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The primary concern about including Israel among the rest is undue WP:WEIGHT. Sure, some scholars label Israel as a Herrenvolk, but the academic consensus is nowhere near that which exists for the other states. I've even managed to find a paper that describes modern-day as a Herrenvolk "reimagined" – that doesn't mean that America should be included either.

Therefore, I propose removing Israel AND changing the infobox to "...have been widely proposed as examples of Herrenvolk democracy." Amayorov (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academic consensus would be needed for writing it in Wikivoice. Remember, as it currently stands, there are reliable sources claiming that Israel is a Herrenvolk Democracy, and the article clearly states that this is the opinion of some academic scholars, alongside a list of scholars that disagree with that. As far as "widely proposed" goes, the vast majority of scholars don't refer to any countries as herrenvolk democracies, because it's an uncommon phrase. Searching for "herrenvolk democracy" on Google Scholar yields "about 1,730 results." Searching for apartheid on Google Scholar yields "about 1,150,000 results." Even searching for "Israeli apartheid" yields "about 2,780 results." In other words, "herrenvolk democracy" is not a common phrase at all among academic scholars.

What exactly is ruined in the article by having the Israeli flag? The article currently does not have a separate section for each country classified by some scholars. It makes it visually easier to have the flags so that people can see exactly what countries are being talked about.

I'd be more than happy to include a note in the image infobox saying that Israel's status as a herrenvolk democracy is disputed among scholars. But until this article is divided into separate sections for each country, it makes sense to have the flags so that readers can immediately identify the countries in question at a glance. JasonMacker (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with including the Israeli flag is WP:UNDUE weight. The other examples are practically unanimously considered to be Herrenvolk democracies. They are the definitional cases. To a casual reader, keeping the Israeli flag in the infobox would give a misleading impression that a similar level of consensus exists for all of them. Recall WP:STRUCTURE: "The internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight." It's very much warranted to discuss the academic dispute later in the article (as it is done currently), but not in the infobox.

I think posting this at WP:RFCL is a good idea. Amayorov (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, theyre not "unanimously" considered herrenvolk democracies. As I said, the vast majority of scholars don't use the phrase "herrenvolk democracy" at all, for any of the countries mentioned in the article. And if you're concerned about the Israeli flag, that can easily be resolved with a mention in the infobox that Israel's status as a herrenvolk democracy is contested. As far as neutrality is considered, there is no use of wikivoice to describe Israel, and contesting sources are also provided. I'm not sure how exactly that's not neutral. As far as "undue weight", you'd have to show that the view that Israel is a herrenvolk democracy is so fringe that it shouldn't be mentioned on the herrenvolk democracy page. That seems absurd. This isn't the Israel article.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t have to consider “the vast majority of scholars”, but specifically those scholars who have engaged with the subject of Herrenvolk democracy. Can you find a single paper that disputes that either apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia were Herrenvolk? I don’t think you can. That’s what I mean by definitional cases that provide a point of reference for the rest.

By contrast, many (most?) reputable sources disagree with the characterisation of Israel as such. And those that agree, often use a different definition from the one stated in the lede.

WP:UNDUE doesn’t mean that the view has to be fringe. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. By including Israel in the info box, you’re giving the case for Israel as much credence as for the rest.

I’m not saying that allegations that Israel is a Herrenvolk shouldn’t be discussed. They absolutely should, just not in the infobox. Amayorov (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an infobox, it's just a multi-image that happens to take the position of lead image, its really just a product of how short the page is overall. If one of the other proposals was added as a lead image it would also be an option to simply move the flagbox down to the characteristics section, where due weight would no longer apply in the manner you're describing. The only problem from there would be image sizing to match the size of the body text to the image.

If a significant portion of the sources use an alternate definition then that should be added to the lead as well, even if it doesn't match the lead sentence exactly. Orchastrattor (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It acts as an infobox, and is the most prominent part of the article. See WP:STRUCTURE. Regarding an alternative definition, yes, it could be added to the section discussing Israel specifically. Amayorov (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Israel also doesn't exist in a vacuum, if there is a controversy over the definition as you described then it would also be very easy to argue the opposition to classifying Israel as herrenvolk is rooted in the wider controversy over Israel's legitimacy and the differences in definition are just a product of that wider polarization. The CSA and Apartheid are universally recognized as indefensible historical evils that would therefore fail to draw any immediate defenders the way a contemporary state with such immense symbolic value will. Orchastrattor (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally one or two sentences. The "undue weight" here is mentioning the existence of scholars who say Israel is a herrenvolk democracy, and not in Wikivoice? You're writing as though have the article is going into details on Israel. It's literally 1-2 sentences. When it comes to "herrenvolk democracy", the subject matter is inherently not widely held views among scholars, because, again, it's a very uncommon phrase. You're citing WP:UNDUE as though the inclusion of the Israeli flag to illustrate the views of reliable sources is the equivalent of mentioning flat earth in the lede of the Shape of the Earth article. Read what WP:UNDUE states:

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

and

"Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space."

There is no depth of detail here whatsoever. It's literally just a sentence saying that some scholars identify Israel as a herrenvolk democracy, while others disagree. That last sentence is operative here. The whole idea of "herrenvolk democracy" is a minority opinion among scholars simply because the vast majority of scholars don't engage with it. The "more attention and space" being asked here is literally 1-2 sentences and an image. See WP:PAPER. If you want to devote more sentences to the scholars that disagree, go right ahead. JasonMacker (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you put an image below in a separate section, that would be fine. But placing it in the infobox (or a box with multiple images acting as one) is precisely "depth of detail". WP:STRUCTURE is also very significant here:

"The internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral."

We've taken the discussion out of the designated sections and into "Close?". I suggest we stick to the usual format, and ask @Ad Orientem to request a WP:RFCL by an uninvolved editor, just as they proposed. Amayorov (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amayorov I posted a request at RFCL a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, it is not one of our more active boards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to move box down to "Examples" then? Orchastrattor (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the flags are included one-by-one to fit the flow of the text, that'd be WP:NPOV. However, I doubt that it'd be particularly useful to readers. Amayorov (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was my "yes" argument as well and I don't feel like it was properly engaged with either, the term is itself quite rare so the question isn't whether Kimmerlings assertion is correct its whether its as significant as the mentions by other scholars.

Before the RFC I also specifically changed the caption to "proposed as" to meter the controversy so its not even necessary to change anything, just as long as its proposed as an example of the topic it belongs there. Orchastrattor (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Herrenvolk

The German term Herrenvolk, meaning "master race", was used in nineteenth century discourse that justified German colonialism with the supposed racial superiority of Europeans.

I'm unable to find the chapter online, but conversely I can't find any nineteenth century discourse not in German that uses this term in reference to colonialism. We know from the twentieth century that it was used to refer to some abstract Germanic concept, rather than a European concept, [Europe Under the "Master Race" by Konrad Heiden, The Nation, 22 March 1941] so possibly we should be not saying Europeans. I have already changed the term 'colonialism' to 'German colonialism'. If anyone has access to this source and can provide a quote which illustrates the precise context it would be useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Reading de:herrenvolk, which has a good amount more to say about it (with good sources in German), I think it's justifiable to replace "Europeans" with a more specific term, as the German colonialism in question included colonizing Eastern Europe. Given that, within the confines of Europe, it was tied to pan-Germanic movements, it might be best to use the term "Germanic peoples" instead.

Additionally, the word took on a new (but related) meaning under Nazism in line with more specific Nazi racial theories, and its use in discourse didn't die out until the regime did, so we might want to broaden our description of its chronology. Bruhpedia (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin RFC closure

The recent RFC was closed by @Compassionate727. I strongly object to both the fact of the closure (Not all RFCs need to be closed), as well as the interpretation of the closure. It is pretty painfully obvious to any neutral person that there was nothing even remotely approaching a consensus for inclusion or exclusion of the Israeli flag in the RFC. The closer seems to be unfamiliar with the Wikipedia definition of WP:CONSENSUS.

The most obvious testament to the closer's bias here is their failure to even mention the fact that at least five of the eleven "no" comments entirely consisted of a remark to the effect of "I personally do not think Israel fits the definition of a Herrenvolk democracy because it grants such and such rights to Arabs". Of course, experienced editors know this is not how Wikipedia article writing works; if reliable sources refer to Israel as a Herrenvolk democracy, then we must reflect that fact, irrespective of any other facts or opinions we have about Israel—else, we are guilty of WP:OR. The failure to mention this as a minus for the "no" side alone should render this RFC close invalid. This is especially irksome because this fact was pointed out by @JasonMacker above, who noted My main concern right now is that the users calling for removal of the flag are engaging in WP:OR. @Ad Orientem simply replied by regurgitating the claim that "there actually was a consensus," without ever addressing this fact, and, again, the closer also did not even acknowledge this fact in their close.

An RFC closer is supposed to take the quality of arguments on all sides into account, and this was clearly not done. An RFC is not a simple voting system. If you have 5 yes votes, and 11 no votes, but at least 5 of the no votes (arguably 6) can be disqualified because their entire argument boils down to original research, then, at best, there is no consensus here.

I would like to remind everyone again that it is ok for an RFC to have no consensus. It is just one element of the consensus forming process. Importantly, the point of an RFC is not to force a consensus where none exists.

We can also look at the closer's citation of MOS:FLAG as a reason for the close decision as an example of misapplication of policy. While a few people did bring this policy up in the discussion, they always did this while noting that pursuant to this policy, all flags should be removed from the lead. An appropriate, policy-driven closer would have taken care to note this fact, but it is pretty clear that instead this policy is being used solely to remove a single country's flag from the lead. Notably, WP:RFC is clear that a closer has the power to make such decisions (if participants float this as a possibility, which they did); RFCs are necessarily comprehensive and open-ended.

This is especially regrettable because I think there absolutely was the opportunity for a better consensus here, but it might have taken more time to develop. Namely, I think we could have worked towards an article where no flags are included, while the lead, in prose, mentions the various countries that are indisputably cited as Herrenvolk democracies, followed by a mention of Israel as being controversially labelled a Herrenvolk democracy by a significant number of scholars. Instead the RFC closer used the RFC close as an opportunity to arrest the process of consensus-formation, against its intended purpose.

Paging @Orchastrattor, @Daask, @मल्ल, @Rich Farmbrough, @Amayorov as also involved parties. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise, I think it was a perfectly reasonable reading of consensus. The discussion had been open for well past the customary thirty days with only a couple of comments added past that point. Believing consensus was clear, I had moved to remove the flag after the 30 day mark, but as there was an objection to my reading of consensus, I deferred and requested a close at RfCL. Given the very strong resistance from a handful of editors to removing the flag, IMO a formal close was definitely required. Of course, Brusquedandelion is certainly free to discuss the matter with Compassionate727. That said, and with due regard for WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I'm not seeing a compelling argument for overturning this. And FWIW, there is nothing in the close which precludes a further discussion about the other flags. I've already voiced my support for removing all of them. Assuming, Compassionate727 stands by their close and Brusquedandelion wants to pursue this, the next step would be to open a discussion at WP:AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as there was an objection to my reading of consensus

Your reading of consensus is substantively the same as the closer's, both in its conclusions and its reasoning for it, and, more importantly, the primary objection that was raised, which I have quoted above, was unaddressed by the closer. In effect, you might as well have closed it. This is not some small, niggling objection, but one that stands to effectively strike about half of the no votes, plus portions of the others.

Of course, Brusquedandelion is certainly free to discuss the matter with Compassionate727. That said, and with due regard for WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I'm not seeing a compelling argument for overturning this.

Given that you failed to even attempt to refute the objection raised by JasonMacker, and again are not even bothering to address it here now that I have raised it again, the fact that you feel this way is thoroughly unsurprising. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy is clear on this: good arguments in an RFC must be policy based, and if an RFC comment boils down to original research, I'm afraid that comment can be summarily disregarded because an RFC is not a vote. This is all especially ironic given your own admonishment, when you initially opened the RFC, to remember that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and to cite applicable policy and guidelines where possible.

Assuming, Compassionate727 stands by their close and Brusquedandelion wants to pursue this, the next step would be to open a discussion at WP:AN.

I have familiarized myself with the next steps. If, however, we can establish a consensus in favor of the proposal that I made in my comment amongst Compassionate727, you, me, and any other involved or interested parties here, then I see no need to puruse this. Here is that proposal again:

Namely, I think we could have worked towards an article where no flags are included, while the lead, in prose, mentions the various countries that are indisputably cited as Herrenvolk democracies, followed by a mention of Israel as being controversially labelled a Herrenvolk democracy by a significant number of scholars.

I can't speak for other parties of course; if they wish to further dispute the RFC because they really feel an Israeli flag must be included, that is up to them.

Further, given that the RFC closer deemed the consensus was against including the flag, but said nothing about the mention of Israel in the lead, and in particular given the stipulation that a WP:LEAD should summarize the body, I have gone ahead and reincorporated the mention of Israel into the article. Note that this effectively just moves the mention of Israel from one place in the caption to another, something the RFC did not opine on. In particular I have further gone ahead and WP:BOLDLY removed all flags, incorporating the prior caption into the prose lead. You and other editors are welcome to take a look for yourselves. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your principal desire here is to remove all of the flags, I am fine with that. Everything else seems moot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]